The Sun newspaper has apologised to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after the press regulator ruled it had breached accuracy guidelines in an article about an alleged staff parking ban at their home.

In a front page story headlined “NOT IN MEG BACK YARD” published in April, the newspaper claimed Prince Harry and Meghan had upset staff by imposing a ban on “low-paid staff” using a car park near Frogmore Cottage in Windsor.

The royal couple complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which ruled the story breached clause 1 (accuracy) of the editors’ code of practice.

The duke and duchess said they had not imposed a ban on using the car park, it had not closed and that it would continue to be used by some staff.

The royal couple rejected the claim that low-paid staff would now have to pay for parking, and explained they were not personally involved in a decision by the Windsor Castle superintendent to reassign part of the car park.

Representatives of the duke and duchess told the newspaper ahead of publication that the story’s parking ban allegation was false. The Sun initially did not accept the article, from a freelance reporter, was inaccurate and said it was a faithful report of concerns raised by staff.

It said the article quoted sources saying the parking changes were not attributable to the royal couple. But following complaints from the duke and duchess, the article was removed from its website.

The newspaper offered to publish an apology on page two of the paper and online that referenced the article, and said: “We now accept that the parking changes were not requested by the duke and duchess. We are happy to correct the record and apologise for any distress caused.”

The royal couple rejected this measure, saying the apology should feature on the Sun’s front page.

In its ruling, the Ipso complaints committee said that, while it was not in dispute an area of the car park was no longer available for staff parking after 1 April, the Sun’s story had relied on staff sources speculating on the role of the royal couple in the changes.

It concluded: “The publication had not provided any direct evidence of the complainants’ involvement in the decision.

“In these circumstances, and where the complainants’ position had been made clear to the publication in advance of the article being published, there was a failure to take care over the presentation as fact of the claim that they had ‘imposed’ the ban.”

The committee also said the article front page headline was a “play on words” which, in isolation, did not suggest the royal couple were behind the parking changes.

It noted it was “not misleading” for the article to report a “ban” by an employee of the royal household and that the royal couple’s denial of involvement had been included.

It therefore deemed a front page correction was not necessary and that the newspaper’s previous page two clarification and apology offer was sufficient.