The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales
July 2004
Please note. The ICR’s office has aligned its reporting period with that of the Charity Commission. Therefore, when this report refers to ‘the year’ this is the period 1 January 2003 to 31 March 2004.
I am pleased to present my annual report as Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) to the Charity Commission.
My office is available to those few Charity Commission customers who have been dissatisfied with the service that they have received or with the response they have had when they complained. When people raise complaints with the Commission, they are given a clear explanation of who will be responding to them and how they can take matters forward, including the final option of referral to me.
All of the complaints I review have already been considered within the Commission’s own complaints procedure. The Commission is successful at resolving the majority of complaints, so that those referred to me tend to be more complex or difficult to address. Despite the improvement in the Commission’s own response to complaints, the number of complaints referrals to me has increased, as word about our service has spread. In general, I find that the Commission has made a considerable effort to deal with problems that arise and, as a result, I upheld less than a third of the points of complaint I reviewed in the reporting year. Nevertheless, there were a number of justified complaints, for which the Commission had not provided adequate redress and this is disappointing.
Whatever the cause of the complaint, I try to understand how things appear from the customer perspective, so that I can give people a helpful explanation of what has happened and why. Where things have gone wrong, I can recommend action to put them right or to give redress. I can also help the Commission to recognise steps that it can take to ensure that similar problems do not recur, by recommending changes to practice and procedure. I am pleased to report that the Charity Commission responded quickly and positively to all of my recommendations in the reporting year.
The independent complaints review service affords people confidence that the Commission is willing to be held accountable for the way it deals with them. For the Commission, nowadays this means more than strict adherence to established procedures, it also encompasses a willingness to change guidelines and processes in response to the lessons learned from customer feedback, including complaints. I will describe some of the advances that have been made later in my report.
Whilst some complaints allege poor administration, such as delay or inappropriate staff attitude, often people are unhappy with action that the Commission has or has not taken in relation to a problem that has arisen within a charity. These complaints often arise from a misunderstanding of the Commission’s statutory role, and disappointment with its limitations. In particular, people expect the Commission to take regulatory action in response to their personal complaints about charities and to seek redress on their behalf.
In previous reports I have called for consideration of the establishment of a Charity Ombudsman, who would be able to carry out independent investigations into complaints against individual charities. Last year I welcomed the favourable reception for this proposal from a number of major charities, as well as from the Commission itself. I am pleased to note that the Charity Commission will be developing a ‘blueprint’ for an Ombudsman scheme this year. This is good news, which I hope will result in steps being taken to bring this important area of public life into line with public services and many large private sector organisations.
Many cases referred to me arise equally from dissatisfaction with Commission service and unhappiness with decisions taken under statutory authority. In some cases, resolution of the complaint can also lead to greater understanding and acceptance of the decision that has been taken. Whilst I warmly welcome the proposal for the establishment of a Charity Tribunal, it is widely recognised that court and tribunal services are not always the most effective or user-friendly way of dealing with matters. As the proposal is taken forward, I hope that consideration will be given to how an opportunity for early, agreed settlement can be incorporated into the system.
This year my report explains how we can help people to resolve their complaints against the Charity Commission. It gives statistical information about referrals that were made and describes what they were about. Finally, it gives anonymised examples of complaints I investigated.
My office continues to receive praise from Charity Commission customers who are pleased with the service we give. This could not be achieved without the contribution of my small team of hard working staff. I thank them all, past and present, for their help during the year. In particular, I thank my office manager, Andrew Robertson, who copes with the growing demands of my office with skill and patience.
Finally, as I write this report I am aware of a number of changes in the Charity Commission’s governance arrangements. Geraldine Peacock, previously a Commissioner, has been appointed Chair of the Commission Board. I am confident that her appointment will strengthen the Commission’s resolve to improve services for charities and citizens.
I am also aware that the current Chief Charity Commissioner, John Stoker, will be moving on to new challenges. Mr Stoker championed the introduction of the independent review service and has led from the front in his determination to ensure that customer service lies at the heart of the Commission’s activities. Together with his Board, he has set the tone for the constructive relationship between my office and the Charity Commission. We wish him well.
Jodi Berg
The Independent Complaints Review service for the Charity Commission has been in operation since 2001. It was established to look into complaints about maladministration made by people or organisations affected by its actions.
We act as the final stage of the Commission’s complaints procedure.
The service offered by the ICR’s office is free to users.
Jodi Berg is the first and current ICR. She is a solicitor with extensive management experience in the private and public sectors. She is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Mrs Berg is also ICR for Land Registry, The National Archives and the Housing Corporation, and is the Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. She is supported in her work by a dedicated team of staff.
Independent Complaints Reviewer:
Jodi Berg
Senior Investigations Officer:
Andrew Robertson
Investigations Officers:
Catherine Campbell
Matthew Sabourin
Assistant to ICR:
Sholabomi Joseph
Our Mission Statement: The Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) will be fair and impartial in the review of complaints made by individual members of the public or organisations.
The ICR aims to seek a fair resolution to complaints made by Charity Commission customers. We also try to make a difference to the service provided to future customers by recommending change and improvement.
The ICR’s office in managerially independent from the Charity Commission and the service is free to complainants. The ICR review process is thorough and members of the team are trained to high standards of customer service and case review.
Complainants can contact us by telephone, fax, email, or in writing. The Commission is required to ‘signpost’ our service in its final review of a complaint, and further information can also be found on its website (www.charitycommission.gov.uk).
We have our own website (www.icrev.demon.co.uk/icrbook.htm), which carries information about our work and copies of past and current annual reports. You can also find out about us and other complaint handling organisations on the British and Irish Ombudsman Association website (www.bioa.org.uk). We promote the work of the office through external bodies such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Consumers Association.
Independent Complaints Reviewer
New Premier House
150 Southampton Row
London
WC1B 5AL
email: enquiries@icr.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7278 6251
Fax: 020 7278 9675
Our leaflet Seeking a Fair Resolution explains our role in more detail and contains a complaint referral form. The ICR can review complaints about maladministration on the part of the Charity Commission. Maladministration is a failure to deal with matters properly or fairly and may involve:
We strive to ensure that complainants are aware of our role and how we go about our work from their initial contact with us. We aim to communicate with people in a clear and courteous manner and take great care to ensure that the way in which contact is made meets their needs and preferences. To this end, upon request, we can provide information leaflets in a number of languages and formats. Where appropriate, we will meet with complainants to assist them in formulating their complaint or to discuss their views or concerns.
Complainants can expect from us:
The Charity Commission for England and Wales is the regulator of charities. It employs approximately 600 staff in offices in London, Taunton, Liverpool, and Newport.
Charities range from small groups meeting local needs, to large national and international professional bodies. An essential requirement of charities is that they operate for the public benefit and independently of government or commercial interests.
The Commission’s internal complaints procedure ‘Listening and Learning’ and its customer service focus have continued to develop during the past year.
The main change has been the establishment of a distinct Customer Service function within the Commission led by the Head of Customer Service, who reports to the Board of Commissioners on a quarterly basis.
The Head of Customer Service has responsibility across the whole of the Charity Commission’s activities. She is charged with capturing the lessons from complaints and customer feedback, and using that information to improve service. From January 2004 the function was given additional responsibility for service quality following the completion of a pilot to update the quality review system.
The ICR welcomes the commitment shown to this important function during the reporting year. Additional staff were recruited to help in the drive towards a customer-centred service. Two development posts will concentrate on quality; on improving services to Black and Minority Ethnic customers; and on developing a customer network. In addition, the Commission has agreed to fund a secondment post at the office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer, to assist in meeting the growing demands of our work.
The widening of the Customer Service Group has enabled the provision of effective strategic direction to the Customer Service function. The Group takes responsibility for considering ICR systemic recommendations arising out of reports on customer complaints. Every part of the Commission is represented and the Group is strengthened by the attendance of a number of senior managers. These include the Commission’s Head of Compliance and Enforcement, the Head of Strategy and Change, and the Board’s Non-Executive Consumer Champion. The ICR recognises this as an important development, which will lead to a positive attitude to customer feedback and complaints.
During the year, the focus of the Group, and of the Customer Service function, has been on delivering identifiable service improvements in response to ICR recommendations and the lessons learned from internal customer feedback and complaints. For example, in response to concerns that the Commission did not understand the role of the church in the black community or the way that independent churches operate, the Commission began a consultation process with independent churches and umbrella bodies, working together to develop three model governing documents. The Commission has now established links with independent churches and mutual understanding and co-operation is in place to bring about completion of the consultation process by the end of the year.
A series of ‘Live and Learn’ seminars were provided for 166 members of Commission staff across three sites. The seminars explained the importance of taking notice of customer concerns and gave examples of the lessons learned from complaints. The Customer Service function is also represented on a range of Commission projects, such as e-business, to ensure the inclusion of a customer focus.
The internal complaints procedure itself has remained largely unchanged in its early stages and Customer Service Managers in London, Liverpool and Taunton take responsibility for giving the Commission’s initial formal response. However, following the change in operational management structure last year, final review is now conducted by the Head of Customer Service or delegated by her to a senior manager. In rare cases, people may ask for their case to be ‘fast-tracked’ to the Independent Complaints Reviewer, or the Commission may suggest that this is appropriate in the circumstances.
This new system allows the Head of Customer Service to be aware of all escalated internal complaints. As she has no direct operational responsibility, this arrangement provides a clear separation between the part of the organisation in which the complaint arose and the Commission’s final response. She reports directly to the Board on the concerns that have arisen. The complaints procedure will continue to be reviewed this year, particularly in the context of the Commission’s Race Equality Scheme.
A new complaints management system was also introduced, following a pilot, on 1 April 2003 to record the detail of informal complaints, most of which are made by telephone. A new, more user-friendly form was introduced to help staff record this information. Since the ICR’s appointment, the number of recorded complaints has gradually increased, but there has been a marked improvement in capturing this data in the reporting year, during which 171 complaints were identified. However, the Commission accepts that this is unlikely to represent the full picture and will continue its efforts to encourage staff to provide full and accurate information.
| Number of internal complaint cases closed the Commission in 2002 and in 2003 (until the end of the financial year 31/3/04). | 2003/04 | (2003) | 2002 | |
| Stage 1 | 113 | 88 | 70 | |
| Stage 2 | 29 | 23 | 28 | |
| Number of Issues | 256 | 162 | 165 |
The Commission has made great strides in the implementation of a system for recording compliments and 695 of these plaudits were recorded since 1 April 2003. Staff are aware that compliments are recorded and reported on quarterly to the Board of Commissioners and the Customer Service function has passed compliments back to staff in a variety of ways. The Chief Commissioner and Board members also frequently receive unsolicited compliments at various speaking engagements and pass this positive feedback on to staff.
As the ICR has pointed out in previous reports, it is important to let Commission staff know when people appreciate their efforts, as well as telling them when they do not. Feedback, positive or negative, helps to strengthen customer focus, reinforce good practice and drive out poor service. The Commission has noted that recording and celebrating compliments has had a positive impact on staff, especially where a compliment has followed action that they have taken to deal with a complaint.
At the end of internal or independent complaint review, Commission customers have the right to ask an MP to refer their case to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The ICR service was established as an intermediary step between the Commission and the Ombudsman, which can resolve complaints without people needing to go this extra step.
In the reporting year, although most complaints were not upheld, the Ombudsman did not have need to investigate any of the cases which were subject to independent review. Our reviews brought matters to a close for both complainants and the Commission.
In the coming year, the Commission will be looking towards the forthcoming Charities Bill and then following its progress. The changes in governance arrangements, which introduced the new role of Chair of Commissioners and a new Chief Executive function, will inevitably have an impact on the Commission in due course. In service delivery terms, many changes will also flow from the Government’s drive to e-business. The Customer Service function is charged with working to maintain customer service standards during this period of change.
This year the Commission’s ‘decision review’ process will also be reviewed, moving to a single stage ahead of the introduction of the proposed Charity Tribunal. This is welcomed by the ICR. The Department for Constitutional Affairs will be issuing a White Paper on the future administration of Government Tribunal services which may also have an impact on this review.
Following comment in previous annual reports, the ICR is pleased to note that the Commission will develop a blueprint for a Charity Ombudsman.
Reviews we conduct can make a direct contribution to the way the Charity Commission delivers services to customers. We have also changed things for complainants by helping to resolve the problems that affect them.
During the year we received 39 complaints (2002:31) and we completed 26 investigations (2002: 14). Of these, 7 were accepted for the more lengthy process of formal review, whereas the remainder were dealt with more quickly by way of report letter. It is inevitable that referrals increase as knowledge of our service becomes more widespread and the Commission automatically ‘signposts’ people to the ICR in its final reviews of complaints. The ICR considers this to be a positive development of our role. Not only does it mean that complainants get the reassurance of an external and independent review, but we can act as a means of quality assurance for the Commission and provide valuable information from our cases.
It must also be borne in mind that we have changed the calendar dates of our reporting year to coincide with that of the Commission. Although this makes greater sense for comparison of data in the future, this report covers a fifteen month period. This has resulted in a somewhat unfair picture of the rise in referrals.
Of the investigations we conducted, we recorded 87 (2002: 44) separate allegations of maladministration, covering 9 (2002: 11) different categories of complaint.
| Categories | 2003/04 | 2002 |
| Error | 0 (0%) | 1 (2%) |
| Mistake ) | 2 (2% | 1 (2%) |
| Delay | 7 (8%) | 4 (9%) |
| Discourtesy | 2 (2%) | 4 (9%) |
| Responsiveness | 9 (10%) | 4 (9%) |
| Communication | 4 (5%) | 5 (11%) |
| Advice | 5 (6%) | 1 (2%) |
| Practice | 44 (51%) | 13 (31%) |
| Compensation | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Complaints Handling | 8 (9%) | 3 (7%) |
| Discrimination | 0 (0%) | 1 (2%) |
| Bias | 6 (7%) | 7 (16%) |
| Other | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Total | 87(100%) | 44 (100%) |
The proportion of allegations assigned to the various categories has remained broadly the same in the two reporting periods. We are pleased to note that there have been significant decreases in allegations of discourtesy, bias and communication. This reflects the Commission’s improved customer service procedures, which are having a noticeable impact on its engagement with customers.
As referred to earlier, some people’s complaints are not only about Commission practice but also about decisions that they believe have been improperly taken. This year we noted an increase in allegations of inappropriate use or interpretation of Commission practice and procedure, as people sought to complain about they way in which decisions were made.
The complaints we received covered the various operational functions of the Commission, with the majority arising from dealings with Compliance and Enforcement (58%) and Regulation and Enablement (37%). This is to be expected, given the contentious nature of some of the work handled by these sections of the Commission.
During the year, we upheld or partially upheld 36 (2002: 11) of these points of complaint, which represents 29% (2002: 25%) of the total number of complaints we reviewed. This remains largely the same proportion of complaints as in the previous year. This is an outcome that the Commission can take some comfort in. Whilst there remains some work to do to make sure that the right and appropriate redress is offered as early as possible, on the whole the Commission deserves credit for the quality of its complaint investigation and response.
On average, it took 37 weeks (2002: 27 weeks) to complete our investigations. Although this is disappointing, it must be seen in the context of the unforeseen limited resources available to the ICR’s office during the past year and the complex nature and lengthy background of some complaints that we investigated. It is fair to say that most people did receive a far quicker response than this, and our average review times were affected by a few very lengthy cases. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that we did not achieve our target of 36 weeks and have taken steps to ensure that the speed of our investigations increases this year. Amongst other things, we have introduced a new case management system, and we are closely monitoring workload and recruiting new staff.
The ICR can make a number of types of recommendations. For example, she can recommend an apology, an explanation, specific action, a consolatory payment, or make recommendations about the Commission’s systems and procedures.
Here are some examples of the recommendations the ICR made during the course of the year:
The Commission has responded positively to the recommendations that the ICR made. It has established a formal process for implementing her recommendations and monitors action and progress as part of the function of the Customer Service Group.
Overall, the ICR is satisfied that her recommendations have a valuable impact on the quality of service the Commission provides.
Throughout the year, the ICR office dealt with an array of complaints which covered a variety of issues.
Mr A raised concerns about the general governance of a charity of which he had been asked to be treasurer. He later raised further concerns about the merger of the charity with another as he considered that the arrangement was tainted by conflict of interest. The Commission held a meeting with the charities concerned and discussed a number of the concerns that had been raised. It was satisfied that there was no breach of charity legislation and that governance arrangements were sound.
Mr A was dissatisfied that the Commission had accepted the trustees’ argument and had not taken regulatory action. Furthermore, he complained that there had been excessive delay and that the Commission had gone back on its promise to give him a copy of its report on its visit to the charity.
The ICR did not accept that the Commission failed to consider all the evidence and investigate the charity properly and she identified why its actions had complied with practice and procedure in such matters. However, she did find evidence of inappropriate delay. She also upheld the complaint that the Commission had failed to honour its promise to provide Mr A with a copy of its report, or to provide him with a satisfactory explanation of why it had not done so. The ICR recommended that the Commission give a suitable apology.
Mr B was a trustee of a religious charity which had been involved in building a new temple. Mr B was concerned about ‘constitutional’ difficulties within the charity. One of his points of concern was that the charity was allowing people from other religions to be members, when he asserted that its governing document specifically limited membership to people of his faith. The Commission took expert advice about the issues raised and concluded that it was not its role to judge on faith issues or on who could properly be considered to fall within the group identified by the governing document. That was a matter which rightly fell to the trustees to decide.
The ICR did not uphold Mr B’s complaint on this matter. She considered that the Commission had acted properly by consulting with experts on religious matters. She found that the Commission had fully considered the issues raised before reaching a decision. She accepted that the Commission was right to assert that it could not interfere in the management of the administration of the charity – as it is prohibited from doing so by law.
Mr C wrote to the Commission about his concerns regarding a charity. The case officer contacted the charity regarding these matters, and received a response. The case officer then wrote to Mr C saying that he would be in touch soon. A period of four months passed during which the Commission did not contact Mr C and he then had to chase up a response.
The ICR upheld his complaint that the way the Commission dealt with his correspondence fell below the standards of service he was entitled to expect. An apology for the delay that occurred was recommended.
Mrs D was the co-founder and employee of a charity. The charity had located a farm which could suitably accommodate its future growth, however it lacked the funds to purchase it. An arrangement was suggested, whereby Mrs D would sell her own home to buy the farmhouse, which she would also let the charity use, whilst the charity purchased the surrounding farmland out of its own funds. She asked for advice from the Commission’s helpline and was reassured that the proposal was satisfactory in general terms.
When the whole matter was formally raised with the Commission, officers were sufficiently concerned with the charity and the farm transaction, which had by then been completed, to open a statutory inquiry. There was a concern about whether trustees had acted prudently and properly in allowing the charity to get into the position that had arisen. Additionally, officers were concerned about what they saw as a lack of recognition of the potential for conflict of interest, and a proper separation of relations between the staff, trustees and founders.
Whilst partially upholding Mrs D’s complaints, the ICR also commented on the use of the term ‘founder syndrome’ in Commission files. She found that this was a wholly inappropriate and negative term, the use of which could have an adverse affect on the way in which someone is treated. The ICR recommended that advice be issued to Commission staff that the use and promulgation of this term should be avoided. This recommendation was immediately accepted.
She also recognised that problems could arise if people sought to rely on advice given by helpline staff. This advice is general only and is not intended to provide an on the spot answer to unusual and complex legal issues and situations faced by particular charities. She recommended a change in the helpline’s recorded message, to be given to everyone before they speak to a member of staff, explaining the nature and purpose of the service. The recommendation was subsequently implemented and both staff and customers have found it a useful preface to their telephone discussion.
Mrs E was a trustee of a small charity. After resigning as trustee she raised concerns with the Commission about alleged misappropriation of assets and mismanagement by other trustees.
A Commission case officer met with the trustees to discuss these allegations, some of which were substantiated. As a result, advice and guidance was given to the charity to resolve the problems that had arisen. Mrs E felt that this was an inadequate response and wanted the Commission to instigate a statutory inquiry. She felt that her complaints had not been taken seriously.
The ICR did not uphold her complaint. She considered that the Commission had adhered to its procedures and been proportionate in the way that it dealt with the charity. This had secured the required improvement in charity practices so that it adhered with regulatory guidance. She found that the position had been properly explained to Mrs E.
Mrs F had been convicted of theft and fraud against a charity. She later provided evidence to the Commission which in turn led to the instigation of a statutory inquiry into the charity. Mrs F wrote many letters to the Commission giving information, her comments and opinions. Mrs F complained that the Commission had failed to respond to or acknowledge much of her correspondence.
The ICR did not uphold this complaint. The Commission had responded to a great deal of Mrs F’s correspondence over a prolonged period and had kept her properly informed of steps being taken. However, at some points the volume of her correspondence was so great that responding to each and every letter would have been a disproportionate use of the case officer’s time and may well have detracted from the progression of the case. The ICR found that the Commission had responded appropriately to Mrs F’s correspondence.
Mr G was the founder trustee of a family charity. The governance of the charity had subsequently been passed to younger family members and other professionally qualified trustees. He alleged that a number of trustees had in the past, and were currently receiving unauthorised benefits. The Commission raised these issues with the charity and meetings were held to discuss them. An action plan was drawn up for regularising the position and repayment of identified sums were agreed. Mr G considered that the Commission had not taken effective action to achieve full restitution of charitable funds.
The ICR found that the Commission had adhered to its procedures and taken action which was proportionate, by coming to what it regarded as a suitable agreement with the trustees. She noted that the Commission had identified that the charity was broadly well administered and the work done by the trustees had been valuable. She criticised the Commission for not setting up monitoring arrangements to ensure that the action plan agreed was implemented in full and recommended steps should be taken to do so. She recommended that follow-up monitoring of such agreements should be a regular feature of Commission practice.
The ICR reviewed complaints from the trustees and an employee, Mr H, of a charity concerning the Commission’s handling of a statutory inquiry, which the complainants considered had been subject to maladministrative delay. It was also alleged that the inquiry had caused disproportionate cost and disruption to the charity, together with unnecessary distress and anxiety to the employee.
The ICR found that there were delays in the Commission’s case handling, which was characterised by overall poor case management and failures on the Commission’s part to match the sense of urgency shown by the trustees and the employee, in responding to enquiries and giving information. The ICR considered that these failures had eroded the goodwill that was required to facilitate an amicable outcome. She found that Mr H in particular had suffered a great deal of unnecessary worry and uncertainty, and she recommended that he receive a consolatory payment of £200.
The ICR described how the trustees and Mr H had initially contacted the Commission for advice and assistance with the problem in question, and how they had co-operated with the Commission throughout. She questioned whether the Commission’s response to them was appropriate to the circumstances. The ICR noted that the complaints raised related to events that had occurred some time previously and that new case handling procedures and considerations of proportionality might have led to a very different approach, had this matter been referred to the Commission today.
Mr I and colleagues represented some of the trustees of a charity who were in dispute with other trustees. The dispute centred on what should be contained within a scheme and the new constitution, which was being formulated with the Commission. The ICR identified that the case officer dealing with the charity passed copies of correspondence between him and Mr I to the opposing trustees, without his consent. The case files gave the impression of a closer contact and relationship between the Commission and those representing one side of the dispute.
The ICR partially upheld Mr I’s complaints. She found that the Commission did not achieve the high standard required of it of being fair and unbiased in its approach. She commented that, where there is a dispute, during any investigation case officers should retain professional neutrality. The ICR recommended consideration of enhanced training for staff.
A split between members of a charity arose which resulted in opposing claims about which group of people were the legitimate trustees. Mr J was a member of one of these groups. He had been excluded by the original trustees. He wanted the Commission to support his colleagues in their quest to be recognised as the rightful trustee body. He complained that the Commission supported the original trustees’ decision to exclude him but had not explained to him why this was the case. He complained that the Commission had disregarded evidence he supplied, and had overruled action taken by his group when they tried to act as trustees.
The ICR found that the Commission did give consideration to all the evidence that Mr J had supplied in reaching decisions on how to proceed. In addition, it had given appropriate advice to the charity about governance issues, in accordance with its statutory role. The ICR recognised that, in cases where a serious dispute has arisen within a charity, the Commission can find it extremely difficult to satisfy people that it has acted correctly, unless it upholds their viewpoint. In such cases, independent review holds out some hope of resolution between the Commission and the complainant if not between the disputing parties. It is also the appropriate way of bringing matters to a close.
A firm of solicitors were concerned that trustees of a small rural charity had not disposed of some land in accordance with section 36 of the Charities Act 1993. They considered that this had had an adverse affect on their client. The Commission acknowledged that the charity had breached these provisions but concluded that the trustees had acted in good faith. It decided that regulatory action was not an appropriate or proportionate response in these circumstances. The solicitors did not consider this to be satisfactory action on the part of the Commission.
The ICR did not uphold this complaint. She found that the Commission had acted proportionately to the problems raised, taking into account the fact that this was a small charity and limited funds were involved. It had exercised its discretion in dealing with such cases in accordance with established practice and procedure and she found no objective evidence of maladministration.
Mr K was a founder trustee of a charity from which he was later expelled as a member. He raised a number of concerns about the charity with the Commission, particularly relating to personnel and financial management issues. The Commission met with the charity to resolve identified concerns and, as a result, it decided to transfer the case from the Investigations Division to the Charity Support Division (now known as Regulation and Enablement Division).
Mr K complained that the way that this decision had been reached was improper. In addition, he alleged that the reasons given to him for this change of direction were negative and vague. He complained that all of this had resulted in the Commission failing to take effective action, in line with its responsibility as a regulator.
The ICR found that the decision to change divisions was not improper, given that a plan of action had been developed to take matters forward which did not require input from Investigations Division. The way in which casework was managed was a matter for the Commission and the decision about this had been explained to Mr K appropriately. The complaint was not upheld.
The ICR reviewed a complaint made by trustees of a charity that had been subject to high-profile regulatory intervention by the Commission. This involved a Section 8 Inquiry and the appointment of a Receiver and Manager. It was a controversial case characterised by intense media and general public interest. The trustees complained about various aspects of the Commission’s handling of this matter, including the appointment of the Receiver and Manager, irregularities in the conduct of the Inquiry and a failure to take proper account of the situation faced by the charity’s beneficiaries and supporters.
The ICR did not uphold the trustees’ complaints. She found that, overall, the Commission had conducted the Inquiry and its engagement with the Receiver and Manager in accordance with procedures and in proportion to what turned out to be a very difficult case. She commented that the Commission had to make difficult decisions on sometimes very limited information but that it had always given appropriate and structured consideration to each step that was taken.
However, the ICR expressed some concern about the Commission’s contact with the media during the case, particularly that which took place prior to the conclusion of its deliberations. She commented that, during the course of its investigations, it was important to avoid giving any impression of a ‘trial by media’. Particularly where statutory inquiries are under way, great care should be given to what statements are made until the Commission is in possession of all of the facts and decisions have been reached. The ICR recommended that the Commission develop its internal guidance on dealing with these situations.
Mr L and Mr M were employees of a woodland charity. They raised a number of concerns about the actions of the charity with the Commission. They alleged that they then lost their jobs and homes which were owned by the charity, partly as a consequence of their contact with the Commission and its inaction. They complained that the Commission misled them into believing that it would take strong regulatory action; that Commission officers failed to keep proper records of the conversations in which it made these promises, and when the case was handed to a different officer, there was an unreasonable reversal of approach.
The ICR upheld these complaints. She considered that the Commission owed a duty of care to whistleblowers, who had brought serious concerns to the attention of the Commission. This was particularly the case when they had been encouraged to believe that they should continue to do so in preparation for regulatory steps being taken. The Commission’s record keeping had been poor and it had failed to keep adequate telephone memoranda. It was right to say that the case had significantly changed focus and direction when a new case officer had taken over, and whilst the decision was one for the Commission to take, this had occurred without warning or proper explanation. The ICR found this to be unfair to the complainants and represented poor service in the particular circumstances of this case.
The ICR recommended an apology and a consolatory payment of £250 each to the complainants. She also made recommendations about the hand-over of cases to new case officers and the recording of telephone conversations and items of evidence submitted.
The ICR welcomes comments about our service, whether complimentary or critical. We try to provide a high quality service to all those who seek our help and advice and welcome feedback about whether we have achieved this.
We actively consider how the information given to us by customers can be used to improve the service we offer in the future.
We have an office complaints procedure, which is designed to give a quick and effective response to complaints. During the year we received two complaints. This is the same number as the previous year, but due to the increased volume of investigations, it represented a significant decline in the percentage of internal complaints we received. Given the contentious nature of some of the referrals we investigate, and the fact most complaints are not upheld, we believe that this is a positive reflection on the thoroughness of our reviews.
All complaints about our service are personally answered by the ICR. The results of a review into an internal complaint are discussed with the team, highlighting the lessons to be learned. This gives reassurance to our customers that we strive to provide the best level of service possible and are continually seeking ways to improve.
If people are dissatisfied with the ICR’s response to their complaints about our service, they have the right to ask their MP to refer their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. This year the Ombudsman did not investigate any complaints about our service.
The ICR office is pleased to report re-accreditation for the BSI award for the quality of internal complaint handling by this office.
The ICR engages in an active programme of seeking comments from our customers. To this end, anonymous customer feedback surveys are now issued to all our service users when they receive the ICR’s final report, rather than some months later as was our previous practice.
"The trustees were especially pleased that you had recommended that the Charity Commission improves its procedures in certain areas which… should mean that other small charities are spared the trauma and expense that the Investigation has caused us."
We received eleven completed surveys from twenty-six which were issued. This represents a 42% return rate. Given the immediate opportunity to provide feedback, we hope that more people will choose to do so this year.
"Your detailed comments clearly show the comprehensive review you have given this matter. Moreover the report presents the whole picture as well as the specific complaints."
The results of this survey show that a clear majority of respondents are satisfied that we kept them properly informed, were happy with the speed of our communication, and that we handled matters efficiently. Our customers were satisfied that the summary of complaint agreed with us accurately reflected their concerns and the majority felt that the ICR’s final response properly explained her decision and the reasons for it. Significantly, despite the fact we did not uphold the majority of complaints reviewed, 64% of respondents felt that the service provided by the ICR’s office was either excellent or good.
The surveys do show some concern about the lack of impartiality in the way the ICR decided the case. In general this arises from disappointment that she has not upheld complaints. However, we try to explain our role and the reasons for ICR decisions in as clear and fulsome a manner as possible.
"I felt you were slightly too trusting and accepting of the information given to you by the Charity Commission."
Some respondents also felt that we did not fully take account of their views and comments. In response to this the ICR highlighted the detailed investigations that we carry out and explained that a full review of all information is undertaken. We are also willing to meet with customers where appropriate.
"You could have been speedier but your work level is recognised and it is more important to keep up your standard of excellence."
We try to keep to time standards and are apologetic when we have not done so. Nevertheless, most people prefer a thorough response to a quick one, although both are desirable.
"I think your report clearly demonstrates the value of the Independent Complaints procedure both to complainants and the Charity Commission in refining and improving the delivery of the Commission’s services. I should like to express my thanks to you and your staff for your help in this matter."
We also value our working relationship with Commission staff. Throughout the year the ICR has met with senior Commission staff, including the Chief Charity Commissioner, the Director of Operations and the Head of Customer Service. This gives the ICR an opportunity to comment upon investigations, discuss the quality of customer service and learn about developments within the Commission. The ICR has also met with other Commission officers to discuss the way they have handled particular cases.
"The ICR upheld our position in part and gave us advice on better practice for the future."
Annually, the ICR conducts a survey to ask for comments and views of a cross-section of Commission staff. The results of this survey show that there is a clear understanding within the Commission of the role of the ICR and that this is appropriately disseminated to the Commission’s customers. Importantly, staff feel that the role we play is valuable and has a strategic impact upon the level of service they provide.
"Review of grievance on a decision is looked at independently at the ICR which has to be good for openness and is a benefit to the customer."
The ICR will continue to develop our relationship with Commission staff and seek feedback.