Charity Commission

4. Mr P complains the Charity Commission (CC):

• ignored his evidence about a Charity's 2022-2023 accounts, which were in breach of its guidance CC32, resulting in the CC taking insufficient action

• ignored his complaint about being removed as a trustee, resulting in no action

5. He says because the CC has not considered his complaint in line with its guidance, he has lost faith in the organisation. Mr P says he has been involved in the Charity for 50 years and the lack of consideration over his removal as trustee has led to a deep personal injustice and a great deal of upset.

6. By making the complaint Mr C would like to see the CC ask the charity to review its 2022-2023 accounts again, using an independent auditor. He would like it to remove the charity’s finances from its website until such time as they are confirmed correct or suitably corrected.

7. Depending on the outcome, he would like to see the CC take robust action at the charity, to ensure improvements in its operation. He would also like to be reinstated as a Trustee at the charity.

8. Mr P complained to the CC in March 2024 about the actions of a Charity. In June, the CC’s investigation concluded, resulting in the CC providing advice and guidance to the Charity for the future.

9. Mr P escalated his complaint through the CC’s second tier process and in July. This found the CC had not conducted a basic review of the Charity’s accounts during its first-tier investigation process. The CC therefore asked a senior case manager to review Mr P’s complaint again.

10. In September, the CC concluded its second-tier investigation, which found that an accounts review had made no difference to the original findings, or the advice and guidance the CC had already provided to the Charity.

11. In April 2025, Mr P requested a further review of his case, and a second stage review for an additional complaint about being removed from the Charity as a trustee.

15. Mr P complains the CC did not take enough action against the Charity when:

• the Charity had made a variety of errors and questionable decisions in its 2022 accounts, which he says amounted to maladministration • in 2023, a close friend of the treasurer was allowed to act as the independent accounts’ examiner, in contravention of government guidance CC32 • the Charity had filed its accounts 111 days late.

16. He says that he provided evidence of these issues and internal charity correspondence that indicated a close personal relationship between the treasurer, and the independent accounts examiner.

17. The CC initially said that it was satisfied the Charity had worked within its governing document. However, the Charities Act (2011) allows the CC the discretion to provide advice and guidance where appropriate. On this occasion, the CC said it found this to be appropriate. After reviewing this decision through its second-tier process, the CC found its initial investigation had not included a basic review of the charity’s accounts, when it should have. Once it did this, it found the outcome ultimately remained the same.

18. Mr P complains the CC did not work within its guidance CC32 (June 2021), Section 2.9, because this prevents the charity Treasurers and Independent Accounts Examiners from having a personal relationship. This reflects the specific issues he raised with the CC about the Charity’s accounts and forms part of his complaint about the CC’s subsequent actions, so we are satisfied the CC did have this information to consider.

19. The CC’s Regulatory and Risk Framework (RAG) (April 2020 to June 2025) commits to focusing its resources effectively on the highest risks. When assessing Mr P’s concerns, the CC looked at the risk to beneficiaries and assets as a result of the complaint. It also considered the likely impact to those factors should the CC become involved. The CC concluded that the issues did not meet the threshold to be considered high risk.

20. The CC’s policy CC47 (June 2025) says the CC will consider any proposed actions by trustees to put things right or consider proportionate action in line with what went wrong. The CC said the Charity had provided assurances it had worked within its governing document. Having reviewed its accounts, a Compliance Officer could not see the problem was indicative of a wider regulatory issue. Given this, it decided to issue the Charity with advice and guidance as proportionate remedy, specific to its accounts. Its policy highlights this step, ahead of any formal action.

21. The policy says the CC should provide advice and guidance with a view to monitoring a charity for improvements. The CC noted it would keep Mr P’s concerns on file as evidence, should it come to light the Charity has not complied with the advice it provided. Given this related to the Charity’s annual accounts submissions to the CC, we can see a clear path that makes monitoring possible without further specific action at this stage.

22. Even so, the Charities Act (2011) says that advice and guidance may take such form, and be given in such a manner, as the Commission considers appropriate. We have seen no indication of maladministration in how the CC considered the risk, to determine the action it took because it did this in line with its relevant policies. Therefore, we cannot question the CC’s discretion on this matter.

23. Although we can recognise that Mr P does not think the CC’s actions went far enough, we are satisfied that the actions it took appeared to be within its guidance and appropriately considered. Given this, there is no further action for our office to take.

Removal as Trustee

24. The law says that a complaint must usually have completed the process at the organisation complained about before we can consider it for investigation.

25. When we approached the CC, it explained that whilst some of Mr P’s complaint had completed the process, this specific issue had been escalated through its second tier. The CC confirmed that it has not yet provided a second-tier response and therefore, its complaints process is still underway.

26. Because the CC is still considering the complaint before it issues a final response, the complaint is not yet ready for us. In other words, the issues Mr P raised about being removed as a trustee are premature.

27. Usually, we would ask Mr P to wait for the CC to provide a final response before we consider this.

28. Whilst it is open to Mr P to return to PHSO once he receives a final response, it is fair that we manage his expectations. Mr P’s preferred outcome of being reinstated as a trustee is not likely to be an outcome PHSO could achieve. This appears to be a matter for the trustees of the Charity.

29. We were sorry to hear of the problems Mr P has encountered at the Charity. These kind of disputes are never pleasant. We wish him the best of luck in resolving this issue, perhaps utilising ACAS.

1. We have carefully considered Mr P’s complaint about the Charity Commission (the CC). We were sorry to read of the difficult and challenging time he has experienced.

2. We have seen no indication that the CC did not use its discretion in line with national standards when deciding what action to take regarding a Charity, so we have seen no indication of maladministration in how the CC dealt with Mr P’s complaint about the Charity’s accounts.

3. Part of Mr P’s complaint, specific to being removed as a trustee is not yet ready for us, because it has not completed the second-tier complaints stage at the CC. However, we do think it is unlikely we would achieve the outcome Mr P is seeking, that he be reinstated, because the appointment of the trustees would appear to be a matter for the trustees of a Charity.