3. Mr O complains on 1 August 2024 the Charity Commission declined to investigate his complaint about a charity. He says the Charity Commission did not properly understand how serious his concerns about the charity were.
4. Mr O says because of the Charity Commission’s decision he has been unable to get closure on the charity’s actions.
5. As an outcome to his complaint he would like the Charity Commission to reconsider its decision and pay him £10,000 financial remedy.
6. Mr O took a test to gain a licence to operate excavators. The charity running the test decided Mr O had failed. He was unhappy with the charity’s decision and attempted to recover his money for the test. As he had concerns about the charity’s actions he took the issue to the Charity Commission.
9. Our Principles say organisations should make decisions based on all relevant considerations and evidence. In doing so, they should follow their own policies and procedural guidance.
10. The Charity Commission’s Framework sets out how it will respond to risks within the charity sector. Its framework says the Charity Commission’s remit does not extend to examining complaints about poor service from a charity.
11. An exception to this is where the action of charity trustees is a cause for concern. Charity trustees are the people who lead the charity and decide how it is run.
12. Mr O complained to the Charity Commission on 16 July 2024 with concerns about the charity. He was unhappy with the conduct of charity staff when they decided he had failed the test for his excavator licence.
13. He also said they had been dishonest when providing evidence to court when he was trying to recover the costs of his excavator test. Specifically, the information the charity’s staff provided to court that their role was only to provide quality assurance of the exam.
14. The Charity Commission responded to Mr O’s complaint on 1 August. Its email set out it understood Mr O’s complaint was about a charity’s response to his complaint and how this affected his court case. It also explained how the Charity Commission considers complaints in line with the Framework.
15. In particular, the Commission said its decision is based on the risk to anyone who comes into contact with the charity, along with the risk to the charity itself. The Charity Commission said it must make a fair and balanced decision about whether to act.
16. The Charity Commission’s email told Mr O it would not take any further action in response to his concerns. This was because his concerns related to his contractual relationship with the charity.
17. Mr O was unhappy with the decision and sent further information to the Charity Commission. The fundamental issues Mr O raised remained the same.
18. The Charity Commission reviewed Mr O’s concerns and sent him an email dated 31 January 2025. It set out the background in additional detail and explained it had reviewed all the correspondence Mr O had sent since 16 July.
19. The Charity Commission’s email clarified it was not acting on his complaint because his concerns were about the service the charity had provided. It said his evidence had not indicated any regulatory concerns about the charity’s trustees, and it would therefore be disproportionate to consider the issue further.
20. The Charity Commission considered all the relevant evidence Mr O submitted. It reached a reasonable view that his complaint was about the service the charity provided.
21. With this in mind, it accurately applied its Framework guidance and decided this issue was not something it would investigate as Mr O’s concerns were about the service the charity provided. In reaching this decision it also considered whether there were any wider regulatory issues with the charity.
22. Therefore, the Charity Commission considered all the relevant evidence and guidance. It used this to reach a reasonable decision in line with our Principles which say organisations should act in line with their relevant guidance and balance evidence to reach reasonable decisions.
23. We understand this has been a frustrating experience for Mr O and he remains deeply unhappy with the charity’s actions. Although this is not the outcome Mr O wanted, we hope our decision reassures him the Charity Commission considered his concerns reasonably and fairly.
1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint about the Charity Commission. We have seen no indication anything went wrong with how it considered his concerns about a charity.
2. We recognise the frustration Mr O has experienced because of the charity’s actions and the Charity Commission’s response. Our decision does not take away from what has been a concerning experience for him.