The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales
The Commission was asked to review a decision not to discharge an Order made under s18(1)(iv) of the Charities Act 1993 to restrict payments made out of the charity’s bank accounts.
The review, pursuant to section 18(13) of the Act, was conducted by the Head of Legal Services: Status and Advice, who also met the applicant to give him the opportunity to make representations in person.
Having considered the information given by the applicant, the reviewer concluded that the Order should remain in place, but that it should be varied so that certain payments are no longer restricted.
The charities made an application for consent under section 64 of the Charities Act 1993 to amend their objects. The purpose was to permit the charities to restrict the adoption services they provide to heterosexual parents because of the religious context in which the charities operate. Such a restriction would not breach the regulations set out in the Equalities Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007(“the regulations”) should the amendments bring the charities within the exemption in regulation 18.
The Commission considered the case, including the charities’ oral representations. It considered that the word “benefits” in regulation 18(1) means benefits of a charitable nature provided to the charity’s beneficiaries. It concluded that the beneficiaries of the adoption services were the children and not the prospective parents. It was not satisfied that the proposed amendments would permit the charities to fall within the scope of the exemption in 18(1) of the regulations. It therefore concluded that the amendments could not be in the best interests of the charity. As a result, the Commission was also not satisfied that it would be entitled to the protection of regulation 18(2) were it to agree to the proposed amendments.
Accordingly the Commission concluded that it should not give the necessary consent to the proposed amendments to the objects.
A former trustee of the Charity was disqualified from acting as a Company Director on 21 December 2007. They were therefore no longer permitted to act as a trustee of a charity without receiving a waiver from disqualification from the Charity Commission under the powers vested in us by section 72(4) of the Charities Act 1993. This was applied for and turned down on the basis that there weren’t sufficient grounds for us to exercise our power under section 72(4) and grant a waiver.
The applicant requested a review of this decision. The review was undertaken by a Charity Commission Director who considered all the information including the representations made by the applicant and also by the trustees of the charity.
The Commission’s final decision is that there are not sufficient grounds for us to exercise our power under section 72(4), therefore the waiver from disqualification as a charity trustee will not be granted.
The Company English Pen, with objects:
1. To promote the education of the public by encouraging the understanding appreciation and development of writing in any style or form.
2. To promote the human rights (as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent United Nations conventions and declarations) of writers, authors, editors, publishers and other persons similarly engaged (“the Beneficiaries”) throughout the world by all or any of the following means:
2.1. Monitoring and seeking to prevent abuses of human rights of beneficiaries;
2.2. Obtaining redress for Beneficiaries who are the victims of human rights abuse;
2.3. Relieving need among the Beneficiaries who are the victims of human rights abuse;
2.4. Research into human rights issues affecting the Beneficiaries;
2.5. Educating the public about human rights;
2.6. Providing technical advice to government and others on human rights matters affecting the Beneficiaries;
2.7. Contributing to the sound administration of human rights law;
2.8. Commenting on proposed human rights legislation;
2.9. Raising awareness of human rights issues;
2.10. Promoting public support for human rights;
2.11. Promoting respect for human rights among individuals and corporations;
2.12. International advocacy of human rights;
2.13. Eliminating infringements of the prohibitions on torture, slavery, extradition killing, arbitrary detention and disappearance.
3. To relieve poverty and distress among the dependents, family and/or household members of Beneficiaries.
was recognised as a charity. See Full Document (PDF).
The Company Expressions Studios with objects:
(a) To provide or assist in the provision of a resource for the performing arts by means of affordable and accessible quality facilities and space for rehearsals for dance and other arts for the benefit of those who live or work in the London Borough of Camden and the surrounding area who have need of those facilities by reason of their youth, age infirmity or disability, financial hardship or social circumstances or for the public at large in the interests of social welfare and with the object of improving their conditions of life.
(b) To advance education for the public benefit by the provision of free or affordable dance classes to schools community groups and individuals who live or work in the London Borough of Camden and the surrounding area.
was recognised as a charity.
The organisation Ferryhill and District Angling Club, with objects:
"To promote participation in a recreational activity for the benefit of the inhabitants of Ferryhill and the surrounding areas through the provision of angling facilities with the aim of improving the quality of life"
applied to be registered as a charity.
The Commission concluded that it had not been established for purposes that all fall within the descriptions of purposes in s.2(2) Charities Act 2006 nor was it demonstrated that its purposes are for public benefit as is required by s.2(1)(b) of that Act. In particular on the evidence the Commission concluded that its purpose was to promote angling and not a recreational facility within the Recreational Charities Act 1958.
Accordingly it concluded that the organisation is not established for exclusively charitable purposes and cannot be entered onto the Central Register of Charities.
The Commission considered an application by the organisation The Gnostic Centre for registration as a charity.
The decision was made under the Commission’s review procedures by Andrew Purkis and John Wood as Members of the Commission’s Board under delegated authority and was ratified by the Board at its meeting on 16 December 2009.
The Board members considered the following charitable purposes:
The Board members concluded that the organisation The Gnostic Centre is not established for exclusively charitable purposes for public benefit and cannot be entered onto the register of charities for the following reasons:
Education for the public benefit
The Gnostic Centre is not advancing education as it is understood in charity law. It encourages people to adopt a particular viewpoint based on the teachings and beliefs of Gnosticism. It is not advancing education based on broad values that are uncontroversial, which would generally be supported by objective and informed opinion.
Religion for the public benefit
The Gnostic Centre is not established for the advancement of religion, as that is understood in charity law. Although Gnosticism, as advanced by the Gnostic Centre, satisfies a number of the essential characteristics of a religion for the purposes of charity law, it was not demonstrated that all the necessary characteristics of a religion were met. In particular, they had not identified a positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework being promoted.
Moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community for the benefit of the public
There was no evidence of shared morals or ethics amongst followers, or the promotion of these by the Gnostic Centre. On the evidence provided, there is no identifiable, positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework capable of having a beneficial impact on society.
Public benefit
Even if the Gnostic Centre had demonstrated that it was promoting an identifiable, positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework, it was not demonstrated that the benefit was to the public or a sufficient section of the public as the law requires.
View full document (PDF)
Objections were received in relation to a draft order made under sections 18(5)(b) and section 26, proposing to appoint 15 individuals as trustees of the charity and clarifying some administrative provisions.
The objections were considered by the Head of Compliance Investigation Unit who also gave the applicants the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.
She concluded that the Order should be made on the terms proposed. She did however recommend the inclusion of some additional wording to make some small administrative amendments.
The Order was sealed on 03 March 2009.
We received an objection to the draft Order under section 18(5)(b) and 89(1), published on 22 June 2009, which appointed interim charity trustees and enabled them to call and hold an independently-supervised election of charity trustees.
The objection was considered by the Head of Compliance Monitoring who also gave the applicant the opportunity to clarify his objection by telephone.
He concluded that the Order should be made on the terms proposed. He did however recommend some minor amendments to the wording of the Order by way of clarification.
The Order was sealed on 11 September 2009.
On 29 April 2009 the Commission instituted a statutory Inquiry into this charity under s.8 of the Charities Act 1993:
(i) to examine to what extent the charity may have been used to facilitate terrorist, extremist, or other inappropriate activities; and
(ii) to seek to secure the proper application of the property owned and funds held by the charity.
The Commission was asked to review its decision to institute a statutory Inquiry.
The review, which was conducted by Board Members Simon Wethered and Andrew Purkis acting under the delegated authority of the Board, considered the evidence and the reasoning behind the original decision, as well as representations made on behalf of the applicants. The Board members decided that the decision taken by the Commission to institute the Inquiry had been a lawful, proportionate and reasonable decision properly taken.
The Commission was asked to review a Scheme sealed on 24 October 2008. The purpose of the Scheme was to allow the charity to hold part of their endowment as income producing capital. The object of the charity and the terms on which the property of the charity was held has not been altered.
The review was conducted by the Executive Director of Charity Services who also gave the objector the opportunity to discuss their concerns with him on the phone.
He concluded that the Scheme served the best interests of the charity and should remain in place as drafted.
Objections were received in relation to a draft Scheme to authorise the sale of the Home to a connected person, below the valuation of the property that the trustees had obtained.
The objections were considered by a panel comprising the Head of Charity Services and a senior caseworker who also gave those who had commented on the draft scheme the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.
The Head of Charity Services concluded that the Scheme should be made because the trustees have demonstrated that the course proposed represents the best way forward that can reasonably be achieved by the charity. He considered that it is expedient in the interest of the charity to authorise the proposed sale.
The Scheme was sealed on 22 May 2009.
Having considered its proposed activities, the Charity Commission has decided that the organisation, The Needy Kids Fund Charitable Trust, can be registered as a charity, provided that the following objects are adopted:
For the benefit of children and young people:
1. To advance education;
2. To prevent or relieve their poverty and to relieve their sickness.
Objections were received in relation to a draft order made under sections 18(5)(b) and section 26, proposing to appoint 11 individuals as trustees of the charity and clarifying some administrative provisions.
The objections were considered by the Head of Compliance Monitoring who also gave the applicants the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.
He concluded that the Order should be made on the terms proposed. He did however recommend the inclusion of some additional wording to clarify matters.
The Order was sealed on 13 February 2009.
The organisation The Shieldwall Trust, with objects:
2.2 The objects of the Trust are to advance for the benefit of all the inhabitants, but primarily for the benefit of the English inhabitants ("the primary beneficiary class"), of the counties of Nottinghamshire and Oxfordshire and County Durham and their respective neighbourhoods and such other of the counties of England as the Trustees shall at their sole discretion from time to time determine ("the area of benefit"),
2.2.1 by associating with local authorities, voluntary organisations and the said inhabitants in common effort to provide in the interests of social welfare, facilities for recreation and other leisure time occupation of individuals who have need of such facilities by reason of their youth, age, infirmity or disability, financial hardship or social circumstances, with the object of improving their conditions of life;
2.2.2 such other charitable objects as the Trustees shall determine from time to time provided always that such other charitable objects shall be exclusively charitable under English law. (the 'Objects')
2.3 The word English in clause 2.2 means all those persons in the area of benefit whose ethnic or national origin racial group within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976 is by virtue of their descent or origin the English racial group and no other.
applied to be registered as a charity.
The Commission concluded that it had not been established for purposes that all fall within the descriptions of purposes in s.2(2) Charities Act 2006 nor was it demonstrated that its purposes are for public benefit as is required by s.2(1)(b) of that Act.
Accordingly it concluded that the organisation is not established for exclusively charitable purposes and cannot be entered onto the Central Register of Charities.
A review of the Commission’s decision to appoint 25 individuals as charity trustees of the Shri Guru Ravidass Cultural Association, Birmingham (“the charity”) by a section 18(5) order dated 7 January 2008 (“the Order”). The review was conducted by Board Members Simon Wethered and Theo Sowa acting under the delegated authority of the Board.
Having considered the evidence and the representations made by and on behalf of the applicants, the Board Members concluded that the Order had been proportionate and properly made in the interests of the charity and should therefore stand.
The Board Members did however consider that the Order should have been more explicit about the terms on which the 25 people were appointed as charity trustees. They therefore recommended that a further order is made under sections 18(5), 89 (1) and (5) of the Act to vary the Order by clarifying the terms of the charity trustees’ appointment.
Decision of the Commission to remove Mr Nagendram Seevaratnam (“the applicant”) as trustee, charity trustee, agent and/or officer of the charity named Sivayogam (“the charity”).
Having considered all of the evidence and representations made by and on behalf of the applicant, the Members of the Board have found that, in accordance with the statutory grounds under section18(2)(i) of the Charities Act 1993 as amended by the Charities Act 2006 (“ the Act”):
such as would justify the applicant’s removal from office as trustee of Sivayogam.
The Board Members further decided that removal of the applicant as trustee, charity trustee, agent or officer of Sivayogam was a reasonable and proportionate step for the Commission to take. The final decision and the order of removal was made on 27 March 2008.
The applicant is, as a consequence of his removal, disqualified for being a charity trustee or a trustee for any other charity under the provisions of section 72 of the Act.
Objections were received in relation to a draft Scheme which amongst other things would widen the beneficial class to include boys up to the age of 12, appoint Roedean School as trustee and permit Roedean to absorb the property of St Mary's Hall at a later date.
The objections were considered by the Head of Legal Compliance who also gave the applicants the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.
He concluded that the Scheme should be made, but that it should simply appoint Roedean as trustee and widen the beneficial class to permit the admission of boys up to the age of 12. If Roedean wish in future to merge fully with St Mary's Hall, they will need to approach the Commission for consent.
The Scheme was sealed on 15 April 2009.
The Commission was asked to give a direction under section 6(2)(a) Charities Act 1993 requiring the registered name of the Thomson Reuters Foundation (“TRF”) to be changed on the ground that it was, in the opinion of the Commission, “too like” the name of the Thomson Foundation (“TF”).
TF and TRF have no constitutional or operational connection, but both bear the family name of Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet (1894-1976), who founded both TF and the media group, Thomson Corporation. TRF changed its name from “Reuters Foundation” to “Thomson Reuters Foundation” in 2008 when its principal funder (Reuters Group PLC) was acquired by the Thomson Corporation, and became part of the Thomson Reuters group. The Central Register was updated on 17 July 2008. Both TF and TRF provide journalism and media training in developing countries, and TF provided evidence of confusion between the two charities amongst its beneficiaries and funders.
In the opinion of the Commission, the registered name of TRF is similar to, but not “too like”, the registered name of TF. Although the registered names share the words “Thomson” and “Foundation”, this reflects their shared Thomson family heritage. And the inclusion of the well-known and distinctive word “Reuters” sufficiently distinguishes TRF’s name. So there are insufficient grounds for directing TRF to change its name under section 6(2)(a).
But the Commission remains concerned that TRF’s name may give the impression that TRF is connected with TF in ways that it is not, which may confuse supporters and beneficiaries. The Commission expects to see further evidence of tangible steps taken by TRF to distance itself from TF in the field of journalism training, to avoid public confusion over the similarity of names.
The Commission is reluctant to use its powers in ways that interfere with proprietary or other human rights where this can be avoided by charities working together. The Commission has requested both charities to engage in mediation with a view to agreeing a way forward that will avoid, or minimise, the risk of public confusion. The Commission will consider any evidence of confusion, and steps taken to avoid confusion, provided within six months. The Commission will then consider whether there are grounds for giving a direction under section 6(2)(d) of the 1993 Act requiring TRF’s name to be changed on the ground that it is likely to give a misleading impression of the charity’s connection to TF. Unlike the section 6(2)(a) power (which may only be exercised within 12 months of the name being recorded in the Central Register), there is no time limit for making a direction under section 6(2)(d).