Charity Commission

3. Dr Q complains in the Charity Commission did not properly investigate his concerns about the Charity where he was previously a trustee. The specific concerns he took to the Charity Commission were that the Charity: • prevented him being unable to join the governing body, which amounted to bullying • mismanaged its finances • unfairly advertising job roles, • investigated his concerns without the input of its trustees, and • did not investigate a complaint about him in line with its internal policies.

4. He says this means he has lost faith in the Charity Commission as its role ensuring the charity is run well.

5. As an outcome he would like the Charity Commission to investigate the charity in line with relevant guidance.

6. Dr Q had several concerns about the Charity and reported them to the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission regulates charities in England and Wales, and makes sure they comply with relevant laws. The Charity Commission considered his concerns but declined to investigate them further or intervene.

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 and not found any indications something has gone wrong.

10. Dr Q had several concerns about the Charity. Specifically, Dr Q says the principal volunteer told him an interview was needed to join the governing board, despite saying this rule was not found in the Charity’s governing document. Dr Q says a different colleague joined the board without interview, raising concerns about inconsistency.

11. He felt the Charity’s actions amounted to bullying.

12. Dr Q was also concerned the Charity was not managing its finances properly. He says subscription payments from young members were not distributed fairly across the organisation. Dr Q said this mismanagement cost the charity over £25,000.

13. Additionally, Dr Q said the Charity did not send monthly updates to all members, which limited awareness of job vacancies. He argued this has harmed the Charity’s reputation by giving roles to certain individuals rather than advertising them openly.

14. Finally, Dr Q was unhappy the Charity did not involve trustees when investigating his complaints. He also unhappy the Charity did not handle a separate complaint about him according to its policies and procedures.

15. The Charity did not resolve Dr Q’s concern as he wished. He therefore raised them with the Charity Commission on several occasions between August 2023 and March 2024.

16. The Charity Commission decided it would not investigate his concerns further or take regulatory action. It explained it does not involve itself in decisions made by charity trustees if those decisions align with the charity’s governing document. The Charity Commission found no evidence the Charity’s decisions contravened this.

17. Dr Q disagrees, claiming the charity did breach its own governing document, the principles of natural justice, and several laws. Dr Q then brought his concerns about the Charity Commission’s decision to us.

18. According to Section 2.2 of the Charity Commission’s Regulatory and Risk Framework, it does not investigate issues like: • poor service from a charity • employment disputes, such as unfair dismissal.

• internal or contractual disputes.

19. It also sets out the Charity Commission cannot instruct charity trustees what decisions to make. It cannot overturn lawful decisions unless these cause significant harm to the charity, such as asset loss or damage.

20. When it comes to assessing that risk, the Charity Commission prioritises risks that could harm public trust or interfere with trustees’ ability to carry out their duties. It does not intervene in all identified risks, aiming to take proportionate action only in cases of serious harm.

21. The Charity Commission set out its position on bullying and harassment in a press release dated 11 August 2022.

22. It said bullying and harassment have no place in charities and trustees are responsible for preventing such behaviour. The Charity Commission may intervene if governance issues or serious mismanagement arise due to systemic bullying that trustees fail to address.

23. Our Principles set out that organisations should make reasonable decisions based on relevant evidence. It should balance its considerations appropriately and provide reasons for their decisions.

24. The Charity Commission responded to Dr Q’s concerns by email in February and April 2024. It explained its role is to ensure trustees act lawfully and in accordance with their governing document. The Charity’s governing document sets out that if a dispute should arise between any person and the Board of Trustees then the trustees’ decision is final.

25. Having considered his concerns, the Charity Commission found no evidence trustees had acted unlawfully or inappropriately. It could not identify any other regulatory or systemic concerns and decided not to intervene.

26. It advised Dr Q to resolve the matter directly with the Charity’s trustees using the Charity’s complaints procedure. It suggested Dr Q seek independent advice or explore mediation to resolve the matter.

27. We recognise Dr Q alleged serious concerns about the Charity and his concerning experience of bullying. We understand the serious impact this had on Dr Q and how these events have affected him. Likewise, we also recognise his disappointment the Charity did not advertise roles as he had hoped or investigate his concerns in the way he wanted.

28. We have reviewed the concerns Dr Q took to the Charity Commission and its reasons for not investigating further.

29. We consider the Charity Commission rightly decided Dr Q’s concerns were an internal dispute about the actions of charity trustees. There was no indication of a widespread problem causing significant harm. In line with its Regulatory and Risk Framework, the Charity Commission would not get involved in these issues.

30. When Dr Q raised concerns about financial mismanagement, the Charity Commission checked the Charity’s accounts. It did not identify any concerns about financial governance or fraud. As the Charity Commission did not identify any actions causing the charity financial harm or asset loss, it decided not to investigate further in line with relevant guidance.

31. Having considered Dr Q’s complaint about the Charity Commission, we found the concerns he raised about the Charity were an internal dispute between him and the trustees. These concerns related to how trustees treated him personally and investigated his concerns. They were not widespread, did not cause significant harm or breach the governing document.

32. With this in mind, the Charity Commission’s decision not to intervene therefore aligns with its Regulatory and Risk Framework.

33. We recognise how much this series of events has meant to Dr Q. We understand his unhappiness with the charity and the Charity Commission. Our decision does not take away from how frustrating this experience has been for him.

1. We have carefully considered Dr Q’s complaint about the Charity Commission. We have seen no indication anything went seriously wrong.

2. This does not take away from the how upsetting and frustrating Dr Q’s experience has been. We recognise his unhappiness with both the Charity and the Charity Commission.