Charity Inquiry: Hope House School Limited
Published 7 March 2022
Applies to England and Wales
© Crown copyright 2022
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-inquiry-hope-house-school-limited/charity-inquiry-hope-house-school-limited
The charity
The charity was registered with the Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) on 10 October 2007. It is governed by a Memorandum and Articles of Association incorporated on 28 March 2007 as amended on 29 July 2019.
The charity operates a small independent school catering for approximately 25 pupils with special educational needs. At the time the inquiry was opened the objects of the charity were:
“To advance the education of children between the ages of 5 and 19 years old who suffer from neurological and psychological conditions such as, but not limited to, Opltz syndrome, Autistic Spectrum Disorders, Asperges Syndrome and Dyspraxia in such exclusive charitable ways as the trustees in their absolute discretion consider fit.”
During the course of the inquiry the charity applied for, and the Commission authorised, the amendment of its objects and in addition to the above it now educates and supports people of all ages with autism and related conditions and provides relief for sibling’s parents and carers of children suffering from autism and other related conditions through advice, advocacy and practical support.
The charity’s entry can be found on the register of charities. (‘the register’)
Background
On 25 July 2016 the Commission opened a compliance case into the charity following receipt of an anonymous complaint which made allegations that trustee A [footnote 1] was receiving personal benefit from the charity in the form of family holidays and designer handbags. It was further alleged that the finances of the charity were under the control of one particular trustee and that there was a lack of independent trustees, as it was alleged that the trustees were friends or relatives of trustee A. Trustee A was the founder of the school and was the self-appointed Principal in a voluntary capacity from 2010 until September 2016 after which she received less than market value remuneration for the role of Principal [footnote 2].
The Commission obtained banking information both from the charity and from its bank using its power under section 52 of the Charites Act 2011 (‘the Act’) for the period November 2016 to June 2017. An analysis of this information raised regulatory concerns about whether funds were being applied in furtherance of the charity’s objects and highlighted payments being made to the husband of trustee A.
On 7 September 2017 the Commission met with all but one of the trustees during a books and records inspection that was held at the charity’s premises. The only records available were for 2017. The explanation provided regarding some of the expenditure for 2017 did not satisfy the Commission that funds had been spent in furtherance of the charity’s objects.
The inquiry
Due to the Commission’s serious regulatory concerns that there was or had been mismanagement and/or misconduct in the administration of the charity, the compliance case was escalated to a statutory inquiry on 9 October 2017 under section 46 of the Act.
The issues under investigation were:
- whether the financial controls of the charity were adequate, and its funds have been properly expended solely in furtherance of its charitable objects
- whether the trustees had exercised sufficient oversight and control of the charity
- whether potential conflicts of interest and connected party transactions had been properly managed
- whether there had been any unauthorised trustee benefit
On 5 December 2019 the Commission notified the trustees that the substantive phase of its inquiry had been closed.
On 6 March 2020 the Commission was alerted to an Ofsted inspection of the residential school run by the charity that had taken place between 28 – 30 January 2020. The outcome of the inspection was that both the main school and the charity’s residential facility received ‘inadequate’ ratings with a number of causes for concern being highlighted by Ofsted including safeguarding.
As safeguarding was not within the scope of the inquiry the Commission determined that it was necessary and proportionate to re-open the substantive phase of the inquiry to investigate further the Ofsted findings and concerns relating to safeguarding.
The substantive phase of the inquiry was closed for the second time on 10 February 2021 and the inquiry closed with the publication of this report.
The original investigative phase of the inquiry is referred to as ‘Part A’ in this report and the re-opened investigative phase is referred to as ‘Part B’.
Findings Part A
The inquiry sought information and explanations from the trustees, two of whom resigned on 1 January and 22 May 2018 respectively. The majority of the inquiry’s engagement during the original investigative phase was with the three remaining trustees, referred to in this report as trustee A, trustee B and trustee C.
As a result of the inquiry’s concerns over the potential risk to assets and mismanagement and/or misconduct by the trustees, Mr Guy Hollander of Mazars was appointed as an Interim Manager (‘IM’) to the exclusion of the trustees on 20 August 2018 (see Interim Manager section below).
The trustees fully co-operated with the inquiry and with the Interim Manager (‘the IM’) after his appointment by providing timely information, regular updates and complying with interviews and questions put to them. Prior to the appointment of the IM the trustees ensured the effective day to day running of the school and during the IM’s appointment trustee A continued to act as Principal of the school ensuring the educational needs of the beneficiaries continued to be met.
Whether the financial controls of the charity were adequate, and its funds have been properly expended solely in furtherance of its charitable objects
Financial controls
The inquiry identified that the charity’s financial controls policy, prior to its revision in November 2017, required that two trustees sign any cheques issued over £1,000. The inquiry obtained evidence from the charity’s bank in the form of copy cheques which demonstrated that trustee A breached this policy by being the sole signatory on a number of cheques for over £1,000.
The financial controls policy provided to the Commission records the date upon which it was revised alongside the name of the ‘user’. It is stated that trustee A was the ‘user’ for each revision of this document that took place prior to the Commission opening its inquiry. This indicates that trustee A ought to have had an awareness of the policy given (a) her role as trustee and also (b) the role trustee A appears to have played in revising its content. The inquiry found the breaches of the financial controls policy to be misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.
The trustees present at the books and records inspection held on 7 September 2017, confirmed to Commission officers that all cheques over £1,000 were signed by two signatories. This raised concerns that either false or misleading information may have been knowingly and recklessly supplied to the Commission, or that some trustees have exercised insufficient oversight over the financial controls of the charity. Should the trustees have been aware that cheques over £1,000 had been signed solely by trustee A, their statements at the books and records inspection constituted misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.
However, the above evidences the possibility that the trustees, aside from Trustee A, were unaware that Trustee A has been breaching the charity’s internal financial controls. This would confirm that that they did not have adequate supervision of the administration of the charity and were in breach of their duties to manage the charity’s resources responsibly.
Payments to the husband of trustee A
The inquiry identified payments to the husband of trustee A for the repayment of a purported loan of £121,000, said to be made by him to the charity between 2003 and 2009. The inquiry found very few supporting historical records to evidence that a loan had been made. At the point the inquiry identified these payments the accounting records were inadequate, and the purported loan significantly impacted the financial position of the charity, making it potentially insolvent.
The inquiry found that payments had been made to the husband of trustee A for expenditure including hairdressing appointments, concerts and weekend trips away incurred by trustee A. Trustees A, B and C’s explanation was that they were satisfied that such expenditure could be paid for directly from the charity’s bank account and be offset against the repayment of the purported loan. The inquiry identified a number of transactions recorded as direct repayments of the purported loan to the husband of trustee A. The inquiry was not satisfied with the trustees’ explanations that all repayments of the purported loan could not be made directly and recorded as such.
The inquiry found the trustees had recorded some expenditure including hairdressing appointments and the purchase of suitcases for trustee A as being funded by the husband of trustee A. The trustees’ record keeping was inadequate and could not clearly explain this expenditure, raising concerns that there had been unauthorised personal benefit/ misapplication of the charity’s funds.
The trustees informed the inquiry that the original loan was made to a previous unincorporated charity Hope House School, (registered charity number 1100310) which was registered on 24 October 2003 and removed from the register on 21 March 2011 (‘the unincorporated charity’).
Previously submitted accounts for both the unincorporated charity (for the financial years ended 31 March 2008 and 2009) and the charity (financial years ended 31 March 2011 – 2016 inclusive) did not disclose the existence of the purported loan. All the trustees and former trustees should have taken steps to ensure that the accounts were sufficiently accurate to fully disclose the charity’s financial position by ensuring the purported loan was accounted for.
The charity’s auditor told the inquiry that in his view, funding had been provided from the husband of trustee A in the form of donations and not a loan. Trustee A disputed this. The inquiry found the loan was not recorded in the accounts for the nine-month period 1 April 2016 – 31 December 2016. The inquiry further found that the loan was not recorded in the accounts for the financial years ended 2011 – 2017 inclusive, all of which were signed off by trustee A.
The inquiry sought to obtain further information about the purported loan by directing the trustees and one former trustee individually under section 47 of the Act to provide a statutory declaration to evidence the purported loan and their knowledge of it. Documents submitted by each trustee included two special resolutions dated 10 and 20 July 2007 respectively. Both of these resolutions referred to the dissolution and transfer of assets and liabilities from the unincorporated charity to the charity.
These documents did not come to the attention of the inquiry until received with the statutory declarations in April 2018. They were not available for inspection when the Commission visited the charity on 7 September 2017 and 24 November 2017. Both documents bore the registration number of the charity which was not registered until 10 October 2007. The registration number did not exist on the dates the special resolutions were made. This raised concerns that the documents may have been produced after the event to create the impression that the charity had records supporting the purported loan and the liability to repay it.
The inquiry had serious concerns that there was a risk that funds were being used to make further repayments in respect of the purported loan and that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that such a loan was ever made and therefore the repayments in respect of the purported loan may have been a misapplication of the charity’s funds.
The inquiry’s concerns were shared by the auditor. The accounts for the FYE 31 December 2016 contained a qualified opinion on the basis that the auditor had been unable to confirm the company had kept adequate accounting records and that because of the purported loan those accounts showed an insolvent position.
Immediately upon appointment the IM suspended all further payments to the husband of trustee A in relation to the purported loan while further investigation was undertaken. The IM did not find any additional documentary evidence to support the purported loan had been made.
Parallel to the above enquires that were being made regarding the purported loan the IM also considered the role that the husband of trustee A had at the school. Due to him having carried out a substantial period of volunteering at the school, the IM obtained legal advice which confirmed the husband of trustee A had accrued employment rights [footnote 3] for which he was entitled to backpay and a salary going forward. The IM went on to negotiate a Settlement Agreement whereby the disputed funds were to be treated as a donation and all future loan payments ceased and all payments previously made were not required to be repaid.
Acting outside of its objects
At the time the inquiry was opened the charity’s objects were:
“To advance the education of children between the ages of 5 and 19 years old who suffer from neurological and psychological conditions such as, but not limited to, Opitz syndrome, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome and Dyspraxia, in such exclusive charitable ways as the trustees in their absolute discretion consider fit.”
The inquiry found the trustees had expended funds renovating part of the school site to create a residential facility for respite care. This represented a breach of trust as this activity was not in furtherance of the charity’s objects at that time.
The lease for the school site specified that the permitted use was for the education of children in the school (as per the charity’s governing document). There was nothing in the lease to suggest that the premises could be used for respite care. The trustees were risking being in breach of the terms of the lease, the consequences of which potentially risked the day to day operation of the charity.
The inquiry identified that the charity paid the rent and utility bills on a flat occupied by a former beneficiary. The inquiry established that this individual had previously resided with trustee A and her husband. The inquiry found that payments of this nature were not in furtherance of the charity’s object and were a misapplication of charity funds and therefore misconduct and/or mismanagement of the charity.
Whether the trustees have exercised sufficient oversight and control of the charity
The inquiry found that trustees B and C and other former trustees did not exercise sufficient oversight and control over the day-to-day management and administration of the charity. Trustees B and C and other former trustees were over reliant on trustee A who at the relevant time was the school principal. Trustee A was able to take decisions that were in breach of the charity’s own financial control policy. The inquiry also found that the trustees and other former trustees failed to manage conflicts of interest that arose by allowing trustee A to sign cheques made out to family members and by allowing trustee A and members of her family to take part in a number of school trips including overseas trips.
The inquiry found that the trustees and some former trustees risked the future of the charity. They allowed the lease on the school site to expire after expending significant sums (the charity’s accounts for the years ended 31 December 2016 and 2017 record £102,447 and £16,393 respectively) developing the school thereby putting those funds at risk of loss if the landlord took action not to renew the lease.
The inquiry found that the trustees had failed to safeguard the assets of the charity by allowing a situation to arise whereby the husband of trustee A, who had acted as a volunteer in such a way and for such a period of time that he had accrued employment rights. The IM sought specialist employment advice which confirmed that the charity had no alternative but to provide him a permanent salaried role at the school. The trustees should have closely monitored the position of volunteers and any possible employment rights that could be accrued to ensure they avoided such a situation.
In accordance with their legal duties and responsibilities, the trustees had failed to act prudently and properly administer their charity in accordance with those duties, the charity’s governing document and charity law, resulting in the charity’s assets being put at risk, which is mismanagement and/or misconduct in the administration of the charity.
Whether potential conflicts of interest and connected party transactions have been managed properly
The Commission obtained two cheques over £1,000 which had been signed solely by trustee A which appear to have been issued to a family member. This raised concerns that conflicts of interest have not been managed properly, particularly in the context of trustee A acting in breach of the financial controls policy. This indicates that the trustees were in breach of their duties to act in the charity’s best interest and avoid conflicts of interest.
Whether there has been any unauthorised trustee benefit
The inquiry found records showing that a number of pupils went on UK based short break holidays and other school trips which were attended by members of staff. The inquiry had no concerns about these trips.
The inquiry found a school pupil travelled to New York and was accompanied by their sister (a minor), trustee A, the husband of trustee A and the son and daughter-in-law of trustee A. Records obtained by the inquiry showed that the predicted cost of that trip was £1,500 per person. At interview in June 2018 trustee A acknowledged that one of the persons on the trip was the sister of the pupil and therefore not a beneficiary of the charity. The inquiry found no evidence within the charity records to demonstrate the trustees recorded why this person travelling should be financed by the charity. Trustee A informed the inquiry that the mother of the pupil would not allow the pupil to travel without his sister.
The inquiry found the cost of the New York trip to the charity would have been significantly less if the non-beneficiary and her chaperones, who were also members of trustee A’s family, had not attended. The trustees failed to ensure the proper application of the charity’s funds by allowing a non-beneficiary to attend and did not satisfy the Commission that there had been no personal benefit to trustee A and her family members nor that it was necessary or appropriate for other family members to attend the trip.
Records obtained by the inquiry also showed the pupil who attended the New York trip also attending a school trip to Belgium. The charity records showed that trustee A and her husband accompanied the pupil on that trip at a cost of £2,264.
The inquiry found that trustee A and her husband attended a residential school trip with the pupil who had been to New York. Also attending this residential trip was the grandson of trustee A, who was not a beneficiary of the charity. The inquiry was not satisfied with the explanations from trustees B and C that the grandson had a friendship with the pupil, and it was necessary in the interests of the pupil to have the grandson in attendance. The inquiry found evidence that the pupil had attended the New York trip with his sister and other trips without any other beneficiaries or the grandson in attendance. This did not satisfy the Commission that there had been no personal benefit to trustee A and her family members nor that it was necessary or appropriate for other family members to attend the trip.
Conclusions Part A
The Commission concluded that collectively the actions and lack of oversight by the trustees during the period examined in the first substantive phase of the inquiry constituted serious misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.
Those trustees had failed to manage the charity in accordance with their legal duties. Their failure to maintain adequate records made it difficult to assess the extent to which funds may have been misapplied. The trustee board were overly reliant on Trustee A and had failed to adequately supervise her in her role as principal. Despite these failings the charity was/and continues to provide a much-needed service to the local community via its operation of a special needs school. The trustee board has been completely revised and considerably strengthened by the appointments made by the IM and the charity is now in a financially viable position.
Findings Part B
On 9 March 2020 the Commission notified the trustees that the substantive phase of the inquiry had been re-opened to investigate whether they have complied with their legal duties and responsibilities in the governance and management of the charity particularly in relation to the policies and procedures regarding safeguarding.
Whilst the Commission does not investigate matters relating to educational standards in independent schools, which is the responsibility of the Department for Education (DfE) it was of concern to the inquiry that the trustees may not have been discharging their safeguarding duties to protect the charity’s beneficiaries from potential harm.
The inquiry noted that the current trustees had been appointed on 11 November 2020 and 8 November 2019.
The school’s last inspection by Ofsted prior to the school inspection undertaken on 28 - 30 January 2020 was on 25 April 2017 and the school was judged ‘good’. As is normal practice for Ofsted, the reports published from the January 2020 inspections did not specify a period that they covered nor when any failings had first emerged. Whilst the trustees had been in place for approximately four months before those inspections, it was their responsibility to take appropriate steps to rectify the concerns highlighted in the Ofsted reports to safeguard beneficiaries and ensure the effective ongoing operation of the charity.
The inquiry found that following the Ofsted reports the trustees immediately engaged the services of professional consultants to undertake a review of internal procedures, policies and the general administration of the charity and operation of the school services and facilities. The inquiry identified that the trustees quickly took steps to put in place changes and improvements to safeguarding procedures and the welfare of its vulnerable beneficiaries and provided the inquiry with regular updates as to the progress they had made along with assurances of meeting the requirements of the DfE. The trustees co-operated fully with the inquiry responding promptly to the enquiries and requests for information made of them.
The trustees demonstrated to the inquiry that they met regularly to address the concerns, properly recorded their decisions in accordance with the provisions of the charity’s governing document and were taking seriously their obligations to comply with charity law and the requirements of other regulators such as Ofsted [footnote 4] and DfE. The inquiry found that the trustees had taken steps in relation to safeguarding at the school which included closing down the residential facility.
The inquiry concluded that the trustees were taking seriously their duties and responsibilities and were effectively dealing with the failures identified by Ofsted. The substantive phase of the inquiry was again closed on 17 February 2021, issuing regulatory guidance and advice under S. 15 (2) of the Act. The advice and guidance, to be completed by 1 September 2021 stipulated that trustees must ensure that the school met DfE requirements.
On 2 March 2021 Ofsted carried out a progress monitoring inspection of the school which highlighted continuing concerns regarding pupils’ welfare, health and safety, the provision of information and leadership and management at the school. Ofsted concluded that the proprietor, which is the charity, had not taken sufficient action since the January 2020 inspection to ensure that the school met all the necessary standards regarding pupils’ welfare, health and safety, the provision of information and leadership and management. Many of these standards remained unmet despite being highlighted at the earlier inspection. It was evident from this monitoring report that actions taken to rectify safeguarding concerns were insufficient.
Between March – September 2021, the inquiry continued to engage with the trustees to ensure that the Commission’s advice and guidance from February 2021 had been followed. The trustees provided an Action Plan, detailing the steps they would take to meet DfE requirements and address the safeguarding and other concerns identified in the monitoring report. In line with usual practice, the DfE commissioned Ofsted to evaluate the Plan. Ofsted carried out this review and advised the DfE of the outcome. It is the role of DfE to decide whether to approve the Plan. On 15 September 2021, DfE approved the Action Plan. DfE commented that at the time of the next inspection the school must meet the required standards for continued registration as an independent school.
On 10 November 2021 Ofsted conducted a further progress monitoring inspection of the school. The results of this inspection were that four of the standards not met at the previous inspection remained unmet. The school now also failed to meet a required standard concerning the premises. Two standards previously not met were now found to be met.
Read the Ofsted Inspection Report into Hope House School.
Conclusions Part B
The Commission concluded that the trustees had not acted to adequately address the concerns identified by Ofsted. Some steps have been taken to improve safeguarding practices and training There remains however inadequacies regarding risk assessments, health and safety and the school site. The trustees’ failure to address these issues in a timely manner constituted misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. As a result, the Commission issued an Order on 31 January 2022, under 84 of the Act, to the trustees to direct them to take steps to address the outstanding issues raised by Ofsted.
Regulatory Action Taken
The Commission took regulatory action to obtain undertakings from trustees A, B and C that they would refrain from acting as a charity trustee or trustee for a charity for periods of between eight and ten years. These undertakings commenced in late 2019.
The inquiry exercised its powers under sections 76(3)(d) and 76(3)(f) of the Act to safeguard the charity’s funds and to ensure the charity did not incur credit without the Commission’s written consent.
On 27 October 2017 the inquiry made an order using the power in section 337(6) of the act. This was issued to one of the charity’s bank account providers and the effect of this order was to discharge the earlier order not to part with property. This was discharged because the accounts held by that provider had been closed.
On 7 November the inquiry made a further order using the power in section 337(6) of the act issued to the charity’s remaining bank account provider and the effect of this order was to discharge the earlier order not to part with property. This was discharged because the charity had a number of employees, and this account required a large number of transactions to be made. Failure to discharge this order would have jeopardised the day-to-day operation of the charity.
On 22 November 2017 the inquiry made an order using the power in section 85 of the act and the effect of this order was to direct the remaining bank account provider to add a trustee as signatory to the accounts held in the name of the charity to ensure the charity had the minimum number of signatories required. This was due to the resignation of a trustee.
On 30 May 2019 the inquiry made an order under section 105 of the act authorising the employment of the husband of trustee A.
The inquiry issued 21 directions under section 47(2)(a) and (b) of the act to various parties, including previous trustees to provide information, copies of documents and written answers to questions between 17 November 2017 and 12 April 2018.
On 17 February 2021 the inquiry issued regulatory guidance and advice to the trustees under section 15(2) of the Act regarding their responsibilities around safeguarding.
On 31 January 2022 the inquiry issued an action plan to the trustees under S.84 of the Act, instructing trustees to take action to meet the required standards which were judged to be not met by Ofsted.
Appointment of an Interim Manager
On 20 August 2018 the inquiry used its temporary protective powers under section 76(3)(g) to appoint Guy Hollander of Mazars as Interim Manager (‘the IM’) to the exclusion of the trustees. The IM was appointed to address specific issues which included securing its assets, reviewing the day-to-day governance affairs and activities of the charity and making a balanced and informed decision about its future given the impact of the purported loan on its financial viability.
The IM concluded that the charity did have a viable future. During his appointment two trustees resigned their trusteeship, and the IM took steps to identify and appoint five new independent trustees.
The IM appointment was discharged on 8 November 2019.
The costs of the IM’s appointment were initially agreed to be met by the Commission given the uncertain financial position of the charity due to the purported loan putting the charity in an insolvent position. This is an unusual step as the Commission receives no specific funding to finance appointments of this nature. However, the Commission could see no other alternative than to appoint an IM to ensure that immediate action was taken to ensure the ongoing provision of education for the charity’s vulnerable beneficiaries. However, the IM determined that there were surplus funds within the charity and therefore the costs were met out of the charity’s funds. The total cost of the IM appointment was a capped fee of £50,000 (exclusive of VAT). The scope of the work undertaken by the IM included:
- securing the charity’s property
- reviewing the day-to-day governance affairs and activities and taking steps to ensure ongoing service provision.
- considering the levels of delegated authority to the principal and any employment issues and any potential claims made against the charity.
- confirming the financial position including the extent of any liabilities including an assessment of the alleged loan and any liability to repay this.
- an assessment of the charity’s financial viability
- the recruitment of five new independent trustees
- an assessment of whether there had been any breaches of trust and whether recovery action would be in the interests of the charity
The IM’s action contributed to the improvement of the charity’s overall financial position and put the charity back on track ensuring that a school providing much needed education for children with special needs can now continue on a secure footing.
Issues for the wider sector
Like any other charity, the trustees must use their charity’s funds and assets in furtherance of the charity’s purposes. This means ensuring the charity funds are used in accordance with the terms of the charity’s governing document and in accordance with the requirements of any contractual obligations.
Every charity needs an effective trustee body which has control over the administration of the charity. Trustees must ensure that their charity has adequate financial and administrative controls in place, and that the funds of their charity are applied for the benefit of the public for which it has been set up.
Proper financial controls are a necessary feature of any well-run organisation. Because of the special characteristics of the charitable sector, they play an essential part in helping to show potential donors and beneficiaries that a charity’s property is safeguarded, and that its management is efficient. Trustees are equally responsible for the overall management and administration of the charity. They should ensure that adequate financial controls are put in place and that sufficient information is reported back at trustee meetings to satisfy them that the controls are being properly implemented. If, due to the nature of the charity, its work, location and /or set up, the trustees delegate supervision of financial arrangements to one or a small number of trustees or employees, they need to ensure that there are arrangements in place for proper reporting back to the whole trustee body. In this way, system failures or issues can be identified at an early stage.
Trustees have a legal duty to act in their charity’s best interests when making decisions as a trustee. If there’s a decision to be made where a trustee has a personal or other interest, this is a conflict of interest, and a trustee won’t be able to comply with their duty unless following certain steps.
Conflicts of interest are common in charities – having a conflict of interest doesn’t mean trustees have done something wrong. But trustees need to act to prevent them from interfering with the ability to make a decision only in the best interests of their charity.
A ‘personal benefit’ means a benefit that someone receives from a charity. That ‘someone’ might be an individual or an organisation. Financial benefits might be in the form of cash, grants or other payments. Non-financial benefits or payments in kind might be benefits in the form of goods or services rather than in cash, for example the provision of free accommodation, meals or transport. The law states that trustees cannot receive any benefit from their charity including in return for any service they provide to it, unless they have legal authority to do so.
Trustees should be aware of and seek appropriate advice when necessary, on matters of employment legislation relating to volunteers to ensure their charity is not at risk of having to expend funds on providing permanent salaried employee positions as a result of any rights that have been accrued from extensive periods of voluntary work undertaken.
Charity trustees are responsible for the beneficiaries of the charity. They must ensure that there are policies, processes and procedures in place to adequately ensure the safety, welfare and well-being of those beneficiaries. Charity trustees should take steps to regularly review, and if necessary, update any policies, processes and procedures.