3. Mr T is complaining to us about the actions of the Commission. Specifically, he is complaining to us about its handling of his concerns about a charity (the Charity). Mr T tells us he is dissatisfied with the way the Commission oversaw the running of the Charity.
4. Mr T says his family has historic links to the Charity and he feels disappointed with its closure.
5. Mr T would like an acknowledgement of failings and an explanation.
6. Mr T is complaining to us about the actions of the Commission, and specifically its oversight of the now closed Charity. Mr T did not have any involvement in the day-to-day running of the Charity as either a trustee or a beneficiary but describes himself as a ‘concerned member of the public’.
7. Mr T explains that he believes the Commission failed to ensure oversight of the charity during its operating period and this eventually led to its closure. Mr T told us he and other locals in the area remained dissatisfied with the Commission’s response to their concerns.
10. Mr T tells us he raised concerns with the Commission about its oversight of the Charity following its closure in 2015. Specifically, Mr T raised concerns about the way the Commission had dealt with the financial side of the Charity, as he believes there had been financial misconduct by those running it.
11. Mr T first contacted the Commission in August 2017 when he submitted a complaint about the Charity’s failure to submit financial documents and expressed concerns that a large amount of money was unaccounted for. Following this complaint, the Commission opened a Regulatory Compliance case and carried out the relevant enquiries. The Commission wrote to Mr T with its findings in May 2021. Mr T then complained to the Commission about its consideration of his concerns and received a Tier two response in July 2021.
12. In its May 2021 response to Mr T’s concerns, the Commission said it had considered his concerns about financial impropriety. As a result, it had multiple discussions with the Charity’s trustees and the Commission’s accountancy team.
13.The Commission said that it had examined the use of funds in one of the Charity’s projects and had seen nothing to indicate funds had been used incorrectly.
14. The response acknowledged there had been a lack of oversight by trustees, particularly in the Charity’s lack of submission of financial documentation to the Commission. However, the Commission said this was not linked to the early closure of any of the Charity’s projects.
15. The Charity ceased operating in early 2015, and in its response the Commission explained it had seen copies of the Charity’s financial records up to December 2019, which was four years after its closure. The Commission explained that there was still a small amount of funds left and the trustees had agreed to donate this to a local charity. The Commission endorsed this decision saying that it would see ‘charitable activity being offered locally’.
16. The Commission explained that the closure of the charity led to the removal of its details from the Register of Charities (the Register). The Commission explained that it would not be taking any further regulatory action following the work undertaken during its investigation.
17. Shortly after the May 2021 response, the Commission issued a Tier two response to Mr T in July 2021. The Commission explained the response had been handled by its Data Protection Information Rights Team and the reviewing officer had been independent of the original case. The Commission said the Tier two response would not look at the substantive issues raised in the complaint and would instead concentrate on how the first review was conducted.
18.The Commission’s reviewing officer stated that they had reviewed the Tier one response and other resources linked to the complaint. Previously, the Commission had explained that it had opened a Regulator Compliance case into Mr T’s concerns about financial misconduct. This meant the Commission had been unable to progress his Tier two response until the compliance response had been issued. The compliance response was issued in May 2022 and therefore the Tier two response was made available to Mr T.
19. Following its review of the Tier one response, the Commission’s reviewing officer explained in their Tier two response that they were satisfied with the actions the Commission had taken. The response said the evidence showed that the Commission had tackled the regulatory issue (Mr T’s concerns about use of funds) and had informed Mr T of the outcome when appropriate. The letter said that as the Tier two response had been completed there was no further appeal route with the Commission.
20. As explained above, the Commission’s Tier two response concluded that its initial review had been correctly conducted and that no further action was necessary. During our consideration of the complaint, we contacted the Commission and asked it for further information, particularly relating to its handling of the complaint.
21. In an email dated 28 June, the Commission explained that it regularly receives complaints from members of the public. It said that complaints of this nature, like Mr T’s, are usually dealt with in accordance with the Commission’s risk framework, which is outlined in its Regulatory and Risk Framework, and this also applied to Mr T’s complaint.
22. The Framework, in conjunction with the ‘Complaints about Charities’ policy, sets out what happens when someone brings a complaint to the Commission. The policy makes clear that the Commission does not investigate all the complaints, and the first step is to assess and identify any possible regulatory issues.
23. The first step usually is to speak with the trustees, although we note the Charity was closed in 2015 and Mr T approached the Commission in 2017. If the Commission identifies any possible regulatory issues (these are listed in the Framework) then the next step is for the Commission to consider whether any further action needs to be taken.
24. The two main factors it considers once a risk has been identified is what the possible impact of any risk may be and what the likelihood of that risk occurring is. Assessing the impact of the risk is usually done by concentrating on: ‘the type and level of harm that may result if the risk materialises. This includes taking account of the size, profile and activities of the charity concerned’.
25. However, by the time of this complaint the Charity was no longer in operation. Therefore, the Commission’s role, as per the Framework, was limited to looking at any harm that had arisen from the incident complained about and to consider the risk of any future harm.
26. The Commission makes clear in the Framework that cases that are deemed to be the highest risk, which may result in the greatest harm, are prioritised. Moreover, it states that in some cases ‘The level and nature of some risks will be such that it would not be proportionate to use our resources to undertake direct regulatory action or engagement with the charity’.
27. In Mr T’s case, the Commission opened a regulatory compliance case, made enquiries to the Charity, had several conversations with its accounting department, was open about the mistakes it had identified regarding the Charity’s provision of documentation, and monitored the Charity’s accounts for four years after it closed. This demonstrates that the Commission considered the complaint it received from Mr T, assessed the risk, and undertook the actions necessary to investigate the matter in more detail, for example, by speaking with its accounting team.
28. Taking this into consideration, the evidence available indicates that the Commission acted in line with its own policies and undertook the necessary enquiries before reaching a decision that no further action was required, in line with the Framework. If the Commission’s enquiries had found evidence of maladministration or fraud, then it is possible Mr T’s complaint may have had a different outcome. However, this was not the case, and therefore the Commission’s actions appear to be proportionate and in line with its findings.
29. We asked Mr T why he remains unhappy with the above, and what more he thinks the Commission should have done. During a telephone call with us he told us he believed the Commission had not undertaken its role adequately as it had not maintained oversight of the Charity’s work before its closure in 2015.
30. We have also considered the way the Commission handled the subsequent complaint, and we asked the Commission to provide us with some further information about its complaints process. The Commission gave us a copy of the guidance it uses when it receives complaints from the public (the ‘Complaints about charities’ policy referenced above). The Commission’s guidance says that if a member of the public wishes to raise a concern, then it is usually best to speak with the Charity first.
31. However, in some situations it may be best to bring issues directly to the Commission, for example, if an individual suspects possible illegal activity, as Mr T has indicated to us. Therefore, Mr T made an appropriate decision when contacting the Commission in 2017 about his concerns relating to financial impropriety.
32. We can see from the information provided by Mr T and the Commission that it followed its complaints procedure when considering Mr T’s complaint. The Commission provided its Tier one response, and then following concerns from Mr T it opened its Regulatory Compliance investigation.
33. However, it could not have considered the concerns Mr T raised until he raised them in 2017, by which point the Charity had been closed for two years. It could not have done anything different about the handling of the complaint.
34. Mr T’s key concerns appear to be that the Commission did not take action prior to 2015, when the Charity closed. He believes that the Commission should have identified action it could have taken to prevent that closure.
35. However, the role of the Commission is to maintain the register of charities and investigate in its regulatory role where there are indications that charities are not meeting their obligations. It will not proactively conduct audits of charities, as it is not set up to do so and would effectively need to audit thousands of charities, which it is not resourced to do. At the time of writing, we understand there are approximately 169,000 registered charities in England and Wales.
36. The role of the Commission is to act on any evidence from members of the public, or other sources, that charities are not meeting their obligations. This is set out in its 2013 policy document, ‘How the Charity Commission investigates charities’.
37. The evidence shows that the Commission kept Mr T informed about the investigation and then once completed provided him with a response. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling state that organisations should ‘provide clear, accurate and complete information to their customers’. We can see from the information provided in the Commission’s responses of May 2021 and July 2021 that it gave Mr T regular updates when necessary and responded directly to his concerns.
38. Ultimately, we can understand and appreciate that Mr T, and others, have concerns about the Charity and the way it distributed its funds. However, the Commission’s responses make it clear that not only has it investigated Mr T’s complaint via its two tier process, but it also conducted a Compliance investigation into his concerns. This is also in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling and the Commission’s own internal Framework and guidance, as set out above.
39. Having reviewed the available evidence from Mr T and the Commission, we cannot see any indications of failings in the way the Commission has considered his concerns and complaint and therefore we will take no further action.
1. We have carefully considered Mr T’s complaint about the Charity Commission (the Commission). Having looked at the evidence available to us, and the relevant standards and guidance, we have decided not to take any further action. This is because we cannot see any indications of maladministration (fault) by the Commission.
2. We appreciate that Mr T has a long association with the charity at the heart of his complaint and remains very upset that it is no longer able to continue its work. However, the evidence available to us indicates that the Commission has acted in line with the relevant guidance, and we hope this statement clearly sets out why. We will provide further information below.