Recovering a charitable donation.

[Ginge R]

Does anyone know if there is scope within our legal system for having sent money to a charity you might then wish to recover that money? If so, what are the permissable grounds for recovery (ie; bad faith, failure to use the money as promised etc)?

[s2kjock]

Was it given with conditions attached?

[anonymous-user]

A pleading letter to the chief executive of the charity might be worth a try.

If that doesn't get you anywhere then your next point of call would be the Charity Commission, but unless you have evidence that the money was given under duress, that the charity has acted illegally or that it is in breach of its stated objectives, then I can't imagine you'll get far.

[Ginge R]

Thanks for the move.

It was given on the understanding that certain actions would take place, but haven't. Said charity cites 'operational decision' making. It is also engaging in what appears to be schmoozing decision makers higher up the food chain and has (imo) sacrificed core services in favour of permanent staff pension contributions.

Notwithstanding that, is a gift to a charity written in blood and irredeemable or can I, as I would like, is make them more accountable, even if it's with a shot across the bow? ONS data suggested, last week, that the charity sector is worth £40 bns or so. Big stakes these days.

[s2kjock]

If a charity receives income that comes with specific conditions attached it has to account for the monies in line with them.

If the conditions have not been met it should not be recognising the income but effectively accounting for it as a liability until they are met. If they aren't likely to be met the funds should be repaid to the donor.

It would come down to the substance and evidence of your "understanding" with them.

Can you shed any more light on that? Ie did you write to them enclosing a cheque saying "please spend this £££ on Xx"?

[mph1977]

s2kjock said:

If a charity receives income that comes with specific conditions attached it has to account for the monies in line with them.

If the conditions have not been met it should not be recognising the income but effectively accounting for it as a liability until they are met. If they aren't likely to be met the funds should be repaid to the donor.

It would come down to the substance and evidence of your "understanding" with them.

Can you shed any more light on that? Ie did you write to them enclosing a cheque saying "please spend this £££ on Xx"?

this is the situation as i understand it,

if operational reasons mean that the original restrictions are not felt to meets the needs of the community the charity serves they can apply to change the restrictions ( an example i am aware of was to change to restriction on a gift from referring to a specific town's group of a organisation to the organisation in the district / county ) or refund the donation .

if there are no explicit stipulatiosn made at the point of donation and properly recorded ...

[Ginge R]

s2kjock said:

If a charity receives income that comes with specific conditions attached it has to account for the monies in line with them.

If the conditions have not been met it should not be recognising the income but effectively accounting for it as a liability until they are met. If they aren't likely to be met the funds should be repaid to the donor.

It would come down to the substance and evidence of your "understanding" with them.

Can you shed any more light on that? Ie did you write to them enclosing a cheque saying "please spend this £££ on Xx"?

I don't have a leg to stand on, I'll suck it up and send a nice e-mail. Maybe the gifting process should be more accountable and transparent.

Thanks for the explanations all.

[mph1977]

Ginge R said:

I don't have a leg to stand on, I'll suck it up and send a nice e-mail. Maybe the gifting process should be more accountable and transparent.

Thanks for the explanations all.

Cynic's answer you should have done your due diligence.

People labour under the misapprehension that charities are not a form of business and don't have to run in a business like manner, they are , they do and being a charity places an extra onerous set of requirements on the organisation.

no organisation is sustainable if the outgoings exceed the income unless there is a specifc need or reason to draw down reserves - and it also has to be noted that that the monetary worth of an organisation in it's annual report is the market value of all assets as well as cash /investments

Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 16th December 13:04

[Jasandjules]

Ginge R said:

It was given on the understanding that certain actions would take place, but haven't.

Have you written to them and stated that your donation was made under these circumstances and you would like clarification as to when they will comply or return your donation?

[Ginge R]

Both,

I took a lot of the bumph at face value, it's a shame that I looked on it as a conduit to doing good, and although so did they (I hope), there was a bit of a mismatch with our aspirations and expectations. I have written to the Chief Exec explaining that big policy change does not happen overnight and that they would have known about strategic shifts when they went to print.

I don't want to be a cynic but given the scope of the market, charities, chuggers and the rest of them should be as exposed to far more regulatory oversight. From here on in, Lifeboats and Prostate Cancer and that's it. Buyer beware!

[mph1977]

Ginge R said:

Both,

I took a lot of the bumph at face value, it's a shame that I looked on it as a conduit to doing good, and although so did they (I hope), there was a bit of a mismatch with our aspirations and expectations. I have written to the Chief Exec explaining that big policy change does not happen overnight and that they would have known about strategic shifts when they went to print.

did you use the sdame levle of due dligence as you would when taking on a new contract ?

Ginge R said:

I don't want to be a cynic but given the scope of the market, charities, chuggers and the rest of them should be as exposed to far more regulatory oversight. From here on in, Lifeboats and Prostate Cancer and that's it. Buyer beware!

it is indeed a caveat emptor scenario , if you had wanted the funds restricted you should have taken appropriate legla advice and offered the funds subject to the restrictions being acknowledged by the recipients.

the charity sector is all ready heavily regulated by the Charity Commissioners in addition to the same regulatory environment any 'business' faces with HMRC/ Trading Standards/ HSE and Ofsted/ CQC / NGBs etc. if relevant

Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 16th December 23:16

[silentbrown]

Worth mentioning that "repeat business" is important to charities. They want to keep you as a future donor, so I'd hope they'd be open to discussing another way of using your donation that best meets your intentions, even if the initial objective can't be met.

Case in point: The John Muir Trust raised funds to purchase land in Snowdonia last year. The deal fell through, and they've written to all donors with a multiple-choice letter asking "What would you like to happen to your donation?" One of the options is to return it. That's how it should be done, I think. http://www.jmt.org/land.asp

[Ginge R]

mph1977 said:

it is indeed a caveat emptor scenario , if you had wanted the funds restricted you should have taken appropriate legla advice and offered the funds subject to the restrictions being acknowledged by the recipients.

the hcarity sector is all ready heravily regualted by the charity commissioners in addition to the same regualtory environment any 'business' faces with HMRC/ Trading Standards/ HSE and Ofsted/ CQC / NGBs etc. if relevant

No, I simply assumed and like I suggested, I didn't think. I won't become too cynical, I'll just stick to what I know.

Silent Brown,

Like it.

[mph1977]

silentbrown said:

Worth mentioning that "repeat business" is important to charities. They want to keep you as a future donor, so I'd hope they'd be open to discussing another way of using your donation that best meets your intentions, even if the initial objective can't be met.

Case in point: The John Muir Trust raised funds to purchase land in Snowdonia last year. The deal fell through, and they've written to all donors with a multiple-choice letter asking "What would you like to happen to your donation?" One of the options is to return it. That's how it should be done, I think. http://www.jmt.org/land.asp

Because the money was sought on the basis of we need £X to do Y ...

there are some slippery characters in the charity world you only need look at the charity Commissioners report or ask peoplewho have been involved with charities where there had ve been restructures to know the extent of the idiocy of a few senior people in some charities...


now street chuggers I really do dislike and one has to wonder aobut the costs of some of the charities who are regularly and consistantly on the TV with their appeals , however well managed regualr giving schemes can be a real life line to some charities... if you want to see how this should be done look at the ?50 odd years that Wesser have been doing this work in Germany and 10 + years in the UK

[BertBert]

Ginge R said:

It was given on the understanding that certain actions would take place, but haven't.

I'm just intrigued. Was this a large donation specially negotiated? I don't think I understand giving to a charity with conditions attached.

Bert

[s2kjock]

mph1977 said:

it is indeed a caveat emptor scenario , if you had wanted the funds restricted you should have taken appropriate legla advice and offered the funds subject to the restrictions being acknowledged by the recipients.

You don't need to take legal advice to make a restricted donation.

If a charity is raising funds for a specific project and and makes this clear when it approaches a donor who then donates in line with that it is sufficient to create a restriction.

Contacting the charity to clarify is the sensible thing to do. If there was genuine confusion over the nature of any restriction then this could arguably reallocate it to "restricted funds" if the charity was amenable to it.

[Ginge R]

BertBert said:

I'm just intrigued. Was this a large donation specially negotiated? I don't think I understand giving to a charity with conditions attached.

Bert

Bert,

I decided I wanted to make a charitable gift out of company profits, nothing very fancy but not chicken feed either. And enough to want to almost, screen where it was going. My screening was informal but I went into it in a slapdash manner I guess. I simply didn't act in the same way that I'd act in another commercial mode. I got some responses which, in hindsight, shouldn't have been given. Nothing more than that really. I learned a lesson. I'm sticking this year, to two tried and tested options and will be giving services for a peppercorn sum to a military charity that is very close to my heart instead.

[mph1977]

BertBert said:

Ginge R said:

It was given on the understanding that certain actions would take place, but haven't.

I'm just intrigued. Was this a large donation specially negotiated? I don't think I understand giving to a charity with conditions attached.

Bert

generally there;s two scenarios where restricted funds are donated

1. the ' we need £x to save building / painting / buy land to stop/preserve something ' where there may be loads of dnors

2. largish single donor donations for a specific purpose ( anywhere from a few thousand upwards, sometimes these donations can run to hundreds of thousands of pounds or even a couple of million - for coupel of million see the Donation from the Masons to St John in 1999 that paid for 40 ambulances and equipment and iirc towards development costs on the improved version to push the 'Crusader' Ambulance project forward)