Does take an inordinately long time to deal with serious compaints and, in my view at least, their interpretation of charity law (and their own regulatory remit) can leave a great deal to be desired.

I for one won't support their calls for increased funding until they're more effective and objective in the use of their existing budget.

Don't shoot the messenger

Chris,

The key point here is that the Commission has to balance its regulatory responsibilities. On the one hand, it has to make sure that the law is complied with and its guidance followed. On the other, it has to be careful not to over-burden charities with too much regulation. It's hard to maintain this balance - and the Commission knows it. What I'm suggesting here is that (perhaps) it didn't get things quite right in our case.

To explain. The Charities Act 2006 requires the Commission both to encourage the "better administration of charities" and to ensure that charities comply with the law. It stands to reason that charities can administer themselves better when they're not tied up in lengthy negotiations with the Commission - which is why the Commission itself has recognized that reducing the regulatory burden on small charities in particular is important. At the same time, though, it has to make sure that everyone obeys the rules.

In my opinion, Intelligent Giving demonstrated its charitable nature early on in our correspondence with the Commission.  However, it took over 60 pages of letters, several phone-calls and a meeting before we were able to become formally registered as a charity. In other words, many of the negotiations we had with the Commission were not substantive in nature, and did little to advance our application for registration. It is against this background which I cautiously state that - perhaps - the Commission got the balance wrong in our case, and spent too much time regulating us, at the expense of looking into more serious problems affecting other charities.

You also mention the Wooden Spoon. I'm still at a loss to comprehend the Commission's attitude to this charity, but I unfortunately haven't had the time to quiz them over it. I certainly don't think they 'ignored' my complaint - their reply was lengthy - I just didn't understand what they were saying. 

Finally, you say that at least we now know that charities are properly scrutinized when they register, and that this must be reassuring. On this, at least, I am in full agreement! 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Out of interest, does this change how you feel about the Commission?

For example, a few months ago there was the famous Wooden Spoon debate. When they replied to your complaint, I seem to remember that you felt that their understading of the law wasn't correct, or that they were somehow ignoring the complaint. From the correspondence here, it seems that they have gone to great lengths to ensure that law is complied with, for example, ensuring that IG's objects are entirely and exclusively charitable.

If you want to make sure that the charity sector is both transparent and effective, and given the tax benefits available to registered charities, isn't it a positive thing for the Commission that they made you think hard about the answers you gave to them, and indeed work to convince them that you should indeed be registered as a charity. If nothing else, you can take some reassurance that the registration process for charities would appear to be property scrutinised.

Funny you should mention it, SimonK, but I've just written about the registration process in this new blog post. I hope it helps. Let me know if you've still got questions, though.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Congratulations on achieving this. I'm sure at the moment you want to focus on your core business, and probably to forget all about the process you've just been through. But it would really be good to get your detailed views on how the process has worked. You describe it as a "long slog" and a "burden", but you also say it's done a lot of good.

Is there anything that you think the Charity Commission should change in this process? Any areas where you think they are asking for too much - or too little - information?

A big congratulations to you all. Well done.