Corrections & Clarifications, Middlesbrough Council Absence Figures 26th October 2026...
MBC CORRECTS ITS FIGURES—But Middlesbrough Still Tops Tees Valley Sickness Table
CORRECTION AND UPDATE — 5th November 2026:
Middlesbrough council has since acknowledged that its original response to Freedom of Information request #023593 contained inaccurate information. It originally reported 65,427 working days lost and an average absence of 23 days per full-time equivalent employee for 2025/26. It now states that the correct figures are 38,205 working days and 13.28 days per FTE. The council says the original total was mistakenly supplied in hours rather than days and has since apologised for the error...
Our original report published on the 26th October 2026 relied on the figures supplied by Middlesbrough council itself. The figures and calculations have now been corrected, and the claim that overall sickness absence more than doubled has been withdrawn.Middlesbrough Council Absence Figures 26th October 2026...
Middlesbrough Council however, still recorded the highest staff sickness absence rate among the five Tees Valley councils in a published benchmarking comparison, despite issuing a substantial correction to figures it originally released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The authority now says it lost 38,205 working days to staff sickness during 2025/26, compared with 28,112 days in 2024/25.
That represents a 35.9% increase, equivalent to an additional 10,093 working days lost in a single year.
The revised total is considerably lower than the 65,427 days originally supplied by the council. However, its corrected average of 13.28 sickness days per full-time equivalent employee still places Middlesbrough above its neighbours in the published Tees Valley comparison.
We have since removed the article in keeping with our editorial policy in & will publish an amended report incorporating the new figures.
Whilst its also acknowledged that the publication was made on the previous findings, the Teesside & Durham post cannot be held liable for inaccurate data provided by the organisations issuing the FOI & as such we find no breach of the editors code in respect of the original article published.