20. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
21. To come to a view as to whether the Commission assessed Mr D’s concerns about the charity appropriately, we do so by considering the guidance that is relevant. In this case, the Commission’s regulatory and risk guidance.
22. The Commission’s Regulatory and Risk Framework explains how the Commission operates as a risk-led regulator. Section 3.2 explains that any assessment it makes regarding assessing risks will take account of several factors. It says that when it has identified a risk, it will assess it to decide the level of priority that should be applied and the action it should take in responding to it. This assessment takes account of the following:
• the impact of the risk (the harm) • the likelihood of the risk materialising
23. In assessing the impact, the Commission will focus 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.
24. The Commission’s assessment of the impact and likelihood of the risk materialising will also take account of other relevant factors. These might include, for example:
• the reliability of the evidence that is available • any current or recent regulatory engagement with the charity, including whether we have previously given regulatory advice to the charity about a similar type of risk • action that a charity may have already taken to manage the risk • involvement of other agencies and regulators in managing the risk
25. Whilst the Commission has a role to play in helping charities operate legally and safely, it does not have a say in the day to day running of individual charities and cannot make decisions on the charity’s behalf. That responsibility lies with the charity’s trustees.
26. The Commission’s Regulatory and Risk Framework outlines how it operates as a risk-led regulator. Section 2.2. of that document sets out the limitations to the Commission’s role and makes clear that it cannot ordinarily act as a trustee or be directly involved in the administration of a charity. This means it cannot tell trustees what decisions to make. However, it provides appropriate and accessible guidance to support trustees with their decisions to ensure they can comply with their duties and responsibilities.
27. This section also explains that the Commission has no power to overturn trustees’ decisions if they are lawful and reasonable, even if these decisions may be unpopular.
The concerns Mr D raised with the Commission
28. Mr D is complaining to us about the Commission’s handling of his complaint about the charity. In September 2024, via his MP, Mr D explained to the Commission that he had concerns about the charity.
29. Mr D listed his concerns to the Commission that:
• his son was vulnerable due to his mental health • the charity has discouraged his son from seeking medical help for his mental health • the charity violated their own entry norms as this says entrants require good physical and mental health • his son is being indoctrinated into a cult-like environment.
30. Mr D wanted his MP to intervene to approach the Commission and was looking for the Commission to:
• compel the charity to provide evidence it had evaluated his son’s physical and mental health in line with its entry norms • investigate how the charity deals with people who have known mental health issues • examine the charities use of religious teachings and consider how they might be distorted to isolate vulnerable people from society and family • review its charitable status.
31. Initially, the Commission’s response was that as the division of the charity was overseas, and only the UK branch was under the remit of the Commission and based upon its regulatory risk framework it did not consider it was a matter it could get involved with. It said that while Mr D has described him as vulnerable there is no evidence that he was not legally able to make his own decisions and therefore there is no evidence the charity acted inappropriately.
32. Mr D wrote back to the Commission and provided additional information, he also set out why he wanted a review because the Commission:
• did not seek a response from the charity to address the concerns he raised • did not investigate whether the charity followed safeguarding procedures • did not investigate whether the charity ignored its own entrance criteria by not evaluating his son’s fitness • missed the fact that Mr D had informed the charity of his son’s mental health, yet the charity has not provided evidence that the charity has addressed this • has made judgements about his son’s decision-making capability without any medical evidence or expertise • stated there was no risk or threat to his son and should have sought a medical opinion • dismissed his views about the charity discouraging access to medical treatment as unsubstantiated allegations without contacting the charity to investigate further.
33. The Commission responded in October 2024. Its response told him: ‘This additional information was reviewed by the assessment team and the head of Intelligence and Risk responded to your MP in September. We acknowledged that you had provided more background information but stated that we do not consider it provides evidence that would justify the Commission acting. There is no evidence that the charity has breached rules or legal requirements regarding your joining the group, nor is there any evidence that your son was not legally able to make his own decisions. Therefore, there is no evidence the charity acted inappropriately. The response did note that there could be a potential cause for concern regarding the charity’s discouragement of conventional medical treatments, however, as there is no evidence to support these allegations, we are unable to act. We informed your MP that should any additional evidence be received indicating wrongdoing, we may reconsider our assessment.’
34. In a further response the Commission told Mr D that the case officer did not dispute that his son may be vulnerable but from the evidence he provided, there was nothing to indicate that he was not able to make an informed decision. It explained that if he has concerns that his son was coerced into travelling abroad, he could contact the British High Commission in the country he has relocated to and the Police.
35. The Commission also explained:
• it cannot become involved with the administration of the charity and cannot direct trustees when they should and should not respond to concerns • Mr D has not provided any evidence that indicates his son cannot make decisions for himself • the Commission cannot form a view as to whether someone does not have mental capacity. It can only engage with a charity if there are regulatory concerns.
• It cannot direct a charity to conduct an evaluation of his son’s mental health.
36. The Commission added: ‘You have said that you can provide additional documentation or support, as necessary. It remains open to you to provide additional evidence which may potentially show that there are significant safeguarding concerns, mismanagement or misconduct by the trustees, or that a criminal offence has occurred and being investigated by the relevant authority. The Commission cannot act on hearsay, and we cannot act as an advocate on your behalf.’
The role of the Commission
37. The Commission is an independent, non-ministerial government department accountable to Parliament that registers and regulates charities in England and Wales. Its duties are laid out in the Charities Act 2011.
38. The Charity Commission’s role is to ensure that charities are accountable, well run and meet their legal obligations. This is done by providing regularity advice and guidance. The Commission may intervene in matters where there is a serious risk of significant harm to, or abuse of charities, their beneficiaries and/or assets including reputation.
39. The Charity Commission publishes a Regulatory and Risk Framework which outlines how it operates as a risk-led regulator, and in particular:
• how it identifies and assesses risks • how it responds to risks • how it reviews and adapts its approach.
The Commission’s decision not to investigate Mr D’s concerns about the charity
40. We can see the Commission considered the documents Mr D submitted to it. These included Mr D’s own views on the need for his son to have a mental health assessment, a timeline of events, a letter from a GP dated 2015 to his son’s tutor about his son’s mental health, letters to the charity about Mr D’s concerns for his son and his mental health and a letter from a psychiatrist in 2023 stating his son should have an assessment (after having a consultation with Mr D about his son).
41. Mr D wanted the Commission to contact the charity to:
• determine whether the charity has negative opinions on medical practices in the UK • whether the charity has the competence to support vulnerable individuals with mental health concerns • determine what the charity has done to rehabilitate his son since it became aware of his mental health issues • determine how the charity assessed his son’s mental health in line with the charity’s entry norms.
42. The Commission responded to Mr D’s complaint in November 2024. It said that there is no regulatory role for the Commission regarding the concerns raised, as they do not relate to the actions or governance of the charity registered with it and it has no authority over the organisations abroad. The Commission re-iterated its earlier advice to contact the British High Commission for any urgent welfare concerns.
43. The response explained there is no evidence that the charity has breached rules or legal requirements regarding his son joining the group, nor is there any evidence that his son was not legally able to make his own decisions. Therefore, there is no evidence the charity acted inappropriately.
44. The Commission’s response explained there could be a potential cause for concern regarding the charity’s discouragement of conventional medical treatments, however, as there is no evidence to support these allegations, they are unable to act. It said that should any additional evidence be received indicating wrongdoing, it may reconsider its assessment.
45. The Commission explained that it will only open an investigation into a charity when there are serious regulatory issues and where there is evidence of misconduct or mismanagement, or a risk to charity property; or there is otherwise a need to safeguard public trust and confidence in a charity or charities. It said given the concerns he has raised, it would not be an appropriate use of its limited resources to formally investigate the charity in this manner.
46. The Commission added that Mr D has not provided evidence that would substantiate his view that his son is vulnerable and not able to make his own decisions. Mr D included documents such as (this list is not an exhaustive list):
• a letter from Mr C’s GP to his tutor dated 2015 where the GP describes Mr C’s current mindset and how that is affecting his study • copies of consultations Mr D had had with a psychiatrist whereby Mr D describes Mr C’s state of mind – the outcome being that the psychiatrist suggests Mr C would benefit from an assessment
47. The documents Mr D included did not provide concrete proof that his son was not able to make his own decisions
48. Mr D did not agree with the Commission’s response and wrote to it again, re-iterating his concerns for his son and compelling the Commission to take action.
49. The Commission carried out a stage two review and issued its final response. Within this response, it advised it considered its previous response dated 5 November 2024 as thorough and fair. It explained that Mr D holds the view that the Commission’s response prioritises administrative convenience over individual welfare. It did not agree and explained his son is an adult, and Mr D has not presented evidence that he does not have the capacity to make his own decisions.
50. It explained the role of the Commission, why it would not engage with the Charity, and signposted him to the appropriate organisation, who may be able to assist. It explained that if Mr D can provide additional documentation and evidence which may potentially show that there are significant safeguarding concerns, mismanagement or misconduct by the trustees, or that a criminal offence has occurred and being investigated by the relevant authority, it may be able to do a reassessment. The Commission cannot act on hearsay and cannot act as an advocate on his behalf.
51. Under Our Principles of Good Administration (getting it right) we expect organisations to act according to their statutory powers and duties and any other rules governing the service they provide. The evidence shows the Commission did not have the authority to intervene in the way Mr D wanted it to. As such, its action (or inaction) was in line with both its guidance and our expectations.
52. We consider the Commission has pointed out to Mr D that the day to day running of the Charity is not a regulatory matter as the Commission is concerned about governance. In relation to safeguarding issues, Mr D has not provided evidence to the Commission to support what he is alleging. Therefore, we consider the evidence shows the Commission has acted in accordance with its Regulatory Risk Framework. Furthermore, it has pointed Mr D to organisations who might be able to help him.
53. We would add that, under our Principles of Good Administration, we expect organisations to be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions. In this case, the Commission explained clearly why it could not act on Mr D’s concerns. This explanation is in line with our expectations. We have seen no indications of maladministration in the way the Commission has dealt with this matter. For that reason, we will be taking no further action on this complaint.
54. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr D was seeking when he approached us. Undoubtedly, he is concerned about the wellbeing of his son and is steadfast in his views that the Commission should be involved.