The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales
November 2001
In January 2000, the Independent Complaints Review service for the Charity Commission was established to look into complaints about the Charity Commission made by users of the service, including members of the public and charities. A six-month pilot project for the new scheme was originally intended but this period was subsequently extended to two years. The service offered by the Independent Complaints Reviewer’s office is free to Commission customers.
In order to develop the role, the Charity Commission engaged the services of an experienced complaint reviewer. Jodi Berg was appointed as the Charity Commission’s first Independent Complaints Reviewer (the ICR) in January 2000. Her role is to act as an honest broker in investigating complaints about the Charity Commission. Mrs. Berg is the ICR for the Land Registry, the Public Record Office, and the Housing Corporation and Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency. A solicitor with extensive management experience in the private and public sectors, she is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
It is the aim of the ICR to ensure fairness and impartiality in the consideration of complaints about the Charity Commission. She will investigate complaints which have already been considered by the Charity Commission, where the complainant feels matters have been left unresolved or have been dealt with unsatisfactorily.
This report marks the end of the pilot and includes information about the ICR service, a digest of cases considered and outlines the key themes which have emerged during the pilot project.
I am pleased to present my second report as Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) to the Charity Commission. This report marks the end of a two-year pilot.
The Charity Commission has now to decide whether to make the independent complaint review process a permanent part of its response to customer concerns. I believe that over the past two years the service has demonstrated its value to Commission customers and to the Commission itself. It has enhanced public confidence in the Commission and has served to make the Commission more openly accountable to its customers. It is my strong recommendation that the service is carried forward and I am pleased to learn that this is the Commission’s clear intention.
The aims of my office have remained constant throughout the pilot. These are to establish and develop the ICR service; to act as a referee for the relatively small number of dissatisfied Commission customers and to capture the lessons that are to be learned from their complaints. As a result, my recommendations are aimed both at putting matters right for individual customers and at improving the future quality of Commission services to others. I am pleased to report that, to date, the Commission has accepted all of the recommendations that I have made.
All of the complaints I review have already been investigated within the Commission’s own internal procedure. Overall, I have been impressed by the Commission’s determination to resolve complaints as quickly as possible and to give people a full and open response. As a result, it is not surprising that I do not uphold most of the complaints referred to my office. Nevertheless, there have been a number of justified complaints, which have raised serious issues of concern. This is disappointing for everyone involved, not least for the Commission as it continues its efforts to improve the quality of its service to customers.
The independent complaints review service is a tangible demonstration of the integrity and accountability of the Charity Commission’s internal procedures, whereby the Commission can demonstrate its resolve to use the information provided by complaints and the ICR process for positive change. This accountability includes the responsibility to establish clear and transparent procedures and ensure adherence to them. It also implies an organic growth of new guidelines and processes, in response to the changing needs of customers.
There is a general and unfortunate perception that the ‘business’ of government is not always accountable. Many people do not understand the way in which public services are managed or the way in which they carry out their important public responsibilities. There can also be a mismatch between the expectations that people have of an organisation and the reality of what it can provide. This is particularly true of the Charity Commission. Many of the complaints that the Commission receives and a number of those that I have reviewed can be placed in this category.
The Charity Commission is a regulatory body with wide and far-reaching powers; but it cannot necessarily use these powers on every occasion when it is asked to do so, nor would it be right if it did. A regulator must be free to exercise an appropriate degree of discretion in deciding when to exercise regulatory powers. If not, regulation may become restriction. Although the Commission may be able to offer help or advice, it is not necessarily able to resolve complaints about charities or to provide redress for the individuals who make them. In general, the Commission cannot interfere in the administration of a charity and can only invoke its regulatory powers in specific circumstances, where there are clear and persuasive grounds for doing so.
Nevertheless, people with concerns about individual charities turn to the Commission for help. They have nowhere else to go. And, on occasion, the outcome of this contact can be disappointing for them. Over the course of the pilot, I have increasingly come to the view that the charitable sector, which continues to grow in size and importance, requires an Ombudsman to whom people can turn with complaints about charities. The roles of regulator and Ombudsman have been separated to good effect in other areas, for example in social housing, and Ombudsman schemes have proved their worth both in the public sector and in important areas of private enterprise. I have no doubt that the public interest could be well served by such a development.
Over the last two years, I have met with a variety of ‘stakeholders’ to try to learn more about the Commission from the perspective of its ‘customers’ and those acting on their behalf. On the whole, the Commission is held in high regard, but there have been those who have voiced serious concerns about issues such as transparency of process and consistency of decision-making. The Charity Commission has taken these concerns to heart and is undergoing a period of review and change, of which this pilot has been a part. In my view, this augurs well for the future.
In addition, I have visited Charity Commission offices in London, Taunton and Liverpool to explain my role and to raise awareness about the value of complaints as learning opportunities. It is apparent from my visits that Commission staff are keen to provide a first rate service and I continue to be heartened by the very open way in which the independent complaints review process has been welcomed. As one Commission officer has said "It is of vital importance that the customer knows that the manner of operation of a service provider can be questioned in a transparent and non-partisan manner. How else can we....improve our service dispassionately unless we realise what we are doing well or not so well? The ICR provides such feedback in a constructive and positive fashion."
My regular meetings with the Chief Charity Commissioner, with other members of the senior management team and with the Board have been key to the success of the pilot. It is in the nature of this service that, from time to time, the Commission will find my reports disappointing. This can raise sensitive issues. Nevertheless, there has not been a time when the commitment to the principles of independent review wavered or the determination to work in an open and co-operative manner with my office flagged. As a result, in my view, we have been able to develop a robust and highly regarded independent review service, which adheres to the highest public sector standards.
My role as ICR for the Charity Commission has been both challenging and stimulating. I have learned a great deal about the Commission and its work and it has been a privilege to establish the office. I thank everyone involved in the pilot project for their help and, in particular, I thank my investigation officers, Andrew Robertson and John Calvert, for their outstanding contribution to our work and for coping so well with the growing demands of my office.
Jodi Berg
The Independent Complaints Reviewer’s office provides an independent and free service to the public, which underpins the fairness and rigour of the Charity Commission’s internal complaints procedure.
This office deals with complaints against a number of public bodies. Funded through these organisations and thereby from the public purse, we are conscious of the responsibility that is placed upon us to carry out our role conscientiously. Both complainants and the Commission rely upon our objectivity and impartiality and we are committed to demonstrating the absolute independence of the complaints review process.
The ICR office is based at separate premises from the Charity Commission. Our office staff are trained in complaints handling and are careful to maintain both confidentiality and the integrity of our processes. Our mission statement clarifies our commitment to the guiding principles of accountability in public life. We offer a service that is:
We actively explore ways in which to promote our service. Key to these efforts is the provision of complete and easily accessible information regarding the services provided to complainants. Information can be obtained from:
We have made considerable efforts to publicise our service to third party organisations, ensuring that leaflets and telephone consultation are always available to consumer bodies and by providing information to other complaints handling bodies through our active membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association.
On the Internet, the ICR is accessible through numerous third party consumer websites. We see this as a meaningful way of demonstrating our independence and providing information to all those who might need our help.
Our leaflets and website are written with the understanding that members of the public can be ‘turned off’ by jargon, and we try to keep to plain language in all our correspondence and avoid excessively obscure or legal terminology. We supply information in the following ways:
It is our policy that no-one should be discouraged from contacting us, learning about our services or taking advantage of them due to disability or a lack of personal contact. Our telephone answering facility is available within and outside of office hours, and those who choose to contact us by telephone or e-mail will find that they are communicating with a ‘real person’ rather than a ‘machine’. We have found that complainants generally respond more positively, whatever the outcome of their complaint, when they have access to a named individual who has taken the time and effort to understand and engage with their problem and their concerns.
In order to break down the language barriers to communication with some sectors of the community, we can offer information in several languages. We recognise that it is possible for individuals living in Britain to feel disenfranchised due to English not being their first language and our hope is that language difficulties will not prevent any member of the public from accessing our full service. In addition, we can provide information on audiotape.
In December last year, we moved to Southampton Row in central London. Our new office is in a central location, easy to find and convenient for public transport. This has increased our accessibility to complainants and encouraged more face to face meetings. This can be beneficial to complainants who believe that they can communicate their concerns more clearly and directly in a personal meeting than they can in writing or over the telephone. Since moving, several complainants have taken advantage of this opportunity by visiting our office and have reported that it is easy to find and welcoming.
An office move can often have a ‘knock on’ effect on the turnaround of work and ours was no exception. Despite our best endeavours, it took a while to get back to ‘business as usual’. However, during this period we made every effort to maintain as full and prompt a service as possible.
This was made easier by the introduction of a new case management IT system, which has allowed us to track the progress of casework more effectively and to access data for analytical and management purposes.
Our website offers full details about our service, an online version of the leaflet we send to complainants and printable versions of the forms we ask complainants to submit to us, including a new Equal Opportunities questionnaire, which remains under development. All of this can facilitate speedy access to our services to ‘web aware’ complainants. It is also a forum through which the public can be informed whenever there is anything to report regarding the ongoing development of the ICR’s office.
In addition to information about the ICR’s office, the website places our service in context, by providing hyperlinks to other complaint handling and Ombudsman services, as well as to national consumer organisations.
In maintaining our website we have paid close attention to the guidelines issued by the Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org/WAI) which promotes the easy use of websites by all members of the public, paying special attention to the specific problems that can be faced by individuals with disabilities. We have also been careful to ensure that our website can be viewed with every major commercially available web browser and, where appropriate, we have responded to any comments made on our website within 24 hours.
"You have been prompt, diligent and open with us and have acted as an ‘honest broker’ in investigating complaints about the Charity Commission" Complainant
The office of the Independent Complaints Reviewer is responsible for providing an unbiased, considered opinion of the handling of complaints by the Charity Commission. We are available to all customers of the Commission, whether individuals, charities, professional advisers or other organisations. Our role is to be a referee, ensuring that the complaints process undertaken by the Charity Commission is both fair and transparent and that the Commission takes the opportunities it is given to learn from these complaints.
The ICR says: "I regard my role in identifying systemic weaknesses and recommending possible improvements to customer services as one of my fundamental responsibilities." The Charity Commission has accepted all of the recommendations made by the ICR in her reports, and this has already resulted in a number of wide-reaching changes in Commission practice.
If the ICR’s review reveals that there has been maladministration in the way that the Commission has dealt with a customer, whether of a systemic nature or related to individual customer care, she can take the following action:
The office of the ICR also helps customers who have not yet been through the whole of the Commission’s internal complaint procedure. At this stage, we cannot carry out an investigation but there is an increasing demand for advice and information from Commission customers who are unsure how to proceed in taking matters forward. In appropriate circumstances, we will act as an intermediary between the complainant and the Commission and will seek to resolve the problems raised with us through conciliation. This accords with the ICR’s commitment to try to achieve a speedy local resolution of complaints, wherever possible.
Complaint activity has remained steady over the two-year period. During our first year the ICR’s office received 43 complaints and in the 9-month period this year, we have received 31 referrals. Given that, at inception, there were a number of long standing complaints ‘waiting in the wings’, this seems to speak well for the Commission’s new internal complaints process. However, the independent review office will need to monitor these figures carefully over future years. Our experience of other organisations is that numbers of referrals do tend to rise as people become more aware of the service and it would not be surprising if this were the trend over the next year or so.
Nevertheless, although the numbers of referrals to this office have not risen year on year, there is no doubt that we are lot busier than we were in our first year. This is generally because complaint reviews commenced in that year were reaching the final stages of investigation towards the end of the year or as we entered the second year. The nature of our procedure means that we are always working ‘in arrears’ in terms of complaints, which do not reach the formal stages of review until some time after they are first received. In addition, we have investigated some particularly complex and contentious cases during the course of the pilot and this has affected the time taken to present ‘formal’ reports.
During the pilot we compared our referrals by service areas and complaints categories:
Over 80% of complaint referrals were received from members of the public as opposed to those received from charities or their representatives. This preponderance of complaints received directly from the public reflects our experience of other public bodies.
Of the complaints that have proceeded to investigation and conclusion, we completed investigations into 59 allegations of maladministration of which 16 were either fully or partially upheld. 30 complaints are still undergoing investigation.
During the period of the pilot, the Charity Commission has reviewed its appeal and complaint procedures. The outcome of this review is to be published at the end of the pilot; however, new procedures have already been introduced. When a complaint is made about the Charity Commission, customers usually contact a front-line member of the Commission staff (a divisional case officer) at the Commission office concerned. Commission procedures require this to be written contact and the case officer concerned is expected to try to resolve matters straightaway, or as soon as possible. If not resolved immediately, the complaint will be referred to a Customer Service Manager. There is a Customer Service Manager at each of the Commission offices.
The Customer Service Manager will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and will again try to sort matters out. This is often done in consultation with an internal professional adviser. If this proves not to be possible, he or she can refer the complaint to the Regional Operations Manager. It is also possible for the Customer Service Manager to seek advice from someone with the appropriate legal or technical expertise needed to comment upon a complaint about a particularly complex matter. Ultimately, the Regional Operations Manager, who is the most senior ‘local’ manager, can review what has happened and respond to the complainant. For people who are not satisfied by the Commission’s initial responses to their complaints, going through the whole of the internal complaints procedure can take a considerable time. However, the changes to the procedures have certainly had a noticeable and positive impact on complaint handling within the Commission.
All of the complaints reviewed by the ICR have already been fully considered within the Commission’s complaint procedures and as such have been subjected to internal scrutiny by senior Charity Commission officers.
Some Commission customers have suggested that the internal review should include yet a further stage of scrutiny and response by a Commissioner. Our concern is that this will unnecessarily prolong the length of time taken to get through the process and may act as a barrier to referral to this office. Indeed, rather than prolong the process, there may well be cases where the Customer Service Manager has sought the advice of the local Regional Operations Manage prior to giving his or her response to the complainant. In such cases, there may be advantages to expediting matters for both the Charity Commission and the complainant.
It is generally acknowledged, that most complaints are made by telephone. Whilst the majority of these will be resolved at an early stage, it is important that information arising from them is recorded and collated, so that vital management information is not missed. It is fair to say that the Commission does not record all of the complaints received and, as yet, reports only those received in writing. Nevertheless, the Commission is undertaking a review of its communication and information gathering strategies to find ways in which both staff and customers can bring commonly faced problems or single cases to the attention of managers at an appropriately senior level. These may highlight underlying systemic issues, which the Commission may wish to address.
After exhausting the complaint procedure offered by the Charity Commission, the complainant can choose to refer their problem to the ICR. It is incumbent on the ICR to recognise the resource imbalance that exists between individual complainants, often members of the public on the one hand and the Commission on the other and to be as helpful in our dealings with complainants as possible.
There are certain complaints which cannot be investigated by the ICR. These include, but are not limited to, complaints concerning the law or statutory decisions taken by the Commission and complaints that have not been referred within three months of the completion of the Commission’s internal complaints procedure. The ICR will investigate complaints about maladministration, including:
On receiving a complaint, we respond to the customer within 24 hours, taking the opportunity to give as much information as possible about the complaints review process. If the complaint falls outside of the ICR’s remit, the complainant is given a full explanation of why the ICR is unable to take matters further. Once we have confirmed that the internal procedure has been exhausted, we proceed to agree a summary of the complaint with the complainant. Once agreed, this is sent to the Charity Commission and will establish the terms of reference for any investigation undertaken by the ICR. This investigation will include a review of the Charity Commission’s files and records.
The first purpose of these inquiries is to ascertain whether we have enough information for the ICR to be able to respond fully to the complaint at that stage or if it should become the subject of a ‘formal’ report. The ICR will let both the complainant and the Commission know the outcome of her inquiries and whether or not the complaint will require a ‘formal’ report. Where the ICR concludes that her investigation is completed, a full response is given to the complainant and to the Charity Commission by letter without further ado. In addition to explaining the ICR’s findings, the letter will give information about how a complaint can be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Both this initial investigation and the formal review can involve personal interviews with complainants and members of Charity Commission staff. Depending on the complexity of the complaint, this can all take a considerable length of time. To reassure the complainant that the ICR’s office is still ‘on the case’, we will contact the complainant periodically, usually by letter or by telephone. In the case of a ‘formal’ review, once the ICR has completed a statement on the factual background to the complaint, both the customer and the Charity Commission are given an opportunity to comment on its factual accuracy before the ICR completes her report. The ‘formal’ report will include the ICR’s findings on each of the points laid down in the initial summary of complaint and copies will be sent to both parties.
Where a complaint is upheld and recommendations are made, the Commission has agreed to implement them immediately. This is the clear expectation of the customer, who is entitled to expect no less, given the very long time that they may have waited for ‘justice’ and it is the essence of demonstrating the Commission’s accountability and commitment to the review process.
We set ambitious speed of service targets. Once again this year we have achieved most of our targets but lack of staff resource did present difficulties, particularly in our second year. Despite this, we have responded to all telephone calls and correspondence in a timely way (usually within 24 hours) and dealt with all referrals for advice and assistance well within our seven-day limit (again usually within 24 hours).
On occasion, it has taken longer than our 3-week target to agree a summary of the complaint. Although this is usually done in time, it can take somewhat longer to help complainants to focus in on the specific points of complaint that they would like to have investigated; in one case this took as long as 15 weeks. Nevertheless, it is particularly important to reach agreement between all the parties as to the subject of the complaint at this early stage to enable the Commission to give a response to all of the issues and to focus the investigation appropriately. This can save problems and concerns from arising later on.
We were pleased to complete our initial investigations in an average of 10 weeks, well within our 12-week target. The average time taken to complete all investigations was 20 weeks. In some cases, the complex and contentious nature of the complaint, the pure ‘size’ of the Commission’s files and extent of the information provided by the complainant meant that it was extremely difficult to remain within time targets. It is no exaggeration to say that these cases can stretch back over several years (in one case over 15 years) and the files can be stacked several feet high. As a result, ‘formal’ reports, that is those responded to by report rather than by letter, took an average of 35 weeks to complete.
Whilst our experience and positive feedback from complainants show that the thoroughness and quality of the investigation remains paramount and cannot be compromised to speed, we are determined to set more challenging targets for our office and to find effective ways of meeting them.
During the period of the pilot the ICR received 4 complaints about our service. Each complainant received a written acknowledgement and explanation of our internal procedure within 24 hours and a full response from the ICR well within our 5-day target.
The ICR is committed to providing a complete and impartial service to all customers, regardless of gender, ethnicity, disability or religion. In order to further this policy, during the last year we introduced an Equal Opportunities questionnaire to monitor trends in usage of our services. The questionnaire is now available on our Internet site. As yet, it is too early to present any results but we hope that, in the future, information gleaned from completed questionnaires will be analysed, in order to identify any trends or specific areas of need, with the object of improving the service provided to complainants.
Complainants can expect certain standards from the ICR and her team.
" It has been my good fortune to be privileged by your acceptance to devote so much time reviewing so comprehensively such a case. I am gratified to note that, arising out of the complaint, consideration is to be given to avoid future misunderstandings between the parties involved." Complainant
An independent complaints review process is a means of providing ‘quality assurance’ for public bodies. Throughout the pilot, the Charity Commission has sought to take advantage of the learning opportunities presented through the ICR process, by bringing about worthwhile changes to its practice and procedures.
Each of the cases I have reviewed has been unique. Each differs because of the individual circumstances and the personalities of those involved. However, in many cases there are commonalities – similar situations or failures in service that have been encountered during the course of interacting with the Charity Commission or bringing a complaint against it. As ICR, it is a part of my role to identify those trends and to make systemic recommendations designed to improve the Commission’s service and to bring about lasting change, which will benefit the Commission itself as well as its future customers.
My reports into individual complaints are sent both to the Commission and to complainants. In addition, I have been able to provide more general remarks in my regular meetings with the Commission and in my annual reports. The end of the pilot is an appropriate juncture at which to look back at some changes the ICR process has encouraged the Charity Commission to introduce for the benefit of customers.
An integral part of my role during the pilot has been to offer advice to the Commission during the development of its complaints handling strategy. The Commission has sought to ensure that its procedures are appropriate to a modern public organisation.
However, management intentions cannot be translated into good practice unless their staff have a commitment to the principles that underlie them. Many public bodies struggle with this, as it requires a change in old-fashioned attitudes, which tended to regard complaints in a negative way. Today, public organisations are encouraged to welcome complaints as an essential element of customer feedback, providing valuable management information.
The Commission has made a remarkable effort to deliver this culture change. Through personal reassurance by senior managers, through the publication of new complaints handling guidance and the development of relevant training, the Commission has succeeded in raising the profile and significance of complaints handling amongst its front line staff.
I am now keen to see similar emphasis placed upon the importance of capturing the information to be derived from verbal complaints and compliments, in addition to that which emanates from written complaints. I know from my visits to Commission offices that customers offer considerably more praise than they do criticism, and I also know that staff receive and resolve many more complaints than those recorded. However, concerns about greater amounts of paperwork and an overly bureaucratic approach to these issues mitigates against the recording all of this information.
To address this issue, the Commission is undertaking a review of ‘customer service’ and communication issues. It is also undertaking a ‘quality’ review to further develop a holistic approach to its casework and follow-up procedures.
During the second year of the pilot, the Commission set up a Customer Service Group to review recommendations made in reports and to direct their implementation. Chaired by a Regional Operations Manager, the group is drawn from across the Commission and includes representatives from each key business area and a ‘non-executive’ Commissioner who is also charged with the responsibility of being the Board’s Consumer Champion Commissioner.
The group considers all ICR reports and the minutes of its meetings are presented as an agenda item at the Commission’s main operational business meetings. The Commission’s expectation is that these mechanisms will ensure that generic lessons are widely disseminated through the organisation. It will be particularly interesting to monitor the change and development delivered through this forum over the coming years. In addition, the Commission is using electronic database systems to record and track the outcome of reports and its actions in response to them.
At the end of the day, it is important to judge the Commission by its actions, to see whether it has put best intentions into practice. The development of a more structured response to complaints and to the implementation of recommended improvements in practice has been particularly encouraging.
"Some very useful lessons have been learned on these cases which have helped us to move our business on." Commission officer
The value of complaints lies in the information they provide for organisations prepared to take a constructively critical look at the way in which they deliver services. This requires a willingness to support the two-way flow of information arising from all customer feedback, including complaints, between staff and management.
The Commission has accepted all of the recommendations made in reports on individual complaints, and a number of resulting changes have been made. Here are a few examples:
Practice reviewed. ‘Intensive care’ caseworking methods further developed.
I have been pleased to see examples of the positive approach that the Commission has taken to sharing good practice by explaining the outcome of independent reviews and the lessons to be learned to team managers. Managers are encouraged to share this information with front line staff "so that complaints of this nature are unlikely to occur in the future." Commission
It is clear from complaints that I have more recently reviewed that the Commission’s internal investigation is both more structured and rigorous than was the case prior to the pilot. I have also seen examples of what I would describe as ‘model’ responses to complaints, where lessons learned have been widely disseminated.
All of this is good news. It represents the establishment of sound foundations upon which the Commission and its ICR can build for the future. At the end of the day, an ICR process cannot, in and of itself, make a difference to the way in which an organisation treats its customers, unless that organisation is itself committed to a continuous programme of improvement. However, the ICR process can be a catalyst for change. By using it in this way, the Commission demonstrates its ongoing commitment to customer service.
"I cannot too strongly express my gratitude for the way in which you have undertaken this project and, without making any promises, secured for us an element of objectivity which we were being denied." Complainant
A major challenge for any independent complaints handling organisation is to maintain an open minded and innovative approach to our work, seeking to learn for the experience and opinions of others.
The ICR’s office is grateful to all of the other independent complaint review and Ombudsman organisations with which we have a continuing, constructive dialogue. We value our membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) and the opportunities it offers to learn from other organisations and to share good practice. We take an active interest in the Association and, during the past year, the ICR has served on working groups and our office manager, Andrew Robertson, has taken on the responsibilities of Secretary to BIOA’s Managers’ Group.
During the course of the pilot, we have sought the views of users of the service and of Charity Commission staff to ensure that we are meeting the needs of our customers. The information we receive, whether complimentary or critical, is welcome and is used to help us to improve our service.
"We would like to thank you for the courteous and respectful way in which you conducted the enquiry. It was the first glimpse of sanity we received since the start of this nightmare saga." Complainant
All respondents to our customer service questionnaires welcomed the introduction of the service and considered that was a good idea. In responding to questions about our practice and procedures, all those who responded to specific questions regarding communication were satisfied that we had kept them informed throughout the process. In response to our general questions about our service, we are pleased to report that 100% of complainants found the ICR and her staff courteous and helpful.
Our respondents were also complimentary about both our speed of response to communications and our efficiency. However, not all respondents were happy with our investigation and, in general, this related to the outcome of the review. We were pleased that, on the whole, even when complaints had not been upheld, complainants did not consider that any part of our handling of the enquiry could have been better and were satisfied that the ICR had considered their complaint in an impartial way.
Sadly, some complainants remain sceptical about whether an ICR service will help to prevent a matter similar to their complaint from happening again. Demonstrating accountability is a major challenge for all public bodies and independent complaint review processes. We hope that the inclusion of examples of change in this report will go some way to addressing this concern.
"I think a process like this is essential in balancing accountability with an objective view of what is reasonable on the part of the complainant." Commission officer
Charity Commission respondents have confirmed that independent review is now an accepted and generally respected addition to the Commission’s own response to complaints. Over both years of the pilot, almost without exception, the Commission’s officers have considered the ICR scheme to be a good and worthwhile idea.
"I think it is in the interests of both the Commission and the customer to go thorough an ‘independent’ review stage as the ‘final’ stage of the complaints procedure." Commission officer
We were again pleased that all officers who have come into contact with us have found ICR staff both courteous and helpful.
The ICR "and her team are always very open and offer constructive suggestions which aid successful case handling." Commission officer
In the first year of the pilot, a third of respondents indicated that they felt they did not know enough about the ICR scheme to advise customers about it. It is pleasing that, in our second year, almost 90% of respondents were confident that they knew enough about the ICR scheme to offer advice. Similarly high percentages considered that they knew how the ICR process fits into the internal procedure and how the ICR process works. These results indicate that the Commission has been effective in educating the Commission’s staff about the complaint procedures and about the ICR office.
It is always difficult to raise awareness about an independent process and to help staff to see how it might affect them as individuals. During the pilot the ICR has made a number of visits to Commission offices and this has proved an effective way of helping people to understand the process. Survey results indicate that these visits have helped in this effort and 70% of respondents found them helpful in raising their own level of awareness.
Whilst views on the outcomes of review can be expected to differ depending on whether or not complaints have been upheld, it is gratifying to report that respondents have indicated a high approval rating for review outcomes. Nearly 90% felt that outcomes had been helpful both to the Commission and to the complainants. 70% felt that the outcomes represented a fair resolution and added value by bringing matters to a conclusion.
"With the support of the ICR, the decision made was final and supported by the process. It provided us with the facility of not having to deal with unnecessary correspondence." Commission officer
Nevertheless, not everyone is happy with the reported outcome of cases or agrees that an ICR process is a good use of scarce resources.
"In principle, it’s good to have an independent review system. God forbid that the Civil Service should return to its old ‘faceless bureaucracy’ days (though some feel it never left them!). However, I think that the pendulum has swung too far and what we have now is a whinger’s charter through which great chunks of resources can be wasted by petty minded individuals with cranky axes to grind." Commission officer
It is not always easy for a complaints review organisation to receive independent accreditation for the quality of its internal processes. This year, however, we are pleased to report that we became one of the first organisations in the UK to receive a coveted BSI certificate for our complaint management systems. The ICR says "I congratulate my office staff whose unswerving commitment to the quality of our service has led to this achievement".
BSI standard CMSAS 86:2000 relates to the quality of our own internal complaints procedure in dealing with complaints about this office and demands adherence to the highest standards. It is entirely appropriate that, charged with reviewing complaints about other public bodies, this office seeks to ‘benchmark’ our own processes in an objective way. We will continue to strive for excellence in service delivery.
The ICR’s office adheres to accepted principles of good administrative practice. We take account of other public service and complaints handling guidelines where appropriate, and ensure that our research is kept up to date. We make every effort to keep abreast of forthcoming changes in legislation and policy, to enable our staff to offer appropriate advice and information to users of our service.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives statutory support to the Government’s code of practice on access to government information, which aims to make it easier for people to get information about policy and administrative decisions that affect them.
The general perception of a lack of transparency and a tendency towards secrecy on the part of public authorities has been a key factor in creating an unwarranted and unhelpful divide between an increasingly sceptical public and those who administer public services on our behalf. In common with the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act is a further step towards making government both more open and more accountable to the citizen. The Act requires a government organisation to place the public interest before its own, thereby enhancing respect for the rights of the individual.
In my report last year, when considering the Human Rights Act, I said: "In effect it places a legal as well as a moral obligation on all public bodies to develop a culture which aims to satisfy the legitimate expectations of the individual customer and to deal with problems that arise in an open and positive manner." This statement is equally true of the Freedom of Information Act.
Once the Act takes effect, when a request for information is made to a public authority subject to its provisions, that authority will be required to provide all of the information requested, save that which is covered by any of the exemptions set out in the Act. Except for ‘absolute’ exemptions, consideration must always be given to ‘the public interest’ in disclosing the information in question. When a public authority determines that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing information, the information requested must be disclosed to the applicant. This will mean that public authorities will not be able to operate a ‘blanket’ policy of non-disclosure.
As part of its daily activities, the Charity Commission provides extensive information to members of the public and their advisers. In respect of information not generally available, the Charity Commission’s practice is to consider whether, in all the circumstances, disclosure is appropriate. However, any such future decisions will need to be considered in the light of the Freedom of Information Act and decisions taken and the reasons for them recorded.
The Commission gives the ICR authority to use information drawn from its files in the drafting of reports. However, it is not uncommon for complainants to ask the ICR’s office for information from Charity Commission files, which are in our possession for the purpose of review. Our office policy is that we hold the files ‘on loan’ and, accordingly, decisions regarding disclosure must be taken by the Charity Commission itself.
Nevertheless, in relation to our own files we are reviewing our policies and procedures and will continue to monitor the effect of the Act. We will ensure that, as and when it is appropriate, information about the Office of the Information Commissioner is readily available to complainants.
During the course of the pilot, I have visited Charity Commission offices in London, Liverpool and Taunton on a number of occasions to learn at first-hand from front line staff about the services that they provide. I have greatly valued this opportunity, which has enabled me to bring an informed and evenhanded approach to my work and I am encouraged by the interest and enthusiasm of staff and by the mainly positive feedback I receive. My visits have also allowed me to share information gleaned and lessons learned from the complaints referred to my office in a very direct way.
I have also visited a number of Charity Commission ‘stakeholders’ including firms of solicitors and accountants and other customer representative organisations. This has been an invaluable way of learning about the Commission from the viewpoint of its customers. In general, it is fair to say that the Commission is highly regarded throughout the charitable sector and beyond. However, there are always going to be exceptions to this. Some customers, particularly those who have been on the ‘sharp end’ of regulatory decisions, consider the Commission both overly bureaucratic in its processes and autocratic in its decision making. I am grateful for the courtesy and thoughtful responses of all those connected with the sector with whom I have come into contact and I take this opportunity of publicly thanking them all for their interest and comments.
For the customer, a complaint that has been pursued as far as my office represents, at the very least, several months of determined effort. People will have been through all of the stages in the process and will have had to relive their concerns and disappointments on numerous occasions. In order to do this, they must be both determined and resilient and by the time their complaints are referred to me, most have an extremely jaded view of the Commission, whether justified or not.
Complaints often arise because customers do not understand the Commission’s role or the way in which it undertakes its important function. From a layman’s perspective, it is vital that the Commission explains its role in a clear and direct way and does not lead customers to expect more than it can achieve. On occasion, a lack of focus in the way that the Commission handled things had exacerbated matters, dragged things out and contributed to the anxiety and frustration experienced by customers who, in many cases, are already embroiled in problems with charities. In addition, this has added to the heavy workload of busy staff who have not felt empowered to move matters on.
There are also times when complainants have been unreasonable in their demands of the Commission and, sadly, instances where members of the public have been discourteous to the point of rudeness. This is simply unacceptable and, on occasion, I have felt it necessary to comment upon it in my report. In these kinds of situations, both staff and customers need the ‘protection’ of clear policies, which guide them in how to deal with such matters with fairness and consistency, whilst ensuring that the ‘substance’ of the complaint is properly considered.
As an organisation committed to customer service, the Commission is sometimes tempted to try to do more than it really ought or to continue correspondence long after there is nothing further than can be usefully said. Whilst this instinct may be laudable, in my view, this can be as unhelpful to the customer as it is to the Commission. Again, clear policies and fair procedures for dealing with these situations can ensure that valuable staff resources are spread fairly and proportionately across the whole of the Commission’s work.
I am pleased to see that real progress has been made towards adding clarity and structure to internal complaint procedures. In practice, this has meant a three-stage process; written communication with a case officer; complaint referral to the Customer Service Manager and final review by the Regional Operations Manager. During this year, a more focussed Commission response has meant that, in most cases, complaints are dealt with in a courteous and timely manner.
During the pilot, I received a number of complaint referrals about the way in which the Commission responded to various problems. It is fair to say that many of these ‘customer service’ issues ran alongside concerns about ‘decisions’ that the Commission had taken, which cannot in themselves be the subject of review. There is, I accept, often a fine line between decision and process. Whilst I make every effort to tread this line carefully, inevitably there are occasions when my comments on the process leading to a decision have proved controversial.
Whilst our statistics demonstrate that most complaints have not been upheld, there are some within the Commission who feel that I am not even-handed and that my decisions in certain cases are "…heavily weighted to the complainant" Commission officer . On the other hand, there are some complainants who have also felt that my decisions have been biased in favour of the Commission. This is the nature of independent review. One can do no more than look at each case on its own merits and provide as fair a judgement as possible. In the end, it is this independence of view from an ‘informed’ outsider that makes the process worthwhile. I am particularly grateful to all those who, regardless of the outcome of my review, have been kind enough to praise our service and recognise the time effort put in and the painstaking way in which we conduct reviews.
There have also been a number of complaint referrals about delay. Often this did not reflect dissatisfaction with specific instances of delay, although this did feature, but related to the overall length of time that it had taken the Commission to deal with matters. In some cases this was several years. These kinds of complaints are common to most Ombudsman and review services and remind us all of the need to be vigilant about the speed of our own response.
I am conscious that our review process has not always been as speedy as we would like it to be. This has been rightly criticised. "The review took a long time and a great deal of effort to conclude what was obvious in the first place". Commission officer. However, in looking to the future, I am hopeful that the Commission will accept its own role in providing its independent reviewer with appropriate staff resources to enable complaints to be turned around more quickly.
Complaints received by the Charity Commission can be challenging to resolve, can necessitate an extremely time consuming consideration of the files and the copious amounts of information provided by complainants. Some of these complaints might have been avoided if the Commission had been able to employ at the time the more robust procedures that it now has in place.
This year a change in the ICR procedures has enabled me to recommend consolatory payments in appropriate circumstances. Recommendations have not been for large amounts of money, given the requirement to remain within Treasury guidelines. However, complainants have welcomed these recommendations as a tangible recognition of the stress and anxiety that they have suffered as a consequence of the Commission’s handling of matters. Given the unusual nature of some complaints, it was agreed that there might be rare circumstances where payments might be made to the charity itself rather than to individuals. To date, I have recommended this only once.
As the pilot has progressed, there has been a more open-minded approach to complaints within the Commission and a greater willingness to accept that the Commission is not always right. As ever, I cannot overstate the power and importance of an early apology where things have not been handled as well as they might. It has the force to turn complaints into compliments. Finally, as I offer some examples of complaints referred to me during the pilot, it is as well to remember the vast majority of satisfied Charity Commission customers, who believe, with justification, that the Charity Commission delivers excellent service and excellent value for the charitable sector and for the public.
"The methodical way the case is set out in the report gives real satisfaction and … it is also rigorously accurate…." Complainant
Mr. A complained that the Commission was disinterested in the serious concerns that he had raised about two housing charities. This contrasted with the helpful response he said had been given on a previous occasion.
In fact, Mr. A had raised a series of complaints with the charities themselves. He had not been satisfied with the response of the charities and felt that the Commission should intervene to ensure that they responded appropriately to his correspondence. The Commission did contact the charities after hearing from Mr. A but was satisfied with their response and explained that it could not compel charities to reply to all the correspondence that they receive.
Mr. A believed that the Commission had been wrong to accept the charities’ version of events at face value and maintained that it was the Commission’s responsibility to ‘do something’.
The ICR did not uphold this complaint. She found that the Commission had dealt with matters properly and had responded to Mr. A in as helpful a way as it could, in the circumstances. She explained that it is beyond the Commission’s remit to act as a complaints service for individuals dissatisfied with the way that a specific charity has dealt with them.
Following an internal dispute within a religious charity, the Commission became involved after concerns were raised about its administration. Over a period of years, it sought to resolve ensuing problems and invoked a number of regulatory measures to seek to achieve this goal.
Though small, the charity was well known as a place of religious pilgrimage and historical interest and it received a steady flow of visitors throughout the year.
Over time, a community of like-minded people formed around the charity, living in and around the charity’s premises. In due course, the maintenance and enhancement of community life became an important focus of the charity’s work.
Mr. B, at various times, held different offices within the charity and put both time and money into the charity and the community. Wishing to place the community’s affairs on to a more businesslike footing, Mr. B asked a newcomer to the community, who had extensive
managerial experience, to take over the administration of the charity. In due course, this new trustee took over
as both treasurer and chairman and set about sorting out the charity’s accounts and other affairs.
The new chairman had concerns about the previous stewardship of the charity and, in due course, the members of the charity became polarised between the supporters of the previous and the new chairman. Eventually, the chairman turned to the Commission for help. The Commission initially tried to resolve matters informally, but was not successful. In the end, it invoked various regulatory steps, including formal inquiry, appointment of a receiver and manager and suspension and removal of trustees. During this time, an already complicated and intractable situation became more difficult to resolve following the commencement of court proceedings.
After several years, a new trustee body was appointed which did not include either Mr. B or his successor. Over time, the community dispersed.
Mr. B had numerous serious complaints about the Commission’s handling of this case. He complained that the Commission had made decisions relating to and about him without seeking his views. Amongst other matters, he also complained that the Commission had reneged on various undertakings that it had given; that inappropriate and defamatory remarks had been made about him; that it had improperly ruled out the possibility of mediation and that it had acted improperly in advising the new trustees about his involvement with the charity.
The ICR upheld a number of the complaints that Mr. B made. She found that it was unreasonable not to have sought the complainant’s views on issues that it was considering and his response to allegations that had been made about him. Further, the Commission had not followed through on all its undertakings, however, she acknowledged that this had been an extremely difficult matter for the Commission to handle and that it had in the main tried to deal with this matter fairly and equitably.
The ICR also found that inappropriate remarks had been made about Mr. B. She acknowledged that, during the internal complaint review, the Commission had apologised for this. However, the ICR criticised the Commission for not apologising earlier when this matter had been brought to its attention.
The ICR did not uphold the complaint that the Commission had ruled out mediation. In her opinion, it had been for the parties to the dispute to agree to mediation and, when this did not happen, mediation could not take place.
The ICR found that the Commission had changed tack on a number of occasions. Of particular concern was a decision taken ‘behind closed doors’ without reasons being given. This did not accord with the Commission’s duty to make decisions in a transparent manner.
The ICR did not uphold the complaint that the Commission had offered inappropriate advice to the new trustees as the Commission was entitled to offer advice as part of its statutory responsibility. In any event, it was for the trustees to decide upon what action to take.
In conclusion, the ICR considered that overall this case was poorly handled by the Commission. The ICR recommended that the Commission offer further apologies to Mr. B and a consolatory payment. She made a number of systemic recommendations aimed at resolving the shortcomings in the Commission’s practice and procedure that the complaint had highlighted.
Mr. C complained about the Commission’s approval of a donation made by a charity towards improvements to a property owned by the local parish council. According to Mr. C, the parish council and its councillors were inappropriately associated with the charity as, for example, a number of councillors served as trustees. He was of the view that this close relationship between the charity and the council gave rise to conflicts of interest between meeting the charity’s objects and the council’s role.
The Commission looked into the matter but was broadly satisfied with the way in which the charity was set up and it confirmed that it had given some advice on the question of the donation. It had decided that it was inappropriate to take any further action in respect of the issues that Mr. C had raised.
The ICR did not uphold Mr. C’s complaints. The ICR explained that the Commission is unable to interfere in the internal administration of a charity, other than in an advisory capacity, unless and until it decides that serious problems exist which require regulatory intervention. She found that the Commission had reached its decision in this case after taking full account of everything that Mr. C had said. She also found that the Commission had responded in considerable detail to each and every point that he had made, explaining its reasoning in clear and unequivocal terms.
Following an incident in a supermarket, Mr. D contacted a charity, which provided a counselling and support service for individuals accused of shoplifting. Mr. D strenuously denied the allegations made against him and he hoped that the charity would be able to help him obtain redress from the supermarket. However, when it became apparent to him that the charity was not offering him assistance, he complained to the Commission. He asked whether it could help him obtain copies of the charity’s correspondence with the supermarket and report on its actions, so that he could decide what to do next.
The Commission sought the charity’s comments. The charity responded by telephone and the Commission then put the matter aside. Several weeks later, Mr. D made contact again to find out what was going on. In its response, the Commission told him the charity had done more than it was required to do in trying to broker an agreement between him and the supermarket. The Commission recommended that Mr. D seek legal advice.
In response, Mr. D pointed out that this had not been the purpose of his contact with the charity. He was angered that it had sought to broker any agreement, as he had no wish for this to happen. He also complained that the Commission had failed to deal with his requests.
In due course, this matter was referred to the Customer Service Manager, who wrote to Mr. D to explain the Commission’s role in providing guidance and support to charity trustees and in investigating possible abuses of charity law or breaches of trust. He concluded that there was very little that the Commission could do to intervene in the issue between Mr. D and the charity. He also apologised that the Commission had not explained this earlier. Since the Commission was unable to become involved in the situation between Mr. D and the supermarket, he suggested that Mr. D consider reverting to the charity to ask for information or to seek alternative help that it might be able to offer.
Mr. D was extremely dissatisfied with this response and he complained to the ICR. He complained that the Commission had misunderstood and mishandled his request for its assistance and that delays on the Commission’s part had weakened his case against the supermarket and reduced his chances of obtaining redress.
The ICR upheld the complaint that the Commission had failed to respond to the specific issues raised by Mr. D. In fact, there was little that the Commission could have done to assist but it had given Mr. D the erroneous impression that it had been ‘following through’ on matters. This was misleading and he should have been told at an early stage about the limitations of the Commission’s role.
The ICR also upheld Mr. D’s complaint about delay. She found that, after the Commission’s contact with the charity, the file was ignored for some months until Mr. D contacted the Commission. However, the ICR accepted that the Commission had already acknowledged that this was unacceptable and it had apologised to Mr. D. This constituted a reasonable response to this complaint.
The ICR recognised that, Mr. D’s was now no further forward than he had been before. However, she did not find that it could be criticised for weakening Mr. D’s case against the supermarket. The question of whether Mr. D was entitled to redress from the supermarket was a matter between them.
The ICR recommended that the Commission apologise to Mr. D for the shortcomings identified and further recommended a consolatory payment in recognition of the stress and anxiety that he suffered as a result of the Commission’s maladministration. She also recommended that the Commission review its information leaflets and internal guidance to ensure that individuals who want the Commission to champion their complaints against individual charities are made aware of the Commission’s role at an early stage.
Mrs. E was elected as Chair of Trustees for a charity that runs a pre-school service. Shortly after her election, she found what she believed were irregularities in its financial administration.
She sought advice on these matters from the Commission. In due course, she was removed as Chair following a ‘no confidence’ vote. She contacted the Commission again to ask that it investigate her allegations but, in due course, complained that its investigation was ineffective. She further complained that the Commission’s response to her had not been consistent with that given to the charity. In particular, she had been told the Commission would ‘keep an eye’ on matters, whilst the charity was informed that the Commission would take no further action. She also refused to accept that financial and administrative considerations were acceptable reasons for not taking matters further.
The ICR found that the Commission had explained the limits of its role to Mrs. E. It had been sufficiently concerned by the issues raised by her to write to the trustees to seek their comments. The Commission wrote to the charity, identifying and asking for a response to each of the points raised by Mrs. E. After considering the charity’s response, the Commission had written back to say that no further action would be taken.
The ICR concluded that Mrs. E’s concerns had been handled in accordance with standard practice and procedure and that the Commission had explained its role in such matters early on. She also found that the Commission had given appropriate advice to the charity on its administration and on good practice, in relation to issues that Mrs. E had raised and had suggested improvements in practice.
The ICR found that the Commission had intended to visit the charity after a suitable period, to see whether it had implemented the recommended changes. It had not explained this either to the charity or to Mrs. E clearly. Had it done so, this complaint might not have arisen.
The ICR did not uphold Mrs. E’s complaint about the Commission’s reasons for not taking further action and accepted that the Commission has a responsibility to use public money carefully and proportionately to the circumstances of a case.
Mr. F was a member of the local branch and club of a national charity. After raising numerous concerns about the running of the branch and club both internally and publicly, he was suspended from membership of the club. Mr. F complained to the Commission about his suspension, which he considered unfair and also raised his concerns about the branch and club. He asked the Commission to uphold and enforce his right to attend branch meetings.
Mr. F was dissatisfied with the Commission’s response to his complaints. He complained to the ICR about excessive delay and about the Commission’s alleged failure to take any effective action. He also complained that the Commission had acted inappropriately in accepting the charity’s view of matters too readily and in failing to take proper account of what he had to say. Finally, Mr. F refused to accept the Commission’s assertion that it could not consider doing anything about the running of the club, which was not a registered charity.
The ICR did not uphold Mr. F’s complaint about the Commission’s actions. The ICR found that the Commission had taken full and proper account of everything that Mr. F had said and had explained clearly why it considered it was not able to take his complaints about the club further. The Commission had also sought to facilitate a compromise between Mr. F and the branch, but this proved not to be possible. The ICR found that the Commission had tried to be helpful by seeking a compromise but was not able to compel the branch or the charity to change their views or decisions.
The ICR partially upheld Mr. F’s complaint about delay. She found that there had been a number of occasions when there had been excessive and unreasonable delays in the Commission’s handling of matters and she criticised the Commission for this and for not keeping Mr. F properly informed as this matter progressed. However, she acknowledged that Mr. F had written a considerable number of letters to the Commission, many of which were very lengthy and raised issues to which it was not possible to respond immediately.
The ICR criticised the Commission for the very long period of time it took to progress matters overall. In part, she considered that this delay was due to the Commission’s failure to be clear with Mr. F about what it could and could not do and to a general lack of focus in its overall handling of the matter. In the ICR’s view, this raised the unrealistic expectation that continued correspondence might achieve Mr. F’s objective, whereas this had never been likely.
Mr. G was a past member of the management committee of a charity that was responsible for running a religious institution. He had a number of concerns about the charity’s administration, which he brought to the Commission’s attention. He found the Commission’s response ineffective and he feared for the charity’s future. He complained that the Commission failed to take appropriate action to address his complaints that the charity was guilty of racial harassment towards him and of breaches of human rights. Finally, he complained that the Commission had failed to disclose its correspondence with the charity, thereby preventing its members from being able to scrutinise what had happened.
The ICR found that, in order to investigate Mr. G’s concerns, there had been considerable correspondence and a meeting between the Commission and the charity. The Commission had eventually concluded that the best way forward was for it to offer advice to the charity on certain changes to its constitution. The ICR was satisfied that this decision had been reached after long and careful consideration of the issues and that the Commission had taken full and proper account of Mr. G’s concerns.
With regard to his complaints about the way in which he had been treated personally by the charity, the ICR accepted that it had not been appropriate for the Commission to intervene directly in the dispute. Mr. G’s allegations of racial harassment and human rights breaches were more properly matters for the police and the courts.
Mr. H was involved with a charity providing help and support to sufferers of specific learning difficulties. Mr. H suffered from this condition himself.
He raised a large number of detailed concerns about the administration and management of the charity. When he failed to get these addressed to his satisfaction within the charity, he complained to the Commission. However, when he did so, he found his complaint was not acknowledged and that the response he received failed to address many of the issues he had raised. He also complained that the Commission failed to follow its own complaints procedure and that its response to his complaints mocked his disability.
The ICR upheld the complaint that the Commission failed to explain its role properly. She found that the Commission had become entangled in the ongoing debate between Mr. H and the charity. It had not explained that, in practical terms, it could not enforce a settlement. However, ultimately, the Regional Operations Manager had apologised for these failings. The ICR found that this had constituted a reasonable response to the complaints.
With regard to Mr. H’s complaints about the Commission’s internal complaints procedure, the ICR found that there had been some confusion on the Commission's part. Although, Mr. H did eventually receive a response from the Regional Operations Manager, as required by the procedure, much of the correspondence relating to their complaints was handled as general casework, rather than as a complaint. This confusion was mainly due a proliferation of correspondence and contacts with several Commission officers.
In due course, the complaints were referred to the Regional Operations Manager for review. Mr. H criticised this because the procedure outlines an earlier stage of review by the Customer Service Manager. The ICR found that the Commission’s action was appropriate, given that he had complained about his contact with the Customer Service Manager. This approach was reasonable, demonstrated flexibility and, in the event, shortcut the process.
The ICR did not uphold Mr. H’s complaint that he had been mocked for his disability. After thorough review, she could not find any objective evidence to support this allegation. Finally, the ICR found that the Commission had taken all of Mr. H’s concerns fully into account and had considered them all properly and seriously.
Mr. I had a number of serious concerns about a charity, which he had sporadically raised with the Commission over several years. He felt that the Commission could and should have done more to look into these matters. He contacted the ICR to complain about what he saw as the Commission’s intransigence.
On contacting the Commission, initially, the Commission said it appeared that Mr. I had not been in touch with the Commission before. However, it transpired that the files containing the original correspondence had been destroyed some time before in accordance with the Commission’s policy. Mr. I was able to produce copies of all of the relevant correspondence.
Whilst the ICR’s procedures provide that complaints must be considered internally prior to independent review, Mr. I was unhappy with this as he was sceptical that the Commission would look into the matter properly. After considerable discussion, he agreed that his complaint should be reviewed internally before independent review.
Mr. J was a minister of religion and was involved in a local institution with charitable status. A dispute had arisen within the charity in which the Commission had become involved; it had ended up instituting a new scheme to resolve some of the problems. It had also sought to resolve the remaining difficulties.
Mr. J complained about a number of matters, including that the Commission had, at times, adopted an unacceptable attitude and, without cause, had threatened to have him declared unfit to be a trustee, taking no account of the detrimental effect that this would have upon him.
By the time that he complained to the ICR, a number of Mr. J’s complaints had already been investigated and responded to by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. His review had concluded that these complaints were unjustified in some respects, misconceived in others and the remainder were outside of his jurisdiction. In view of the Ombudsman’s prior review, the ICR was not able to review these particular complaints, as the Ombudsman represents the final stage of the complaints procedure.
However, the ICR decided that she was able to review Mr. J’s complaints about the way that it had dealt with him in relation to its alleged threatening behaviour. It was clear that Mr. J had been greatly upset by what he saw as the Commission’s attitude towards him. It was also clear that the issues the Commission was asked to consider were highly emotive and contentious. In the ICR’s view, this placed a particular responsibility on all concerned to act in a professional and courteous manner.
The ICR considered that the Commission had been both clear and unequivocal in explaining its views and proposals to Mr. J (views with which he did not agree). However, the ICR could not find any objective evidence that the Commission’s intention was to ‘bully’ him. The Commission denied that it had threatened to have him declared unfit to be a trustee. However, it accepted that there had been a frank and somewhat heated telephone conversation, during which the impression might have mistakenly been given that this was the Commission’s intention.
The ICR found that the Commission had written to Mr. J to set the record straight on this point. In view of this, the ICR did not uphold this complaint. Nevertheless, she recommended that the Commission apologise to Mr. J for the misunderstanding that arose and for not recognising the genuine nature of the distress and anxiety that Mr. J expressed.
Mr. K was a past trustee of a religious charity. He became concerned about a number of aspects of the charity’s activities and organisation, which he raised with the Commission in an effort to secure its intervention to help get the charity back on the right track. However, Mr. K considered that the Commission had failed to take the appropriate action to address these issues and had also failed to understand the personal problems that he had faced as a result of his dealings with the charity. He further complained that the Commission had taken too long to deal with this matter and had not told him of his right to refer his complaint to the ICR.
The ICR’s investigation revealed that this matter had generated a huge amount of correspondence, which spanned several years. The files demonstrated that there had been a bitter and protracted dispute within the charity, during which strong accusations had been made on all sides. The tone of some of the correspondence had been both insulting and provocative and, whether or not this was justified, it certainly made matters much harder to resolve.
The ICR concluded that the Commission had taken full account of everything that Mr. K had said and had acted upon it when it considered that appropriate. However, the ICR found that the extraordinary time and resource that the Commission had devoted to this matter was inappropriate. The Commission had told Mr. K repeatedly that it could not interfere in the internal affairs of the charity but, in effect, that was exactly what the Commission had been doing over several years.
However, the ICR found that in dealing with his complaint, the Commission had taken all necessary steps to understand Mr. K’ concerns. There had been numerous lengthy discussions with Mr. K, during which he had been given ample opportunity to put his point of view. The ICR found that there had been some instances of delay in the Commission’s handling of this matter. However, the frequency with which Mr. K contacted the Commission and the effect of his corresponding with different officers at more or less the same time, made it very hard for the Commission to respond in a timely and helpful fashion. Furthermore, officers had shown considerable forbearance in dealing with him, despite instances of unacceptable discourtesy on his part.
The ICR upheld Mr. K’ complaint that he was not informed about the independent complaints review process. The ICR recommended that the Commission ensure that all future final correspondence contains the appropriate ‘signposts’.
A bequest of land was made to the residents of a town for the provision and maintenance of a recreation ground. The task of administering the bequest was allotted to the local council but, according to Mr. L, it failed to maintain the land properly and had proposed a development on the site despite considerable ‘local’ opposition.
The Commission was asked to consider the status of the trusts under which the land was held. It decided that the land was held on a charitable trust and, shortly after, a charitable scheme was drawn up and the council was confirmed as the sole trustee.
Mr. L complained that the Commission failed to take proper account of the importance of the benefactor’s family or the beneficiaries having some say in the running of the charity. Given his view of the history of the council’s stewardship of the land, he was worried that there were insufficient safeguards in the new scheme.
The ICR concluded that it was outside of her remit to look into the decisions that the Commission had made in this matter, which had been reached under its statutory powers. However, she did look into the way in which the Commission had proceeded, and concluded that the Commission had acted reasonably and in accordance with its usual practice and procedure. She also commented that the Commission had taken care to ensure that the Council fully understood its responsibilities regarding the land and had taken all necessary steps to inform and consult with the local community.
Mr. M was dissatisfied with the Commission’s handling of matters regarding two associated religious charities that had been riven by long-running internal disputes.
Although the case touched upon matters that the Commission is often required to consider (such as financial management and trustee disputes), it was further complicated by a doctrinal issue. This related to the question of the purpose for which the charities were established. In essence, the charities had been formed to oppose steps towards union of the charities’ parent church with another church. Although this union did not in the end go ahead, the issue remained ‘live’ and, some years later, discussions were resumed between the respective churches.
In Mr. M’ view, the charities were the only true voice of the faith. He felt that some aspects of the Commission’s actions had the effect of pushing the charities in the direction of the parent church. The charities’ governing documents required its members to be adherents of the parent church. Mr. M argued that, in effect, this now went against the true intention of the founders of the charity and that the Commission should take their wishes into account.
The Commission argued that it was not competent to pronounce on doctrinal issues and had to deal with the situation and the charities’ governing documents as they were. Its duty was to give effect to the governing documents and to do what it could to establish a secure future for them. The ICR found that it had sought to do this in the appropriate manner.
Mr. M had a number of other complaints about the Commission. These included unreasonable delay, failure to take proper account of the points that he had made and that the impartiality of the receiver and manager who had been appointed was open to question.
The ICR partially upheld his complaint about delay and found several instances of unacceptable delay in dealing with matters. However, the Commission had been faced with a complex and vexatious dispute in which the parties held firm and irreconcilable views. This, in itself, had the effect of slowing progress considerably and it was often beyond the Commission’s ability to move things along.
The ICR found that the Commission had taken full account of everything that Mr. M had said. It had not responded to each and every point that had been made (which would not have been possible or reasonable given the huge number of submissions from him and others), but it had taken them all into account.
In relation to the appointment of the receiver and manager, Mr. M complained that there was a conflict of interest, since the same firm acted for the parent church. The ICR did not comment upon this specific case but recommended that the Commission review its tendering procedures to assure public confidence.
Mrs. N was the Chairman of a small charity founded for the purposes of relieving human suffering and distress through natural or alternative therapies. In an attempt to bring in some ‘new blood’ to the trustee body, a new trustee, Mr. A was appointed. The intention was that he would advise on administration. He formed the view that the charity was not being run properly in certain respects and raised his concerns with the Commission. The Commission wrote to him seeking further information and he copied this letter to his colleagues, who were upset by this turn of events.
Over time, the dispute between Mr. A and his colleagues intensified to the point where he was no longer invited to committee meetings. However, he remained a trustee because the charity’s governing instrument did not contain any provision for trustees to be removed.
Ultimately, an impasse was reached. The original trustees were adamant about the need to sever their links with him but they could not do this without a change in the governing document. On the other hand, Mr. A continued to insist that he remain a trustee and wanted to participate.
The Commission’s visited the charity. After this, it was concluded that there not been any serious breaches of trust and that the charity was operating well and doing good work. Some suggestions were made as to how administration might be improved which the trustees accepted.
The trustees took this to be a ‘clean bill of health’ for the charity and they immediately demanded that Mr. A resign. He refused and appealed to the Commission that he was still being denied the opportunity to act as a trustee. However, he gave the Commission the impression that, if he were invited to a meeting, he would resign. Matters continued without resolution and the Commission pointed out that whilst he remained a validly appointed trustee, he had a legal right to attend trustee meetings. It suggested to the trustees that by denying him this right they could be in breach of trust. Later, the Commission went further by suggesting that refusal to invite him to meetings might result in consideration of a formal inquiry.
It was suggested that the trustees seek mediation. The mediation service suggested that what was needed was a new scheme that would allow the situation to be resolved. A draft scheme was drawn up but the Commission would not approve it, because it saw it as a device for ousting Mr. A. In the event, the Commission suggested inserting a clause that would require the trustees to seek its consent to any changes to the trustee body.
By the time the trustees complained to the ICR, the situation remained unresolved. They complained that the Commission should have done something more practical to help sort matters out and that it had displayed bias in favour of Mr. A. They also complained that some of the Commission’s correspondence with them had been inappropriately aggressive and threatening in its tone.
The ICR partially upheld the complaint. She found that the Commission had initially taken appropriate action to deal with concerns raised and had acted within normal practice and procedure. However, as time had gone on, it had adopted a more intransigent view of the matter. The trustees felt that the Commission ‘took up the cudgels’ on behalf of the new trustee by its apparent endorsement of his view that they needed to be monitored, despite the mainly positive assessment made of the charity. The ICR accepted that the Commission was not biased but found that this impression had been given.
The ICR upheld the complaint about the inappropriate tone of certain correspondence, which, in the circumstances, had the effect of exacerbating the dispute. The ICR recommended that the Commission offer an apology and a consolatory payment to the trustees.