Charity Commission

3. Mr Y complains the chairman of the Charity Commission failed to act on his allegations concerning a Charity Commission solicitor, who he believes knowingly lied in a court of law in 2023. Mr Y says chairman’s actions means he did not: • fulfil his published responsibility, and • uphold the rule of law.

4. Mr Y says the Charity Commission’s actions have obstructed his associate’s ability to protect the title to land as part of a court case.

5. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr Y wants confirmation the Charity Commission must follow its published declaration that Board members (and the chairman in particular) are responsible for meeting its legal obligations.

6. He also wants assurance that if there is evidence of lawbreaking within the Charity Commission then the chairman will act to address the implications of the solicitor’s court evidence.

7. Mr Y and his associate have been involved in court proceedings contesting the ownership of some land. In 2023 a Charity Commission solicitor provided evidence to the court about ownership of the land, which Mr Y believes was false.

10. Mr Y is unhappy with the actions of the Charity Commission chairman. He believes the chairman did not respond adequately to his concerns that a Charity Commission solicitor knowingly presented false information to a court.

11. Mr Y says the solicitor’s actions amounted to a crime. Due to this, Mr Y believes the chairman has also acted outside the law by failing to take action to rectify the matter. Mr Y has framed his complaint as one about the Charity Commission chairman. However, at the heart of his complaint is the evidence its solicitor presented to court.

12. The Charity Commission’s Complaints procedure sets out how it handles complaints. It says it cannot consider complaints that, ‘are, or have been, subject to legal proceedings’.

13. Mr Y took his concerns to the Charity Commission on 13 March 2025. It decided not to look at his complaint and explained to him, ‘Having reviewed the issues you raise, we do not consider them suitable to be dealt with through the Commission’s service complaint process.'

14. It added, ‘The Commission considers this matter to have been resolved through court proceedings. If you have concerns about the outcome of that case, you must raise these concerns directly with the court. This is not something the Commission can review or reconsider.’

15. We consider that when an individual presents evidence in court, it is within the judge’s remit to decide if it is reliable and relevant. If the judge is unhappy with the evidence then they may dismiss it or take appropriate steps during the legal proceedings.

16. The proper avenue for challenging disputed evidence was either during the original court hearing or through the legal appeals process.

17. Mr Y told us there are restrictions on his ability to bring an appeal. This is due to a judge’s decision to limit the cases he can bring to court. This is no doubt frustrating for Mr Y. This does not change the fact that pursuing the complaints process is not a substitute for legal action.

18. We therefore consider the Charity Commission acted in line with relevant guidance when it decided not to consider his complaint further. This means we will take no further action on this matter.

19. We recognise how important the issue of the land is to Mr Y. We also understand his concerns about the fairness of this process and recognise why he is so unhappy.

1. We have carefully considered Mr Y’s complaint about the Charity Commission. We have decided nothing went wrong with how it responded to his concerns.

2. We understand how much the issues at the heart of Mr Y’s complaint mean to him. We also recognise the frustration he has experienced due to the Charity Commission’s response to his concerns.