14. 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 also consider whether it looks like the mistake caused suffering, or affected someone in another way, and whether more needs to be done to address this.
Failure to carry out an investigation into claims of bullying & take action
15. The Charity Commission is a regulator; therefore, it is not a complaint handling service.
16. When handling concerns about a charity, the Commission assess the information on a case-by-case basis to decide if there is a regulatory issue and what steps it should take. This is outlined in its Regulatory and Risk Framework (in place at the time Ms M made her complaint). The framework state, the Commission is risk-led in calibrating its response to issues that it received. This approach ensures that no issue or complaint is overlooked, whilst at the same time making sure it is proportionate, prioritise the most serious issues and identify what action is right against identified risks of harm’.
17. The Commission also carried out a risk assessment to assess the wider impact of the issues Ms M raised. The Commission assessed the risks involved to the charity and its beneficiaries, and the likely impact of its involvement. It focused on the type and level of harm that may result if the risk materialised.
18. In doing so it was satisfied there was no wider risk and decided that the most appropriate approach was to issue regulatory advice and guidance to the trustee’s/charity (Ms M complained about), which included guidance on the use of social media.
19. The Commission did not identify any potential risks attached to the issues Ms M raised. It also said it does not routinely investigate concerns about bullying and harassment as it is not a complaint handling service for charities. For these reasons, we are satisfied it has acted in line with its guidance in this case. Further, the Commission explained its reasons, for issuing guidance to the trustees, and taking no further action on the matters raised by Ms M.
20. We appreciate Ms M has said there has been an instance in which the Commission has investigated concerns relating to bullying within another charity. However, unfortunately, we cannot comment on another case or what risk assessment was carried out. We have commented on the Commission’s handling of Ms M’s concerns. In our view, the Commission appears to have acted in line with its risk framework and our Principles of Good Administration, ‘getting it right’, which states; In their decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately’.
Failure to contact via telephone
21. Ms M feels the Commission should have contacted her by telephone prior to reaching its decision. This is because she feels she meets the criteria of being a whistleblower.
22. The Commission has explained, Ms M did not meet the definition of a whistleblower according to its ‘report serious wrongdoing at a charity as a worker or volunteer’ guidance. The guidance states a whistleblower as an employer of the charity’.
23. It has said Ms M did not meet its guidance because she was a member of the table tennis club and was unhappy with how she was treated as a member.
24. The Commission has gone on to say it does not routinely contact individuals via telephone. The Commission has said when it receives concerns from members of the public about a charity, it decides whether there is sufficient information to complete an assessment, as part of its internal process. Given Ms M had provided comprehensive information already about her complaint, it did not require further clarification on what it deemed to be a low-risk case (based on its internal guidance).
25. Considering the above, we are satisfied there is no indication to suggest the Commission should have contacted Ms M by telephone, as we are satisfied it has appropriately considered its whistleblower guidance and deemed Ms M not to meet it.
26. Furthermore, it is clear that the Commission responded to Ms M’s concerns in full and considered all the information she had provided. Therefore, we have seen nothing to suggest the Commission acted outside of its guidance or our principles of good administration of being fair and proportionate.
‘People should be treated fairly and consistently, so that those in similar circumstances are dealt with in a similar way. Any difference in treatment should be justified by the individual circumstances of the case’.
27. We would like to finish by stating how sorry we are to hear about how upsetting Ms M finds the situation she finds herself in and trust the information we have provided above is helpful. We wish Ms M well moving forward.