The charity has run a local Community Centre in the south of England since 1950’s. Previously managed by council staff until the charity directly employed a new deputy manager who discovered widespread financial fraud and wrongdoing amongst the council staff. The Council were forced to launch an inquiry into historic mismanagement of charity assets which estimated a loss of £100k+
Significantly mismanaged over many years, the charity caught the eye of the Commission only as a result of being on the double defaulters list. Faced with the possibility of an inquiry the trustees rather than admit to their own wrongdoing, instead, blamed their whistleblowing employee for the mismanagement and misconduct issues, even though as an employee it was not and could not be her responsibility.
The Commission, accepting all trustee statements as true, without any discussion with the person accused and without making any additional inquiries of their own , served an entirely false court order on that employee.
That employee, already suffering ill health as a result of the behaviour and demands of the trustees, was left with just 2 days to “comply” with this false court order. Charity law does not support members of the public with financial support for legal representation and as such she has to represent herself.
Eventually, after an appeal, an internal decision review resulted in the order being revoked. However the Commission falsely documented that this result was due to the employee complying with their order, which she had not. The employee wanted to take this to a tribunal but felt her health would be at even greater risk if she did so.
The manager whistleblew on further fraudulent and criminal activities by the trustees. The Commission confirmed that they were already aware of these activities and as such she was not recorded as a whistleblower. Further complaints went unanswered.
The charity has recently closed down as a result of an unconstitutional vote allowed by the Commission. Mismanagement and misconduct for many years by trustees is the reason for this. The community have lost an historic asset which is likely going to be demolished and redeveloped for profit, not for the good of the community it is supposed to have been serving
Issues
- The charity had not filed returns for a number of years but the Commission was unaware until they appeared on a doubler defaulters report
- The Commission excused historical and current mismanagement and misconduct.
- The Commission allowed the charity to put aside its constitution in order to get the preferred results of trustee ballots.
- The Commission allowed 2 of the 3 trustees to represent the charity at a time when the Commission was aware there were problems with the trustee relationships.
- The Chair was excluded from, and was unaware of these communications with the Commission
- The Commission accepted what the attending trustees said as absolute fact causing a significant cost to taxpayers in doomed legal actions.
- The Commission then excused the trustees lying to the Commission in pursuit of the false legal action (legal action costing taxpayers money)
- The Commission treated a member of the public with utter disrespect and ignorance.
- The Commission felt serving a court order on a person off sick from work for mental health issues, giving them just 2 days notice to comply or else they could be sent to prison or face huge fines, was perfectly acceptable.
- The Commission thought that forcing that person through stages of inquiry was acceptable
- The Commission refused to accept liability, preferring to lie to all stating the order had been complied with, when in fact it had been shown that no aspect of the order was based on fact.
Conclusion
It is clear to Charity Sanity that the misconduct and mismanagement of this charity by its uninterested trustees has meant a rich and historic community resource has been forever lost. Whether, by appropriate action, the Commission could have prevented this is an open debate however it is clear that the Commission acted in an unprofessional and incompetent way causing an employee of the charity significant harm.
The Commission has made it easy for the trustees of a charity to scapegoat a whistleblower, the person that had discovered and put a stop to the immense fraud that the same trustees had presided over. The Commission has allowed this, by again accepting everything a trustee says as the absolute truth.
The Commission used that false information to behave in the most appalling way to a member of the public, without any notice or consideration of her wellbeing. When shown to be incompetent the commission have doubled down on their error making excuses and yet again using misleading corporate language to avoid responsibility.
