Kelly Bray used to have a Village Hall.

It wasn't much, just a hall in a nice central position where people of the Village could meet, hold social events and so on.

Now it hasn't!

Due to incompetence on the part of the Charity Commission it has been sold for less than it was worth, by a charity that did not legally own it and the proceeds retained by  that charity.
It has been knocked down and the land built on.

The Village has had an Apology from the Charity Commission (CC). [LINK]  

 They accept that had they got it right Kelly Bray would still have a Hall,  

that they shouldn't have told Cornwall Federation of Womens Institutes (CFWI) that it was theirs,

and they should not have written the letter telling the Land registry it belonged to CFWI 

BECAUSE IT DID NOT!

The story goes like this -  The wonderful ladies of the Kelly Bray Women's Institute (KBWI) back in 1937 negotiated with the King's estates for some land and raised the money to build the Hall. They did so in order to improve the amenity of their village NOT to provide an investment for the CFWI. CFWI never had any moral right to it,  its clear now that they had no legal right either.

The ladies of KBWI always ran it as a de facto village hall on behalf of the village and not as a WI asset, always keeping a separate account. In 2011 they were down to six elderly members, and there was a distinct possibility that KBWI would have to close.  Wishing to preserve the legacy of their predecessors they planned to transfer responsibility for the hall to the Kelly Bray Residents Association Village Hall Committee.

The King had provided the land for a specified purpose "for an Institute for the Women of Kelly Bray" ( note clearly not the  womens institute of Kelly Bray and very clearly FOR women just of Kelly Bray). This counts as a "Charitable Designation" so the Charity Commission had to agree to any plan.

At the time an "institute" was a word popular for a meeting place. For example Kelly Bray already had a Men's Institute.

Back in 2012 it was pointed out to the CC. that the beneficiaries of the designation were "the Women of Kelly Bray" not "the Women's Institute" but this was ignored and it turns out shouldn't have been.

The commission declared it was part of KBWI's charitable property and the governing document was the WI constitution. We believe, based on later rulings, that it was not a part of KBWI's charitable property but that they acted as the trustees of what was in effect the 1937 charitable trust, separate from their own charitable objectives as detailed in the ever changing WI constitution.

Communications with the Charity Commission dragged on. In 2013 KBWI had to go into suspension as the elderly ladies were unable to form a committee. Towards the end of 2014 a final attempt was made jointly by a solicitor acting for KBWI and one acting for CFWI.

The CC case worker said that the ladies of the former KBWI were no longer trustees so he would not deal with them further and he told CFWI that the hall was now part of their charitable property and suggested they sell it and use the money towards their charitable aims.

Our solicitor said he knew of nothing in law which supported that view but as the Commission refused to deal further with KBWI or their solicitor their only hope was to get CFWI to go back to the Commission. With that aim in mind KBWI told CFWI that the hall would not be handed over until CFWI produced evidence of ownership. A reasonable demand one would have thought. The ladies of KBWI were mainly elderly so they gave the job of looking after the Hall to the Resident's Association Hall Committee. Their aim was to keep the Hall in a usable condition until such time as the legal situation was resolved. The Committee paid the bills (Insurance, Water, Fire safety, Electricity) did essential repairs and raised the funds necessary.

Evidence suggests that CFWI's solicitor knew the Charity Commission had got it wrong but (presumably) under instruction from CFWI, set about obtaining possession of the Hall; starting by breaking into the Hall, changing the locks and posting a scary notice claiming it was the property of CFWI and that there would be dire consequence if anyone entered it.  We changed the locks back again. CFWI set the police on us - wasting police time as it was a civil matter. A month or two later each member of the hall committee received a registered letter threatening legal action and claiming that if they went ahead with this the individual would be liable for substantial legal expenses. Those involved took a considerable risk in refusing to relinquish the hall.  They did not know the intricacies of the law but based on nothing more than a sense of natural justice they continued to insist that CFWI first prove they owned it.

In one letter there was a whole series of demands which we were told we had to comply with in order to avoid litigation. As well as demanding we hand over the hall it demanded that the "KBWI trustees" sign it over to CFWI. An interesting demand because the Charity Commission had said the ladies were no longer trustees - the very reason CC had refused to deal with them further!

Now if CFWI's solicitor accepted CC's view that KBWI were no longer trustees and that CFWI now were, he was asking KBWI ladies to fraudulently sign a document which presumably he intended to use to establish ownership.  On the other hand if he didn't accept CCs view and thought KBWI were still the trustees then clearly he thought the CC was wrong and therefore CFWI had no legal right to the Hall. In which case he should have gone back to the CC to clarify the case.

Whichever way you look at it, it was dodgy and clearly showed that despite all the threats and bluster the solicitor had found no way in law of claiming legal title. Breaking into the hall was an illegal act and the threatening letters harassment because he had not established ownership.   KBWI replied that they would not sign anything without an assurance from the CC that they had the capacity to do so. Things went quiet for a while 🙂.

Eventually, more than a year after the CC's ruling, CFWI sent us another threatening letter but this time enclosed was a copy of the land registry entry which had been changed in CFWI's  favour!

We took this as evidence that they had established legal ownership and we handed over the hall - as we said we would.

On checking we found that the change to the land registry was on the strength of a letter signed by the case worker, a relatively junior member of the Charity Commission staff, who we believed has no legal qualifications.   

One has to ask - if the solicitor felt this was a legitimate means of obtaining title - why did he not obtain that letter more than a year earlier?

It seems that no one had needed to show that in law CFWI owned the land.

With the help of MP Sheryll Murray we appealed to the Ombudsman. This resulted in the CC doing an internal review [LINK] which was scathing about the way the case had been handled.

It established that the letter should not have been written - something reiterated in the later apology.

The CC approached CFWI to tell them the Hall wasn't a part of their charitable property after all, that they held it under the 1937 trust. It wasn't theirs to sell but unfortunately the CC found it was already sold.

Note this was the first time the CC acknowledged the existence of the 1937 Trust.

Despite having failed to stop the sale the CC did not get back to us or reply to an email which in effect said "What now" so we made a fresh appeal to the Ombudsman and had to wait in the queue for it to be dealt with.

While the CCs review established that they had handled it badly it fell short of saying what the outcome would have been if it had been handled properly. The Ombudsman asked them to establish this.

The Apology from the CC acknowledges that the Hall could have been transferred to the Hall Committee and Kelly Bray would now still have a Hall.

Note that when the Hall was handed over to CFWI the harassment by their solicitor did not stop.  He demanded that we sign a document admitting trespass and accepting liability for the cost of removing that trespass. We declined on the grounds that we denied trespass. We did not believe that in English law one is obliged to hand over something to someone who cannot show they own it.

We came across CFWI's annual report for 2015 this showed that legal fees for 2014 + 2015 totalled �21,681. The treasurers statement said  "..... considerable sums of money have been spent on legal and professional fees. These relate to the ownership of a WI hall which was gifted to the federation when a WI suspended. It has been necessary to take legal action in order to secure possession of the hall and these fees will be recouped when the hall is sold."  It would appear that CFWI were being less than honest with their members. How the solicitors justified such a fee for writing a few letters is a mystery.

It has recently come to light that some local WIs have been given the impression that KBWI gifted the Hall to CFWI and that the Residents Association seized control of it and refused to hand it over!

When CFWI sold the hall they made sure that no one in Kelly Bray could buy it. An estate agent 50 miles away in Truro handled it and sold it for a mere �25,000 to a developer on his email list.  The developer who bought it also bought the strip of land adjacent (the shrubbery) increasing its size by about a third and sold it on with planning permission for 2 dwelling for what we believe to be around �130,000.  How CFWI convinced the CC that they had obtained "best price" - a legal requirement - is a mystery.

It appears therefore that our Hall was sold in order to pay the legal cost of depriving us of our Hall. 

To buy a piece of land the size the village has lost would cost about  �90,000 and it would cost around �150,000 to build a hall. The people of Kelly Bray have lost an asset which would cost about �240,000 to reinstate - about �500 per household.

CFWI have not expressed regret or apologised for depriving Kelly Bray of its Village Hall or for destroying the legacy of generations of loyal WI ladies in Kelly Bray.

While the Ombudsman has done a good job in establishing the facts, getting the CC to admit their mistakes and provide us with an apology, there are certain aspects of their report [LINK] which make no sense to us. We were quite frankly baffled so lodged an appeal [LINK] but this was rejected without any analysis as to why the points made were incorrect.

Source : http://www.kelly-bray.co.uk/saga.html

We’ve existed for just a couple of months but already we’ve decided to change our name!

Feedback suggested that Charity Watch UK implied we were watching charities and that is absolutely not what we are here to do!

There is also a great USA organisation called Charity Watch who does check out US charities and whereas we would love some sort of collaboration in respect of charities operating internationally, rating and checking charities is not part of our goals. 

What we want is a regulator to make sure charities are honest and working within the law here and overseas so no external organisation has to rate them.

Therefore we have decided after discussion with interested parties to rename the organisation Charity Sanity, because that is exactly what we want. 

We want regulation that is actually enforced, and criminal breaches punished appropriately. We want transparency that gives the public the ability to make an informed choice. 

Charities are the sum of the people that work for them and manage them.  If you've got an honest management team desperately wanting to fulfil the aims of the charity, as most charities do, then that's brilliant. 

However when you do not have an effective regulator it becomes a magnet to fraudsters and criminals and non charitable individuals and the system and laws are easy to exploit. 

• Whilst the charity commission treat the public with suspicion and do not appropriately deal with complaints, 
• Whilst the charity commission clearly jump on political bandwagons and do PR exercises,
• Whilst the charity commission gives full confidentiality to charity representatives but not complainants,
• When whistle-blowers, even trustee whistle-blowers, are presumed vexatious and malicious.
• When whomever claims to be the charity representatives statements are automatically measured by internal processes as more reliable and  honest than the people who are making allegations against the charity

Then its damaging those charities that are working hard and are good and are working within the law( even though no one makes them). We are here to help charities too, so watch just did not cut it. 

We desperately need some sanity back into the charity sector and its regulator. Right now it’s utter madness..

...and so Charity Sanity it is.. 

The regulator is not working well for anyone; 

Not for charities who are given ever more regulations to supposedly comply with, that often do not serve a useful purpose.

Not for the public and donors who cannot rely on the commission to safeguard our donations or ensure charities operate legally, honestly or transparently.

Not for trustees who operate honestly and call out wrongdoing when they see it and who are then silenced by the Commission in cahoots with the perpetrators. 

Not for the long term established but non Christian faiths forced to convert to charities. Where traditional structures steeped in faith history are now being swept away by new influential modernising trustees without a community mandate, but who are aggressively supported by a Commission that has no respect for faith or tradition.

We need change - Join Charity Sanity, help us get our trust in charity back.

Do Paper Tigers, Toothless Lions, and Chocolate Teapots have one thing in common with the Charity Commission? Are they all statements of self-evident impotence?

Is the Charity Commission unfit for purpose by design, or by process, or by funding, or by staffing levels, or by staffing competence, or by apathy? Or elements of all six?

What does it take for the Charity Commission to do anything when a charity goes rogue? If they almost never act – only 200 inquiries per year out of 7000 reported problems - does that inaction effectively facilitate fingers in the till?

When do those running a charity, supposedly for public good, realise they are free to run it as their own honey pot? Is it after the first time some exaggerated expenses go unchallenged by the Charity Commission?

Or is it after realising that the Charity Commission write only a nice letter when an ex-employee has reported light-fingeredness? Or is it when the realise that denials about fingers in the till, by those with fingers in the till, have been accepted by the Charity Commission? Or is it after they discover that almost no-one with sticky digits is ever held to account by the Charity Commission? Or after they see that those who are fast of finger get to keep their skilfully acquired gains, even after being caught?

Will even previously decent people succumb to temptation when they walk through halls of gold, and everyone around them is grateful for the freely available “charity donations”? Do they express thanks in the appropriate way while receiving their “donations”? Are they appreciative of such a helpful Charity Commission?

Are there more questions than answers to the problems with the Charity Commission? Is the main question the one being asked by those in receipt of “donations”? Are they asking themselves, if no-one is held to account by the Charity Commission, is that my green light to pick up more green stuff?

Any regulator exists to protect the public. It exists to serve the public.

What if a regulator is failing in its duties, and undermining public confidence in the sector it is supposed to protect? What happens then?

In the case of the charity sector, scandal after scandal is being reported in the media.

In almost all cases it is quickly discovered that decent members of staff or volunteers had raised concerns about the wrong-doing or fraud. Most were either ignored, or were hounded out of their organisation, or subjected to false allegations, or all three.

Many had reported their concerns to the Charity Commission, which did precisely nothing.

Why is public faith in charitable giving being so undermined? Is it because of the repeated charity scandals? Has the public lost faith that the money they give will be properly used? Do the public now KNOW that their money will most likely be fraudulently used?

Almost every statutory enquiry into wrong-doing in charities, finds what any layperson would describe as fraud. Yet almost no-one is ever prosecuted. Vast sums of money go missing each year from charities, and those who have taken it, are allowed to keep it. None of it is recovered. It is money that the public has given in good faith, which has, through lack of scrutiny, found its way into the pockets of wrong-doers.

How many times each year does the charity commission pass on evidence to the police? If there are around 200 statutory enquiries per annum, and almost every case involves fraud, that should be about 200 case files, containing evidence going to court. How many is it? Almost none.

Criminals tend to operate where there is a low chance of detection, and if detected, a low chance of prosecution. The same applies to the corrupt – where there is no scrutiny is where the corrupt prey.

That makes the charity sector rich pickings. Members of the public give large amounts of money and never ask about how it is used.

Those who are supposed to oversee charities, trustees, are absent most of the time – that presents a no scrutiny opportunity to those of ill will. Even when trustees are present, it is only for a handful of board meetings a year. Most want the status of office but not the responsibility. If any do show signs of doing their duty, those really running the charity can decide what information those trustees are given. They will certainly not be given any information that is close to the wrong-doing – unless the trustees are themselves involved.

If the regulator is also ineffective, and there are almost never prosecutions for charity fraud, the charity sector becomes a top career choice for those intent on acquiring some free cash, at the public expense.

When the full failings of the Charity Commission are eventually exposed, and it is disbanded in disgrace, or reformed, what will replace it?

Two separate bodies are needed. One to advise charities, to train trustees, to give guidance on the law, on how to run a charity in accordance with the law.

That is necessary, but not sufficient. Advice and guidance are effective for those who are law abiding and of good intent.

What of those with nefarious motives? What is needed there? A regulator with teeth – a body that enforces charity law. An OFSTED for the charity sector. Standards in schools have dramatically increased since OFSTED had the powers to swoop at any time. Once we have an OFSTED for the charity sector the same will happen.

Where scrutiny takes place so does compliance with reasonable expectations – the law. Where there is no scrutiny, there is temptation for the previously law-abiding, and rich pickings for those of other intent.

Is the Charity Commission failing the public by failing to conduct proper scrutiny?  They admit that 99% of their charity wrong-doing cases come to them through whistle-blowers. That sounds as though whistle-blowers are conducting the scrutiny that the Charity Commission should be carrying out.

In the absence of proper Charity Commission scrutiny, how many more charity scandals will the public endure before faith in the charity sector is fatally eroded?

Will the Charity Commission be reformed, or replaced before the next scandal, or will it take ten more, twenty?

How motivated are you to give to charity when you know there is an absence of proper scrutiny? When you know there is a vacuum where there should be enforcement?

Where scrutiny takes place so does compliance with reasonable expectations.

If the charity commission is failing the public, we should ask, is the charity commission being properly scrutinised? Is the performance of the charity commission being examined? Who conducts the OFSTED type inspection of the Charity Commission? No one.

What can you do if you want to ensure that your charity giving will not be trousered?

Write to your MP and ask for an investigation into the failings of the Charity Commission.

Welcome to Charity Watch UK! Please follow us!

Charity Watch UK has come about as a result of a few people faced with really very clear evidence of multiple cases of fraud and abuse by a UK charity watched as the commission were willingly hoodwinked by lies.

They watched friends overseas have their local reputations, in a country where reputation is hugely important, be destroyed  just so a UK charity could cover up their illegal operation, abuse of overseas law and continue to use an overseas project as a cash cow..

..then watched how easily a UK charity can blame numerous people here and abroad, even people not involved in anyway shape or form with the complaints or the organisations, to cover the charities significant and prolonged wrongdoing.  It became impossible not to act.

Reaching out to many others we realised that so many are fighting an inept and arrogant Charity Commission that claims it works for us.  Some of those campaigners have been fighting for nearly 10 years to correct the Commissions wrong decisions!

They keep fighting because, just like us, they are decent, honest people seeing wrongdoing and dishonesty prevail and feel its their duty to keep going to try and stop that wrongdoing. Unlike the Commission, we are all unable to turn a blind eye.

Our stories whilst very different all boiled down to the same thing..

• • the Commissions failings,
  • the Commissions obstruction,
  • the Commissions cover ups and
  • the Commission arrogance,

whilst being clearly inept and unqualified to do the job it claims to do.

We are now a collective of campaigns working together to get change. The commissions attempt at restructuring itself in response to the last parliamentary inquiry into its processes has failed, not surprisingly, and its clear that re-building the Charity Commission is the only way to rid our charity sector of wrong doing and gain the public trust once more. We are now sharing resources and expertise so that we can lobby for that change.

Please join us, the Charity Commission is a huge monster of a machine that has misdirected the public and parliamentarians for many years - it will continue to obstruct and prevaricate so we need you to help us all get change.

Contact us please.