Charity Commission

[Simpo Two]

I have an issue with a charity, but despite my taking every effort to resolve it they have gone silent. The only next step I can think of is to engage, or threaten to engage, the Charity Commission.

In my view this is a case of obtaining money under false pretences, but no doubt the CC has its own terms for these things. What 'offences' will ring bells with the CC such that a mention of it to the charity might make them decide to take me seriously?

[alscar]

Mismanagement / misconduct / Fraud etc.
Obtaining money through false pretence I believe would certainly be covered under at least 2 if not all 3 of those.
Maybe a “ final “ email from you suggesting you need to contact them and / or using plenty of allegedly or supposedly might be in order ?

[Simpo Two]

Thanks. Yes, a final e-mail is definitely going out today, I just wanted to get the terminology right.

From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/complai...

'You should always raise concerns about any of the following with us: a charity not following the law, which significantly damages its reputation and public trust in charities generally'.

It may contract law, in that the terms of an event were significantly changed after payment was taken.

[s2kjock]

I assume you have tried contacting the Trustees directly? The other avenue is contacting some of their key funders (if they have any), but you would need to be very sure of your position.

Is your issue with them from your perspective as a donor, or as a customer or supplier?

[Simpo Two]

Customer. Attempts to contact the charity via three different e-mail addresses, their website form, by Messenger and by posting on their Facebook page were fruitless. There was no phone number.

I was on the CC's website yesterday sharpening up my attack plans and saw that one of the Trustees (a name I hadn't seen before) had an e-mail address listed, so as a last resort I tried that. And bingo, this morning I got a nice reply: 'First of all please accept my apologies for the lack of response from X which is totally unacceptable. I understand that you paid by card and a refund was actioned to your card account on Thursday when I became aware of the situation and should appear on your next statement. Rest assured, this will be rectified'.

So all is well, after a needless two week scrap! They hadn't even bothered to tell me they'd issued a refund until I waved the CC stick at them.

'Tread softly but carry a big stick'.

[Panamax]

Simpo Two said:

In my view this is a case of obtaining money under false pretences...

Do you mean,
1) Pretending the purpose was charitable when they've actually spent the money on something non-charitable, or
2) You thought you were giving "just £2 a month" for donkeys but they've spent it on kittens?

One of the common issues with charities is the amount of money they spend running themselves compared with the amount actually spent on charitable work, particularly those with big TV advertising campaigns.

[Simpo Two]

3) They were selling tickets to an event, and the problem was their insistence later (less than 3 weeks before the event) that people would actually have to be there for two hours longer than advertised. Maybe they they knew that in April but kept quiet so as not to affect sales, or maybe it was a genuine change later. Either way, the offering changed significantly from what the advert said at purchase time so the legal term that comes closest is probably 'contract'.

Changes happen; what made me put my fighting trousers on was when they ignored several polite and reasonable requests for a refund. I had some response from X to begin with but they were of the duck/dive/evade variety.

I think that as long as X stays out of it, or away from customers, the charity does a fair job so honours even now.

[Panamax]

Simpo Two said:

3) They were selling tickets to an event, and the problem was their insistence later (less than 3 weeks before the event) that people would actually have to be there for two hours longer than advertised.

Sounds like one of those charity car shows where "exhibitors" are expected to be there early and stay all day but they don't want to tell you too soon because it puts people off. I think you'll just have to suck it up and feel good about yourself having made a charitable donation.

[Simpo Two]

You win a teddy bear

It would have meant eight hours stuck in one place, far longer than any other show I know. Six is long, eight is plain unreasonable. I think they're going to have some angry car owners at 4pm when they find they can't go home for another hour (and it will be raining heavily).

25 years ago when I started showing cars, exhibitors got in free - because they were the attraction without which there'd be no show - and the public paid to get in to see the attraction. Now, the exhibitors pay to exhibit and be there all day, while the public wander in and out for free as they like. Can you imagine a theatre where the actors pay to perform, and the audience watch for free...?