OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE

NAMES OF CHARITIES

MISLEADING NAMES

OG18 C2 - 29 June 2001

Purpose: This guidance explains when for the purposes of s.6 of the 1993 Act a name might be considered likely to mislead in terms of misrepresenting a charity's purposes or activities (subsection 2(b)) or its status (subsection (2)(c)) or give a false impression of a charity's connections (subsection (2)(d)).

Divisional responsibility

For action:

Charity Support Division
Charity Database Division
Investigation Division
Registration Division

Contents

1. General approach to s.6(2)(b)-(d)
2. Name likely to mislead as to purpose or activities (s.6(2)(b))
3. Where a name includes a specified word or expression (s.6(2)(c))
4. Name likely to give an impression of a particular connection (s.6(2)(d))

Meaning of expressions - list of Glossary terms used in this Guidance
Index to further related information

1. General approach to s.6(2)(b)-(d)

Beforeany of the powers under subsections (2)(b)-(d) can be exercised an opinion has to be reached on whether or not the use of a name is likely to have particular consequences. In assessing this we should consider:

• The effect the use of the name might have on a reasonable member of the public who is no more familiar with the charity world than the average person and who comes across the name in an ordinary situation in daily life; and

• whether (in these circumstances) the use by a charity of the name in question might mislead that person as to the true nature of the purposes or activities of the charity (in the case of subsection (2)(b)) or of its status (in the case of subsection (2)(c)) or give a false impression of the charity's connections (in the case of subsection (2)(d)).

In deciding whether a name might have such an effect:

• there need not already have been identified cases where it has had that effect nor need there have been any representations made to us.

2. Name likely to mislead as to purpose or activities (s.6(2)(b))

The names of many charities say nothing about the purposes set out in their governing document or their activities (they are not required to) and so do not mislead.

A name that says nothing about purposes or activities will therefore usually be acceptable provided it is not the same as or too similar to that of another charity and does not offend or give a false impression of its connections. However a name can be said to mislead if it can make an average person believe that the charity:

• has other purposes or activities than is actually the case; or

• pursues some of its purposes or activities in preference to others when it does not.

Again where a charity's name relates only to minor purposes or activities there may be a case for seeking a change of name on the grounds that the public might well be misled in to thinking that these minor purposes or activities were the charity's principal or only ones.

3. Where a name includes a specified word or expression (s.6(2)(c))

The Charities (Misleading Names) Regulations 1992 specify certain words and expressions which may be misleading if included in a charity's name. These are listed in OG 18 D1.

Where the name of a charity includes one of those words or expressions it should be considered whether it misdescribes the charity or implies some attribute authority or standing which it does not possess and if it does whether this is likely to mislead the public.

It is important to recognise in this context that the name must be likely to mislead; the fact that a name simply includes one of the listed words is not sufficient reason in itself to require a change.

It should also be noted that the word "status" in s.6(2)(c) does not have the meaning of "charitable status" but is intended in its more general sense ie of position condition or standing.

Where a charity name includes one of the "specified" words or expressions and there are no grounds for any objection (having considered the application of s.6) then no formal consent on our part is required - unless the charity's governing document specifically requires it.

In considering the acceptable use of terms denoting national status (eg National British Welsh) we would expect an organisation to be genuinely national in its operations and not restricted to any one part of the country concerned.

It is accepted however that an organisation wanting to operate on a truly nationwide basis may initially lack the capability to do so. Such an organisation might well suffer in trying to extend its influence if it was forced to call itself by a regional name. We should not therefore object to the use of a national description unless there are good grounds for doing so - eg that the charity is clearly omitting operation in a given area.

Before deciding not to give a direction to change a name which includes a specified word or expression we do not (unlike Companies House) usually seek any supporting evidence (either from the trustees or from any independent source) that the use of the specified word is not misleading whether in terms of an organisation's national standing or "pre-eminence" or "status" within its chosen field or otherwise.

However before we do give a name change direction on this basis we should give the trustees the opportunity to show why the use of the specified word is not misleading.

4. Name likely to give an impression of a particular connection (s.6(2)(d))

A charity may not adopt a name which suggests a connection with (and therefore endorsement by) theGovernment a local authority any other body of persons or an individual. An implied association with a well known popular figure (such as a sportsman or an actor) or with another charity (whether incorporated or unincorporated registered or unregistered) would fall into this category unless it were genuine.

The intention is to protect the public from being misled about a charity's connections. Our starting point is therefore that any intervention by us must be justified by that objective.

Our interpretation of s.6(2)(d) is that the implied association will cover circumstances where one charity gives an impression of a connection with another. This could arise where two or more names are considered so similar as to cause public confusion and seriously mislead by giving an impression of a connection where there is none.

A direction to change a charity's name in these circumstances could be given after the name was entered in the Register. The time restriction found in s.6(2)(a) would not apply even though the charity which is to be the subject of the direction is registered.

It should be borne in mind that the fact that a few individuals may have formed a particular impression of a connection does not in itself demonstrate that a name is likely to give rise to such an impression in a wider public context.

Before making a direction we should therefore try to make a realistic assessment of the likely degree of confusion involved including asking:

• whether (and in what circumstances) confusion has already arisen;

• what damage or loss to the complainant charity and its beneficiaries is estimated as a result of this (and continuing) confusion?

• whether the charity's name is of great significance to its supporters?

It is emphasised that a "connection" could cover an implied link with the British Government or with any other government including the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales.

The following words and phrases are defined in the Glossary of Terms:

•
•
•

1993 Act
Governing document
Trustees

Go to: Index to further related information