Tag: charity commission

SHAMEFUL!

Family ‘repeatedly benefitted’ from ‘mismanaged’ Captain Tom Foundation, investigation finds

The Charity Commission’s investigation into The Captain Tom Foundation has found repeated instances of misconduct and/or mismanagement by the family of the late fundraiser, who set up the charity in his name.  

The official report, published today, is highly critical of the conduct and actions of the charity’s former trustee and CEO (Hannah Ingram-Moore) and a former trustee (Colin Ingram-Moore). 

It sets out evidence of serious failings in the charity’s management, including failures to act solely in the best interests of the charity and to effectively identify and manage conflicts of interest. 

The report finds that Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore, who are now disqualified from serving as charity trustees, are responsible for a “pattern of behaviour” which saw them repeatedly benefitting personally from their involvement in the charity.

The failure to manage conflicts of interest arising from Mr and Mrs Ingram Moore’s link to each other and the charity’s links to their private companies happened repeatedly and led to direct and indirect private benefit for the family.  

The report is also critical of the charity’s unconflicted trustees, who it finds did not always have sufficient oversight and control of the administration of the charity. However, the inquiry notes that their ability to manage conflicts of interest was limited by the failure of the Ingram-Moores to inform them of potential conflicts of interest as these arose.

The report concludes the non-conflicted trustees are responsible for mismanagement but that this did not warrant any further regulatory action. 

Scope of the inquiry

The regulator’s inquiry was opened in June 2021 to examine if trustees had been responsible for misconduct and / or mismanagement and if the charity suffered any financial loss, including private benefit to any current or former trustees. It also considered if conflicts of interest were adequately managed and if all trustees complied with and fulfilled their responsibilities under charity law.  

Findings of the inquiry  

The inquiry examined a range of concerns in detail, assessing the extent to which trustees complied with their legal duties. The report is critical of: 

  • The Ingram-Moores’ handling of and public communications about publishing deals for books authored by the late Captain Sir Tom. The inquiry concludes that the public “would understandably feel misled” to learn that sales of his autobiography ‘Tomorrow will be a good day’ have not benefited the charity, given that statements were made which implied donations from sales would be made to the charity carrying his name.  
  • Public statements made by Mrs Ingram-Moore regarding her involvement in setting her salary for the role. The inquiry concludes that it might have been technically accurate for her to state that she was “not offered” a “six figure salary”, as the Commission blocked the initial salary request, and no formal offer was made to her prior to the regulator’s authorisation of a lower salary. However, the inquiry finds these assertions were disingenuous, as it saw written evidence that she had stated, prior to starting in the role, that her expectations were for a £150k remuneration package.  
  • Mrs Ingram-Moore retaining £18,000 for judging and presenting an award named after Captain Tom. While she claims she undertook the engagement in a personal capacity, the inquiry does not agree and found no evidence that supports her position. Mrs Ingram-Moore committed the charity’s resources to the event without the non-conflicted trustees’ knowledge or consent. 
  • The handling of intellectual property rights owned by the Ingram-Moore family but offered to the charity for its use without appropriate agreements in place, which led to confusion and possible financial losses to the charity. 
  • The Ingram-Moores’ use of the charity’s name in an original planning application for a building constructed on their private land, which also implied the building would be used by the charity. They did not inform or seek consent from the unconflicted trustees before using the charity’s name for this purpose. The building was subsequently demolished by order of the local authority. The inquiry finds that the couple used the charity’s name inappropriately for private benefit, and that this amounted to misconduct and/ or mismanagement.  

The above matters are examples drawn from the inquiry report, which sets out the findings and conclusions in full, provides wider context and background, and includes lessons for other charities to learn from this case.   

Regulatory action taken 

In June 2024, the Commission disqualified Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore from being a trustee and from holding a senior management position at any charity for a period of 10 and 8 years respectively.  

Throughout the investigation, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s information gathering powers to obtain information to inform the inquiry’s findings and conclusions as set out in the report. 

David Holdsworth, CEO of the Charity Commission, said:  “Captain Sir Tom inspired a nation and reminded us what service to others can achieve even in the most challenging of times.

“His determined fundraising efforts, and the incredibly generous public response, brought a smile and hope to many of us during the pandemic. We should remember his achievements and how grateful NHS Charities Together is for the £39m he raised for the causes they support.

“Sadly, however, the charity set up in his name has not lived up to that legacy of others before self, which is central to charity. Our inquiry report details repeated failures of governance and integrity.  

“The public – and the law – rightly expect those involved in charities to make an unambiguous distinction between their personal interests, and those of the charity and the beneficiaries they are there to serve. This did not happen in the case of The Captain Tom Foundation. We found repeated instances of a blurring of boundaries between private and charitable interests, with Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore receiving significant personal benefit. Together the failings amount to misconduct and / or mismanagement.   

“The Commission conducts all its investigations in a fair, balanced and independent way, led by the law and the facts alone. Where those investigations find that individuals have misused the trust that people have in charities, it is right that we take firm action to hold them to account.” 

Reflecting on the role of charity in society more generally, Orlando Fraser, Chair of the Charity Commission, said: “Charities represent the best of society – bringing people together, supporting the most vulnerable, and strengthening communities.

“It is important to remember that their work is underpinned by trustees, most of whom are volunteers, and most of whom fulfil the role with passion and integrity.”

THE last post on the charity’s website states:

Update – July 2023

At this moment in time, the sole focus of The Captain Tom Foundation is to ensure that it cooperates fully with the on-going Statutory Inquiry by the Charity Commission. 

As a result, The Captain Tom Foundation is not presently actively seeking any funding from donors.  Accordingly, we have also taken the decision to close all payment channels whilst the Statutory Inquiry remains open. 

Once the findings of the Statutory Inquiry have been communicated, The Captain Tom Foundation will be in a better position to make a decision in relation to its future, but for now, our main priority is to assist the Charity Commission with its enquiry. 

In the meantime, on behalf of the trustees of The Captain Tom Foundation, we wish to extend a warm thank-you to all our supporters who have enabled us to help charities that were close to Captain Sir Tom’s heart. 

Public trust in charities at ten-year high, new research shows

People receiving charitable support grows threefold in four years, as cost of living pressures bite

The Charity Commission, the regulator of charities in England and Wales, has published fresh research that shows public trust in charities at highest level since 2014.  

The research reveals that information about how money is spent by a charity is the single most important factor for most people. This is followed closely by knowing that the charity achieves its purpose, that it makes a difference and that it operates to high ethical standards.  

Overall, trust in charities is high and continues to recover. Charities now score 6.5 out of 10 for trust, up from 6.3 in 2023, from a low of 5.5 in 2018 following a series of scandals. 58% of people have “high” trust in charities (7 out of 10 or higher), placing it among the most trusted groups in society, second only after doctors.  

In a challenging financial environment, the research illustrates a growing reliance on charities for support, alongside a declining percentage of people donating to charities. 47% of people say they donated money or goods, or raised funds for charity, compared with 62% in 2020.

By contrast, there has been an increase in people saying they have received charitable services, such as financial help, food or medical support from a charity – 9%, up from 3% in 2020.  

Around half of people say they have heard of the Charity Commission, with 19% knowing it ‘well’. Awareness of the Charity Commission is associated with higher trust in charities, with those who have heard of the regulator being more likely to report high trust (63% vs. 52%). Around 4 in 10 people are aware of the online Register of charities.  

Charity Commission Chief Executive, David Holdsworth, says: “These findings are encouraging, demonstrating that charities collectively are once again firmly trusted by the public, making a visible, essential difference locally, nationally and globally.

“But there is no room for complacency, for charities or for us as regulator. The new findings point to the challenging financial environment charities are operating in, with a decline in the number of people giving to charity, whilst the high cost of living appears to be driving more people to access charity services.

“In these financially challenging times, charities must continue to show people how they deliver on their purpose, including how every penny makes a positive difference.

“Anyone can look up this information on our public Register of charities, which gives details of each charity’s purpose and spending.”

Research into trustee attitudes  

Alongside the research into public trust, the regulator has published the findings of a survey into charity trustees’ attitudes towards their role.  

The research finds that most trustees share the public’s high expectations of conduct in charities – 61% agree that because of its registered status, their charity’s standards of behaviours and conduct ought to be higher than that in other organisations.  

Overall, trustees have high stated levels of confidence in their responsibilities, and generally understand what they should do when making decisions, with those who are aware of the Charity Commission demonstrating they are better informed.   

But the research, also conducted by BMG, finds that trustees are less clear on things they should not be doing, including making decisions based on their personal views, or avoiding awkward questions. They are also less confident about dealing with conflicts of interest, and overseeing charity finances. 

For the first time, the Commission asked charity trustees about their charity’s use of Artificial Intelligence. Only 3% of trustees said their charity has used AI, however this rose to 8% of larger charities (income £1m+). 

Previously published data from the research confirms how widespread problems with banking services are for trustees – 2 out of 5 trustees said their charity has experienced a banking issue over the past year.

The Commission has previously spoken out on its concerns about the impact on charities of poor service from the banks.

Earlier this year, the Commission said it was “shocked, but not surprised” by “undeniable evidence of the extent and impact of the appalling service charities receive from some banks.” 

The full research is available on GOV.UK

Charity regulator praises ‘constructive campaigning’ during General Election

The Charity Commission has published a report of its casework during the 2024 General Election, revealing a significant decline in serious concerns about a charity’s campaigning activity compared with previous elections.

The regulator praises the sector for its conduct during the UK General Election, with its Chair, Orlando Fraser KC, restating the sector’s right to campaign and reminding all that this right is enshrined in charity law.   

The report found a rise in proactive efforts by charities to seek advice from the Commission and a 60% decline in high-risk cases compared to the 2019 election. It features illustrative case studies relating to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Big Help Out run by The Together Initiative, the Trussell Trust, Age Concern Wolverhampton and British Alevi Federation. 

The law is clear about the right of charities to campaign provided it is in support of their purposes and that they take a neutral stance on party politics. This is something that the Commission has made clear in its published guidance which helps charities campaign within the law and continued to reiterate as the General Election approached.  

The report reveals that out of more than 170,000 registered charities, the regulator opened just 34 new compliance cases to assess concerns and responded to 35 advice requests, between 22 May 2024 and 4 July 2024.

This figure relates specifically to activities around general election campaigns. Only 14 of these were high-risk cases, less than half the number seen during the 2019 election, which the regulator has said represents a positive and significant decline. 

The cases opened came from a variety of sources such as complaints to the Commission, charities proactively reporting incidents via the Commission’s Serious Incident Report process, and proactive monitoring by the regulator. 

The report carries reflections from the Charity Commission on how charities can speak up for causes they serve whilst engaging in debate lawfully in line with the regulator’s guidance on campaigning and political activity. It goes on to thank the sector for engaging with its guidance.  

The regulator identified three key themes in its engagement with charities during this period: 

  • charity leaders expressing support for a political party or candidates 
  • visits to charities by prospective candidates 
  • charities’ use of social media in campaigning. 

The Commission took a proactive approach ahead of the election to help charities to get things right. The regulator promoted its guidance on campaigning and political activity, including specific guidance when operating during an election and its ‘5-minute guide’ on campaigning for those in need of a quick refresh of their knowledge.  

Orlando Fraser KC, Chair of the Charity Commission, said:  ““A General Election is a critical moment for charities which provide vital insight on how to address issues facing our society.

“From the outset, we’ve highlighted the valuable role of charities. I have also set out our expectation that they take the lead in encouraging debates that are held with respect, tolerance and consideration of others at a time when, sadly, this is not always the case in public discourse. 

“This election has seen some of our lowest case numbers which is true testament to the constructive and lawful way the sector has engaged with debates on the issues they champion.

“Many charities have effectively used their voices with confidence while following electoral and charity law – supported by our published advice and guidance. We will continue to use our voice to explain charities’ right to campaign lawfully.” 

The Commission’s guidance can be found here: Campaigning and political activity guidance for charities – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 

Regulator’s inquiry into Care4Calais finds serious historic misconduct and/or mismanagement

Charity Commission says governance has improved significantly under new leadership

In a report published today (24th August 2023), the Charity Commission concludes that the former trustees of Care4Calais are responsible for several instances of misconduct and/or mismanagement.

The regulator is critical of the former trustees, finding that, over a number of years, the charity lacked appropriate governance structures, had poor internal financial controls and that its approach to handling complaints was inadequate.

The inquiry, which opened in August 2020, concluded that the charity’s overall management and governance have now improved significantly as a result of the Commission’s intervention and efforts made by the current trustees, including those appointed during the inquiry.

The Commission appointed an interim manager, who undertook an independent review of the charity’s governance, administration and decision-making.

Poor internal financial controls

The inquiry is critical of the charity’s financial management, notably a lack of suitable internal financial controls. Between October 2017 and August 2020, payments of over £340,000 were made to the personal bank account of one of the charity’s now former trustees. Because of this, at the opening of the inquiry the Commission used its powers to restrict financial transactions between the charity and current or former trustees.

The inquiry found that these payments were reimbursements for charitable expenditure incurred by the trustee. The trustee in question explained that this arrangement saved the charity around £3,000 per year in foreign exchange fees. The inquiry concluded that while no funds were misused or misappropriated for private benefit, this arrangement was inappropriate, and put the charity’s funds at undue risk.

Governance failings, poor complaint handling and dispute

The regulator found that between 2020 and 2021, Care4Calais operated with two trustees, failing to maintain the minimum number of trustees stipulated in its governing document. A dispute between board members left them unwilling or unable to resolve their conflict. This was found to be misconduct and/or mismanagement and the regulator remedied this by appointing additional trustees during the inquiry.

The inquiry also concluded that the charity’s handling of complaints was inadequate. The charity failed to demonstrate that complaints were handled in an impartial, fair, open and transparent way and failed to maintain records of investigations.

On at least one occasion, and in breach of the charity’s own policy, one trustee handled a complaint about another trustee to whom they were related, failing to identify or manage the conflict of interest and/or loyalty which arose.

As part of an action plan issued in 2022, aimed at strengthening the charity’s overall management and governance, the Commission directed the charity to strengthen its existing policy and create a complaints log.

Charity structure and conflicts of interest

Two of the former trustees were siblings, and the inquiry found little evidence to demonstrate that any past conflicts of interest or loyalty which may have existed had been appropriately managed. This was worsened by poor minute-taking. This amounted to misconduct and/or mismanagement.

The founder of the charity was a trustee and also the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The interim manager recommended, to ensure a more balanced distribution of decision-making power, that the charity should recruit an independent CEO.

As part of the 2022 action plan, trustees were directed to recruit a CEO to head up the charity’s operational activity. A new CEO joined the charity on 10 April 2023 and the charity continues to progress recommendations for improvement. During the inquiry, the founder stepped down.

Campaigning and political activity

As part of its inquiry, the Charity Commission reviewed the trustees’ decision to issue judicial review proceedings to challenge the UK government’s Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda.

It found the decision was properly made, adequately documented, and was within the range of reasonable decisions open to the trustees of this charity. The activity itself served to further the charity’s objects, and the inquiry determined it was in line with the Commission’s guidance on political campaigning.

Improved governance and management

The Commission’s inquiry report makes clear that the new trustee board, which includes trustees appointed by the regulator, has implemented the 2022 action plan and introduced significant improvements to the charity’s management, governance and operation. This includes improvements to its complaints handling process.

The regulator has communicated to the charity that it expects improvements to continue, through the implementation of the extensive advice and guidance given throughout the inquiry.

Orlando Fraser KC, Chair of the Charity Commission, said: “Our inquiry found that, over a significant period of time, and following a rapid expansion of its operations, Care4Calais was not managed well. Its funds were put at risk, and there was serious misconduct and/or mismanagement by the former trustees.

“I am pleased that the Commission’s intervention has led to significant improvements to the charity’s governance, not least thanks to the work of the interim manager and new leadership.

“The charity is now in a much better position to deliver on its purposes. We have issued the new trustees with advice and guidance, including in relation to its international activities, so the charity is managed in line with the law and our regulatory expectations into the future.

He added: “I am very aware that this charity’s work has generated attention and controversy. We will not shy away from examining concerns raised about any charity and will take strong action where necessary.

However, as a fair, balanced and independent regulator we will not be influenced by political debates, nor should we stop charities from furthering their purposes in line with the law set down by Parliament. It is for the Commission to assess whether trustees are meeting their responsibilities – and that is what we have done.

The full report detailing the findings of this inquiry can be found on gov.uk.

Inquiry launched into heart disease charity

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into the Have A Heart Foundation 

The regulator of charities has launched an inquiry into the Have A Heart Foundation over serious concerns about its financial management.

The charity was set up in 2013 to raise awareness of and support patients with heart disease. It is based in Cheshire.

Despite engagement and guidance from the Commission, the trustees have failed to file any of the charity’s accounts since 2019.

The Commission is also concerned about the trustees’ financial record-keeping more widely, and the level of charitable expenditure.

It therefore escalated its engagement with the charity to an inquiry on 17 April 2023.

The inquiry will examine:

  • the trustees’ failure to comply with their statutory reporting duties including the timely submission of the charity’s accounts and annual returns to the Commission
  • the extent to which the trustees are complying with their legal duties in respect of their administration, governance and management of the charity, including compliance with the charity’s governing document and whether the charity is operating in line with its objects
  • whether potential conflicts of interest and connected party transactions have been properly managed
  • whether there has been any unauthorised trustee benefit

The Commission may extend the scope of the inquiry if additional regulatory issues emerge.

It is the Commission’s normal policy, after it has concluded an inquiry, to publish a report detailing the issues examined, any action taken, and the inquiry’s outcomes.

Charity watchdog publishes report on Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain investigation

The Charity Commission has published a report of its long-running inquiry into Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain.

The inquiry opened in May 2014 to investigate the charity’s handling and oversight of safeguarding matters, including child protection advice provided to individual Jehovah’s Witness (JW) congregations.

This followed significant interaction between the Commission and the charity since October 2007, concerning the way in which safeguarding incidents or failures were handled within JW organisations and, specifically, the adequacy of the guidance that the charity provided to various JW congregations.

JW organisations reported to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (‘IICSA’) that a total of 67 allegations of child abuse were made between 2009 and 2019 against 67 individuals involved in JW congregations, whether as Elders, ministerial servants or otherwise.

During the course of the Commission’s interaction with the charity from 2007 onwards, including during the period of the inquiry, JW congregations have revised and updated their safeguarding policies on several occasions, and the Commission remains engaged with JW congregations on safeguarding matters through its ongoing interaction with the Kingdom Hall Trust (see below).

One key issue which emerged during the inquiry was the extent to which the charity itself remained responsible for ensuring children and vulnerable people are safe from harm within JW congregations.

Notwithstanding the charity having had an historic role in interacting with the Commission over JW safeguarding, the Commission’s report concludes that Watch Tower is no longer the body responsible for safeguarding within JW congregations, and therefore the inquiry can be closed.

It is the Commission’s view that following the merger of Kingdom Hall congregation charities with the Kingdom Hall Trust in March 2022 (‘KHT’) that KHT is now the body responsible for safeguarding congregation members. The Commission has opened a compliance case to work with KHT’s trustees to ensure that the safeguarding policies, guidance, and procedures of KHT provide a safe environment for beneficiaries within all JW congregations.

The Commission’s report is critical of the charity’s trustees’ conduct during the inquiry, expressing the view that on occasions the trustees were “not as straightforward or transparent as they should have been” in relation to JW child safeguarding responsibilities, and that during certain phases of the investigation, “the trustees’ communications were protracted, with the charity’s responses often failing to provide the information requested or sufficient clarity to satisfy the inquiry, giving rise to further questions.”

The inquiry noted that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that these behaviours were deliberate attempts to obstruct the inquiry.

The report also details that legal challenges brought by the charity, which sought to challenge some of the regulator’s decisions and orders, which partly explain the significant delays to the inquiry.

Helen Stephenson, chief executive of the Charity Commission said: We are clear that a charity must be a safe, trusted environment and that protecting people and safeguarding should be a governance priority for all charities, regardless of size, type or income.

“I am pleased that this long-running inquiry, which demonstrates the Commission’s resolve and determination to ensure that safeguarding policy issues are addressed comprehensively by charities, has now concluded.

“Our continuing regulatory compliance case involving the Kingdom Hall Trust aims to ensure that the KHT’s safeguarding policies and procedures  protect congregation members and those that come into contact with KHT.”

The full inquiry report is available on GOV.UK.

Timeline of significant developments prior to, and during inquiry

2007

  • Commission opens statutory inquiry into the London Mill Hill Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses after an Elder was convicted for historic sexual offences. The Commission’s inquiry into the London Mill Hill Congregation finds that it did not have a child protection policy.
  • One of the outcomes from the Commission’s inquiry into the London Mill Hill Congregation is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain agrees to develop a child protection policy which would be disseminated to all JW congregations.

2010

  • In May 2010, the Commission seeks advice on the draft policy from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (‘NSPCC’).
  • A summary of the NSPCC’s findings is supplied to the charity. The charity also seeks its own advice from a safeguarding consultancy.
  • In finalising the policy, the charity chooses not to adopt all of the NSPCC’s recommendations.

2011

  • Watch Tower distributes child protection policy which all Elders of JW congregations are expected to adhere to.

2013

  • Following the conviction of a former ministerial servant of a JW congregation charity, Charity Commission writes to Watch Tower to raise concerns about the policy and its implementation.
  • Commission seeks advice from NSPCC, which finds the policy to be at odds with UK legislation and guidance.
  • The charity updates and recirculates the policy.

2014

  • March: Commission meets with the charity, to raise its concerns about the revised policy, which does not address concerns raised by NSPCC. The trustees do not clearly set out that Watch Tower is no longer responsible for drafting and disseminating the policy, nor do they state which organisation is now responsible for this.
  • May: Charity Commission opens statutory inquiry.
  • August: Watch Tower challenges decision to open inquiry and legal orders requiring the charity to submit information to the Commission, beginning a period of several years during which the work of the inquiry is constrained.

2016

  • December: Supreme Court refuses the Watch Tower permission to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal against the Commission’s investigation.

2019

  • September: Charity Commission informs Watch Tower that it had commissioned the Ineqe Safeguarding Group to undertake independent review of JW’s child safeguarding policies and procedures.
  • December: Ineqe’s report is provided to Watch Tower, ahead of planned meeting to discuss the findings. The charity cancels the meeting asking to provide a formal response to the independent report.

2020

  • January: Charity provides inquiry with written opinion from its safeguarding expert, which states that the Ineqe report was out of date. Watch Tower demands the inquiry is terminated, claiming the grounds for the inquiry no longer exist.
  • June: After careful consideration, the Commission refuses the request to close the inquiry.
  • July: Charity instigates Judicial Review procedures against the Commission’s refusal to conclude the inquiry and in respect of disclosure.

2021

  • Trustees’ cooperation with inquiry improves following permission from the High Court for Watch Tower to bring Judicial Review procedures against the Commission.

2023

  • Commission concludes that Watch Tower is not the organisation that is currently directly responsible for the safety of JW beneficiaries.

Make sure your Ramadan donations reach those in need

As British Muslims enter the month of Ramadan, regulators issue advice on giving safely to registered charities

Ramadan is a time of huge generosity among British Muslims, and the recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria, as well as the ongoing impact of the cost-of-living crisis, make it especially important that their charitable contributions support good causes through registered charities. Regulators are therefore issuing advice to remind British Muslims to make checks, ensuring their donations reach registered charities.

Most fundraising is genuine, however fraudsters and criminals sometimes take advantage of public generosity at times of increased giving, using methods such as fake appeal websites, email appeals that falsely use the name of genuine charities, or appeals from fake charities.

There have been several reports of fake appeals on social media to help those affected by the disaster in Turkey and Syria. We recommend these simple steps donors can take to make sure their donations reach their intended cause:

  • Check the charity’s name and registration number on the Charity Register at www.gov.uk/checkcharity – most charities with an annual income of £5,000 or more must be registered.
  • Make sure the charity is genuine before giving any financial information.
  • Be careful when responding to emails or clicking on links within them.
  • Contact or find out more online about the charity that you’re seeking to donate to or work with to understand how they are spending their funds
  • Look out for the Fundraising Badge – the logo that says ‘registered with Fundraising Regulator’ – and check the Fundraising Regulator’s Directory of organisations which have committed to fundraise in line with the Code of Fundraising Practice.
  • A face-to-face collector should have a licence from the relevant Local Authority Licensing team or the Metropolitan Police (in Greater London).

If after making these checks you think that a collection or appeal is not legitimate, report it to Action Fraud over the phone at 0300 123 2040 or online.

Helen Stephenson, CEO of the Charity Commission, said: “British Muslims are immensely generous in their support for good causes, especially during Ramadan. It’s vital that generosity reaches those in desperate need – whether here at home, in Turkey and Syria, or around the world.

“By following a few simple checks, donors can continue giving to registered charities with confidence.”

Gerald Oppenheim, CEO of the Fundraising Regulator said: “The British Muslim community are incredibly generous.

“This generosity enables charities both at home and abroad to undertake crucial work impacting those that need it most. By carrying out a few simple checks you can make sure that you are giving to a genuine cause and that your generously donated money reaches its intended destination.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1636718402864594944

Fadi Itani, CEO of the Muslim Charities Forum said: “Giving to others holds spiritual significance in Islamic teachings, however this good-will can sometimes be taken advantage of.

“It’s vitally important for donors to give smart and give safe in order to have the most benefit to those in need. Donors must check carefully and give to only registered charities that specialise in the cause, are present in afflicted areas, and who offer regulated and secure donation methods.

“This will ensure that funds can have the most impact in changing and saving the lives of others.”

Charities at risk of ‘underestimating’ online fraud as one in eight experienced cybercrime last year

The Charity Commission is warning charities against the risk of online fraud, as a new survey found around one in eight charities (12%) had experienced cybercrime in the previous 12 months.

This follows earlier findings indicating that the pandemic prompted increasing numbers of charities to move to digital fundraising and operating, exposing them to the risk of cybercrime.

Most concerningly, the survey highlighted a potential lack of awareness of the risks facing charities online, with just over 24% having a formal policy in place to manage the risk. Similarly, only around half (55%) of charities reported that cyber security was a fairly or very high priority in their organisation.

The warning comes ahead of Charity Fraud Awareness Week, which begins tomorrow on 17th October 2022. The campaign raises awareness of fraud and cybercrime and brings the charity sector together to share knowledge, expertise and good practice.

It is run by the Charity Commission and the Fraud Advisory Panel and a partnership of charities, NGOs, regulators, law enforcers, and other not-for-profit stakeholders.

The Charity Commission’s new survey explored charities’ experiences of online cyber-attack. It found that over half of charities (51%) held electronic records on their customers, while 37% enabled people to donate online.

A greater digital footprint increases a charity’s vulnerability.

The most common types of attacks experienced were phishing and impersonation (where others impersonate the organization in emails or online). For both attacks personal data is often at risk.

There are lots of simple steps that can be taken to protect against cyber harms including changing passwords regularly, using strong passwords and two factor authentication, updating training and policies, making back-ups of your data using the cloud and making sure antivirus and all other software is patched to the latest version.

Many useful tools and resources will be available to help charities reduce their vulnerability to these crimes throughout Charity Fraud Awareness Week.

The survey also confirmed that there is an under-reporting of incidents when they do occur, with only a third (34%) of affected charities reporting breaches. It’s important that charities get in touch with the Commission where there has been a serious incident, even where there may be no regulatory role for the Commission. This helps the regulator to identify trends and patterns and help prevent others from falling victim to fraud.

Amie McWilliam-Reynolds, Assistant Director Intelligence and Tasking, from the Charity Commission said: “Online financial transactions, and online working generally, present a great opportunity for charities – whether in engaging supporters, raising funds, and streamlining their operations.

“This was demonstrated in particular during the pandemic, when the longer-term move away from cash to online fundraising accelerated. But online financial transactions and the collection and storage of personal data also harbour risk, and we are concerned that some charities may be underestimating that risk, and are therefore exposing their charity to potential fraud.

“We hope that projects like Charity Fraud Awareness Week help raise awareness among trustees and charity staff of the risks they may face, and of the advice and guidance available to support them in protecting their charity from fraud.

“Preventing and tackling fraud is not a ‘nice to have’. It is vital that every penny given to charity makes a positive difference, especially during these straitened times, when donors, charities, and those they support face mounting financial pressures.

Sir David Green CB KC from the Fraud Advisory Panel said: “Fraud is the UK’s most commonly experienced crime and much of it is committed online. Therefore, it is essential that charities take the security of their systems, information, people and money seriously.

“Simple cyber security measures can make a big difference which is why we’ve collaborated with UK police forces to offer a series of free cyber-security focussed events during this year’s awareness week.”

Charity Fraud Awareness Week 2022 will feature online events, talks and useful advice from anti-fraud experts, designed to help the third sector and charitable organisations tackle the problem of fraud and cybercrime.

Regulator announces statutory inquiry into The Captain Tom Foundation

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into The Captain Tom Foundation, after identifying concerns about the charity’s management, including about the charity’s independence from the family of the late Captain Sir Tom Moore and businesses connected to them.

The Captain Tom Foundation was registered on 5 June 2020, following the fundraising efforts of the late Captain Sir Tom Moore at the outbreak of the COVID pandemic. It is registered as a grant-making charity, for the advancement of public health and wellbeing.

The Commission opened a case into the charity in March 2021. It has now escalated its engagement due to newly identified concerns about arrangements between the charity and a company linked to the Ingram-Moore family, as well as ongoing concerns about the trustees’ decision making and the charity’s governance.

The Commission is concerned that a failure to consider intellectual property and trade mark issues when the charity was established provided Club Nook Limited, a private company controlled by Hannah Ingram-Moore and Colin Ingram-Moore, the opportunity to trade mark variations of the name ‘Captain Tom’ without objection from the charity. This may have generated significant profit for the company.

The inquiry, which opened on 16 June, will examine whether the trustees have:

  1. been responsible for mismanagement and/or misconduct in the administration of the charity and whether, as a result, the charity has suffered any financial losses, including through any unauthorised private benefit to any of the current or previous trustees;
  2. adequately managed conflicts of interest, including with private companies connected to the Ingram-Moore family;
  3. complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities under charity law.

The Commission may extend the scope of the inquiry if additional issues emerge.

Helen Stephenson, CEO of the Charity Commission, said: The late Captain Sir Tom Moore inspired the nation with his courage, tenacity and concern for others. It is vital that public trust in charity is protected, and that people continue to feel confident in supporting good causes.

“We do not take any decision to open an inquiry lightly, but in this case our concerns have mounted. We consider it in the public interest to examine them through a formal investigation, which gives us access to the full range of our protective and enforcement powers.”

Previous Engagement

Prior to the inquiry opening, the Commission engaged with the charity on the following issues:

  • In March 2021 the charity requested the regulator’s permission to employ Hannah Ingram-Moore, a former trustee, on a salary of £60,000 per year, for 3 days a week. The Commission requested evidence of the benchmarking exercise undertaken.
  • The charity provided the Commission with this evidence and a revised proposal to appoint Hannah Ingram-Moore on a salary of £100,000 on a full-time basis.
  • In July 2021 the regulator refused permission to employ Hannah Ingram-Moore as chief executive on a salary of £100,000, considering the proposed salary neither reasonable nor justifiable.
  • In August 2021 the Commission permitted the charity to appoint Hannah Ingram-Moore as interim CEO on a salary of £85,000 per year, on a 3-month rolling contract, for a maximum of 9 months whilst the trustees conducted an open recruitment process. This period has now ended and the charity has recruited a new CEO.

The Commission’s case had identified potential concerns about payments of consultancy fees and payments to related third parties revealed in the charity’s accounts, published in February 2022.

However, based on the information and evidence provided by the trustees, the Commission was satisfied that these specific payments are reasonable reimbursement for expenses incurred by the companies in the formation of the charity. It is also satisfied that any conflicts of interest in relation to these third-party payments were adequately identified and managed

The £38million raised by the late Captain Sir Tom Moore, and donated to a separate charity, NHS Charities Together, prior to the formation of The Captain Tom Foundation is not part of the scope of this inquiry.

It is the Commission’s policy, after it has concluded an inquiry, to publish a report detailing what issues the inquiry looked at, what actions were undertaken as part of the inquiry and what the outcomes were.