Charity Commission

3. Mr K complains the Charity Commission did not properly investigate the concern he raised in December 2024 – specifically, that he believed a charity was using unreliable information for campaigning purposes.

4. He says the Charity Commission’s decision undermines public trust that charities are regulated effectively. He also says it means the charity’s actions continue, causing reputational and regulatory impacts on him.

5. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr K would like the Charity Commission to look at his concerns again in line with guidance. He would also like the Charity Commission to publish guidelines setting out how it will scrutinise charity publications of data.

6. In December 2024 Mr K told the Charity Commission that a charity was using unreliable data for campaigning purposes. The Charity Commission considered his concerns and responded to him the following month. It explained it would not be acting on the information he submitted.

9. 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 found no indications something has gone wrong.

10. Mr K told the Charity Commission that a charity was using inaccurate information in its campaigning. He felt the information was unreliable because the charity was collecting it using a self-reporting process. This relied on members of the public sharing incidents to the charity.

11. Mr K believes the charity should provide dates and locations of the reported incidents. He feels reports from members of the public meant that incidents could have been double or triple counted without this measure, thereby making it unreliable.

12. Mr K also told the Charity Commission the media had then used and quoted the charity’s information, which has increased his concerns. Furthermore, he told us members of Parliament had quoted the charity’s information in debates.

13. Mr K believed the charity’s actions breached CC9. CC9 says charity campaigns must use information that is factually accurate with a well-founded evidence base.

14. When someone shares concerns about a charity, the Charity Commission follows its Regulatory and Risk Framework to decide how it will act. The framework says the Charity Commission will identify risks based on the information it holds – in this case Mr K’s concerns. The Charity Commission will then assess the risk and act to stop the most serious harm.

15. In practice, the Charity Commission has broad discretion whether it acts on the public’s concerns. In making its decision, we expect the Charity Commission to account for all relevant considerations and balance the evidence appropriately. It should make reasonable decisions and give reasons for them. Doing so is in line with our Principles.

16. The Charity Commission considered the concerns Mr K shared and looked at the claims he made. Its investigation found the charity’s website clearly explained it collected the information through reports it received to its crime watch service.

17. The Charity Commission was satisfied the charity’s reporting of the information reported to it was an appropriate evidence-base. It decided Mr K had not provided any evidence demonstrating the charity’s reporting of the information it received was inaccurate.

18. The Charity Commission explained this decision to Mr K. It added it is not the charity’s responsibility how the media use the information it gathered. This also extends to how the information is used in Parliamentary debates.

19. In reaching its decision not to investigate Mr K’s concerns further, the Charity Commission considered the concerns Mr K raised. It then took a reasonable view of the information he presented. It consequently decided there was no risk to investigate further, and there was no need for it to act to prevent harm. It did this in line with the relevant guidance, CC9 and its Regulatory and Risk Framework.

20. We understand why this issue means so much to Mr K, and recognise he is disappointed with the Charity Commission’s decision not to investigate further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr K’s complaint about the Charity Commission. We understand he has lost faith in the Charity Commission, and we recognise the frustration this must bring.

2. We have decided nothing went wrong as the Charity Commission acted in line with relevant guidance.