Decision

The National Westminster Staff Foundation: Charity Commission decision

Published 8 October 2013

This decision was withdrawn on 19 June 2019

This Regulatory decision has been archived in line with our policy because it’s over 2 years old.

Applies to England and Wales

The National Westminster Staff Foundation (the Foundation) was established in 1973 and is governed by a trust deed dated 7 May 1973. Clause 3 of the trust deed provides that the trust fund and the income shall be used:

for the relief of Beneficiaries and in particular (though without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) the same or any part thereof may be applied in establishing and assisting charitable Housing Associations or similar charitable bodies having for their objects the provision for Beneficiaries of housing and associated amenities or in acquiring or otherwise providing and maintaining for Beneficiaries homes (with or without communal facilities of any kind or arrangements for medical and welfare attention) and nursing or convalescent homes or in providing for Beneficiaries financial assistance of any kind.

Beneficiaries are defined as Employees [of National Westminster Bank] and Dependents being persons in necessitous circumstances.

The Fund was established with an original donation of £100,000 from the National Westminster Bank. Shortly after the Foundation was created an appeal was launched relating to the provision of ‘residential homes, nursing homes, rest homes etc. for those not wholly able to look after themselves’. The Appeal was consistent with the types of provision which could be made by trustees as outlined in clause 3. Funds raised through the appeal were matched by an equal donation to the Foundation by National Westminster Bank.

The Fund was applied by the Foundation in the purchase of three properties, in Canterbury, Torquay and Harrogate (the Homes).

Further appeals were made in 1979 and in 1987 for funds to support the existing homes.

The Homes were operated as care homes until a decision was made by the trustees that they should be closed. The Homes were closed in 2011 and the properties were sold.

The trustees asked the Commission to make a cy- près scheme which would allow the restricted funds of the Foundation to be used for the relief of poverty generally within the beneficial class. The restricted fund was identified as being the funds representing the proceeds of sale of the care homes.

The Commission gave public notice to its intention to make the Scheme and one group made a number of representations which were against the scheme being made and another group expressed its support for the proposals (on certain understandings).

The Commission considered the representations and whether to make the scheme as part of its decision review procedure.

The reviewer considered all the Commission’s papers relating to the matter, all the evidence provided by the trustees, their legal representative and third parties, the Commission’s policy and relevant charity law before making the decision.

The Reviewer’s decision was not to make the scheme. This was because:

• The reviewer concluded that the evidence available suggests that some of the available funds are applicable as part of the general fund of the Foundation and not restricted. A cy- près occasion would not arise in relation to any unrestricted funds.
• The funds raised by further appeals to support the homes in existence at the time of the appeals appeared to the reviewer to be restricted for the purpose of the maintenance of the homes. If the homes no longer exist, a cy- près occasion may arise (section 62(1)(a)(ii) of the Charities Act 2011). However, the Homes were ‘residential homes’ rather than homes falling within the wider range of accommodation which the Foundation could provide in accordance with clause 3 of the Trust Deed. This would be a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate cy- près application.
• The accounts of the Foundation which were prepared prior to the sale of the properties identify restricted funds. Before considering whether a cy-pres occasion has arisen, further consideration will need to be given as to whether those restricted funds represent the unspent ‘maintenance’ funds.