In this section

What's New

Rate This Page

Click a star to vote:
Thinking about what you have just read, how useful did you find the information?
 
Take a moment to tell us how we could improve this page, but please don't leave any personal details like your name or address
Why are we asking for this information?

Final Decisions of the Commission - Case Summaries

African Aids Action

The Commission was asked to review a decision not to discharge an Order made under s18(1)(iv) of the Charities Act 1993 to restrict payments made out of the charity's bank accounts.

The review, pursuant to section 18(13) of the Act, was conducted by the Head of Legal Services: Status and Advice, who also met the applicant to give him the opportunity to make representations in person.

Having considered the information given by the applicant, the reviewer concluded that the Order should remain in place, but that it should be varied so that certain payments are no longer restricted.

The decision and other matters were appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Charity) in November 2009. The Tribunal struck out the appeals in February 2010, but in March 2010 granted permission for an appeal of part of its decision to the Upper Tribunal. To date no appeal has been lodged.

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds)

This is a summary of the decision of the Charity Commission made on 21 July 2010. Please see that decision for an analysis of the issues which the application raised, the relevant law, and the full grounds for the decision.

The Charity

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) ("the charity") is a charity with a wide social remit. The charity is based in Leeds. Its activities include residential care for children, supported living for adults with learning disabilities, supported living for adults with mental health issues, advice support and counselling in schools, support to vulnerable and marginalised people through community development work, support for older people in the community and an adoption service. The adoption service (absorbing some 5 per cent of the charity's budget) provides assessment and preparation of people to act as adoptive parents for the placement of children by local authorities. On average it provides parents for about 10 children a year.

The current objects of the charity are:

  • "To promote, in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds the relief of poverty and distress among children and all those who through economic or family circumstances or physical or mental affliction are in need of such relief.
  • To promote and organise co-operation among Roman Catholics and others in the achievement of the above object."

The Application

The charity is a charitable company and applied to the Commission for consent to change its objects under section 64 of the Charities Act 1993. In particular, it wished to adopt the following clause:

"The Charity shall only provide assistance to persons seeking to act as adoptive parents if they are heterosexuals and such services to heterosexuals shall only be provided in accordance with the tenets of the Church. For the avoidance of doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds from time to time shall be the arbiter of whether such services and the manner of their provision fall within the tenets of the Church."

The History

On 17 March 2010 the High Court allowed an appeal from the charity against a decision of the Charity Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 1 June 2009. The Tribunal had upheld a decision of the Commission to refuse consent to the proposed change of objects of the charity under section 64 of the 1993 Act. The High Court remitted the case back to the Commission to consider the application of the charity in accordance with the principles set out in the approved judgment of Mr Justice Briggs dated 17 March 2010 ("the Approved Judgment").

The Approach of the Commission

In accordance with the Approved Judgment the Commission considers that it is necessary for it to decide whether the proposed discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If the proposed discrimination is not justified under Article 14 of the European Convention, the Commission considers that the proposed objects would not be for the public benefit because of "the large public dis-benefit likely to flow from any unjustified, and therefore discriminatory, differential treatment." (Mr Justice Briggs in paragraph 99 of the Approved Judgment)

In addition, the High Court indicated that for the proposed discrimination to be within Article 14 "particularly convincing and weighty reasons" would be required.

The charity's submissions

The charity's submissions on the weighty reasons justifying the discrimination are in summary:

  • There is an excess of children waiting to be adopted and not enough adoptive parents to be matched with them;
  • Many of these children are hard to place and the charity has particular expertise in this area;
  • To be able to provide its adoption service, the charity depends on its connection with the Roman Catholic Church;
  • If the charity has to provide its adoption service to gay or lesbian couples, it will lose its connection with the Church and the income flowing from that;
  • Accordingly, the charity will close its adoption service rather than lose that connection;
  • If the charity has to close its adoption service, there are no other alternatives for the children who are matched with parents approved by the charity;
  • There would be no dis-benefit to gay or lesbian couples as they can go to other adoption agencies.

The Commission's decision

The Commission considers that the evidence does not support the charity's case. The Commission sought evidence from the local authorities with which the charity worked, and through whom all children are placed for adoption. Six of them responded. From their responses it was clear that the charity was not the only agency providing prospective parents for children who were hard to place.

The Commission notes that the charity based its wish to only consider heterosexual couples on the principle of the Nazarene family. However, the charity has on one occasion made an exception to this principle and advertises that it considered applications from single persons.

In any event, the Approved Judgment in the High Court case indicated that respect for the religious beliefs motivating faith-based adoption agencies would not be likely to constitute a justification of differential treatment in favour of heterosexual couples under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the essentially public nature of the adoption services they provide.

The Commission does not consider that in this case the charity has established that there are particularly convincing and weighty reasons justifying the proposed discrimination. The principal reasons for this are as follows:

a) The interests of the children are paramount - the courts have found that it is in the interests of children waiting to be adopted that the pool from which prospective parents are drawn is as wide as possible.

b) Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is a serious matter because it departs from the principle of treating people with equal respect.

c) The evidence of the local authorities is that, if the charity were to close its adoption service, children who would have been placed with prospective parents supported by the charity are likely to be placed with prospective parents through other channels. The numbers involved are small as the charity has on average provided parents for 10 children per year.

d) The evidence of the local authorities is also that they consider gay and lesbian people as suitable prospective parents for hard to place children and that adoptions made have been successful.

e) The High Court indicated respect for religious views is not a justification for discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in the circumstances of this case.

It follows from the fact that the proposed discrimination would not be justified under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the proposed changes would not be for the public benefit.

Accordingly, the Commission does not give consent to the proposed change of the charity's statement of objects.

View full document (PDF)

Clavering and Arkesden Playgroup

A former trustee of the Charity was disqualified from acting as a Company Director on 21 December 2007. They were therefore no longer permitted to act as a trustee of a charity without receiving a waiver from disqualification from the Charity Commission under the powers vested in us by section 72(4) of the Charities Act 1993. This was applied for and turned down on the basis that there weren't sufficient grounds for us to exercise our power under section 72(4) and grant a waiver.

The applicant requested a review of this decision. The review was undertaken by a Charity Commission Director who considered all the information including the representations made by the applicant and also by the trustees of the charity.

The Commission's final decision is that there are not sufficient grounds for us to exercise our power under section 72(4), therefore the waiver from disqualification as a charity trustee will not be granted.

Corton Village Hall

The trustee of the charity had requested a power to dispose of the property on the basis that the hall was no longer financially viable, was little used, had no parking and they could not afford to refurbish it to modern standards.

On this basis the Commission proposed to make a scheme that would permit the trustee to sell or lease the property, which consisted of a Village Hall and Bowling Green.

The Commission received a number of representations objecting to this scheme on the grounds that, although it was no longer feasible to carry on with the provision of a village hall, the bowling green was being used in accordance with the terms of the original gift and should be retained by the charity.

The case was considered by the Head of the Wales Office, who discussed the issues with people who had made the representations and the trustee. He concluded that the scheme should be made, but the power of sale should not extend to the land currently used as the bowling green. He accepted that that the provision of a bowling green could further the charity's objects through the promotion of healthy recreation, as outlined in our published policy RR11 Charitable Status and Sport, and was in keeping with the spirit of the gift.

Coventry Hebrew Congregation

The Commission received representations about a proposed scheme that would replace the existing trusts of the charity and provide for its future governance. The Commission had been asked to make a scheme because the congregation that had been using the charity's property had merged with another congregation, but no provision had been made for the administration of the property belonging to the charity.

The review was conducted by a senior manager, who gave those who had commented on the draft scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone. The decision was ratified by the Head of the Commission's Specialist Casework Division.

The reviewer concluded that further information will be needed to properly identify the assets and various components of the charity, and to properly identify the trusts on which charitable assets are held, before a scheme can be made. It is therefore not appropriate to make the scheme now.

Dunsfold Church of England School Trust

The Commission received representations following the publication of a draft scheme which it proposed to make on the application of the trustee, Guildford Diocesan Board of Finance. The school was closed a number of years ago and negotiations between the trustee and members of the local community about the future use of the property did not reach agreement. The proposed scheme would amend the objects, add a discretionary power to sell the trust property and provide for the use of income from the invested proceeds of sale if the proceeds are not applied for a replacement school.

The review was conducted by the Head of the Commission's Specialist Casework Division. He considered the 85 representations received. Six people who made representations took the opportunity to speak to the reviewer by telephone, including a representative of the Parish Council acting on behalf of residents.

On considering the representations, the reviewer concluded that it was in the interests of the charity for the scheme to be made, but with modification.

The scheme was modified to provide that the property could be leased (but not sold) at either a full or nominal rent if it cannot be used for the existing purposes. The scheme limits any lease to be for a maximum of 25 years and only for educational purposes which are not inconsistent with the principles of the Church of England. The modified scheme also provides for income generated (after deduction of maintenance and other costs) to be spent on promoting the education of children in Dunsfold and, subject thereto, on the Church of England schools attended by children who would otherwise have gone to the closed school.

The reviewer considered that these modifications would protect the use of the property for its original purpose, or for purposes which are as near as possible to the original purpose to provide a Church of England school.

The scheme was made on 31 March 2011.

English Pen

The Company English Pen, with objects:

1. To promote the education of the public by encouraging the understanding appreciation and development of writing in any style or form.

2. To promote the human rights (as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent United Nations conventions and declarations) of writers, authors, editors, publishers and other persons similarly engaged ("the Beneficiaries") throughout the world by all or any of the following means:

2.1. Monitoring and seeking to prevent abuses of human rights of beneficiaries;

2.2. Obtaining redress for Beneficiaries who are the victims of human rights abuse;

2.3. Relieving need among the Beneficiaries who are the victims of human rights abuse;

2.4. Research into human rights issues affecting the Beneficiaries;

2.5. Educating the public about human rights;

2.6. Providing technical advice to government and others on human rights matters affecting the Beneficiaries;

2.7. Contributing to the sound administration of human rights law;

2.8. Commenting on proposed human rights legislation;

2.9. Raising awareness of human rights issues;

2.10. Promoting public support for human rights;

2.11. Promoting respect for human rights among individuals and corporations;

2.12. International advocacy of human rights;

2.13. Eliminating infringements of the prohibitions on torture, slavery, extradition killing, arbitrary detention and disappearance.

3. To relieve poverty and distress among the dependents, family and/or household members of Beneficiaries.

was recognised as a charity. See Full Document (PDF).

Expressions Studios

The Company Expressions Studios with objects:

(a) To provide or assist in the provision of a resource for the performing arts by means of affordable and accessible quality facilities and space for rehearsals for dance and other arts for the benefit of those who live or work in the London Borough of Camden and the surrounding area who have need of those facilities by reason of their youth, age infirmity or disability, financial hardship or social circumstances or for the public at large in the interests of social welfare and with the object of improving their conditions of life.

(b) To advance education for the public benefit by the provision of free or affordable dance classes to schools community groups and individuals who live or work in the London Borough of Camden and the surrounding area.

was recognised as a charity.

Ferryhill and District Angling Club

The organisation Ferryhill and District Angling Club, with objects:

"To promote participation in a recreational activity for the benefit of the inhabitants of Ferryhill and the surrounding areas through the provision of angling facilities with the aim of improving the quality of life"

applied to be registered as a charity.

The Commission concluded that it had not been established for purposes that all fall within the descriptions of purposes in s.2(2) Charities Act 2006 nor was it demonstrated that its purposes are for public benefit as is required by s.2(1)(b) of that Act. In particular on the evidence the Commission concluded that its purpose was to promote angling and not a recreational facility within the Recreational Charities Act 1958.

Accordingly it concluded that the organisation is not established for exclusively charitable purposes and cannot be entered onto the Central Register of Charities.

Gnostic Centre, The

The Commission considered an application by the organisation The Gnostic Centre for registration as a charity.

The decision was made under the Commission's review procedures by Andrew Purkis and John Wood as Members of the Commission's Board under delegated authority and was ratified by the Board at its meeting on 16 December 2009.

The Board members considered the following charitable purposes:

  • advancing education for the public benefit;
  • advancing religion for the public benefit; and
  • promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community for the benefit of the public.

The Board members concluded that the organisation The Gnostic Centre is not established for exclusively charitable purposes for public benefit and cannot be entered onto the register of charities for the following reasons:

Education for the public benefit

The Gnostic Centre is not advancing education as it is understood in charity law. It encourages people to adopt a particular viewpoint based on the teachings and beliefs of Gnosticism. It is not advancing education based on broad values that are uncontroversial, which would generally be supported by objective and informed opinion.

Religion for the public benefit

The Gnostic Centre is not established for the advancement of religion, as that is understood in charity law. Although Gnosticism, as advanced by the Gnostic Centre, satisfies a number of the essential characteristics of a religion for the purposes of charity law, it was not demonstrated that all the necessary characteristics of a religion were met. In particular, they had not identified a positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework being promoted.

Moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community for the benefit of the public

There was no evidence of shared morals or ethics amongst followers, or the promotion of these by the Gnostic Centre. On the evidence provided, there is no identifiable, positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework capable of having a beneficial impact on society.

Public benefit

Even if the Gnostic Centre had demonstrated that it was promoting an identifiable, positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework, it was not demonstrated that the benefit was to the public or a sufficient section of the public as the law requires.

View full document (PDF)

Gorran Church School Rooms

The Commission received representations about a proposed Scheme that would allow the trustees to sell the property belonging to the charity and provide for how the proceeds of sale would be used.

The review was conducted by the Commission’s Head of Legal (Compliance), who gave those who had commented on the draft Scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

Following careful consideration of the representations made to us, the reviewer made various modifications to the draft Scheme which we published. 

A secular element has been added to the trustee body to reflect the fact that that the purposes of the charity are not exclusively ecclesiastical.  The Parish Council has agreed to nominate two of the five trustees.  The other trustees will be the vicar and churchwardens, as provided in the draft Scheme.

The Scheme will continue to include a power to sell the charity’s property.  There is plainly a serious problem about the charity’s long term financial viability and no realistic alternative to sale has been put forward.  However, the Scheme contains only a power of sale.  It is for the trustees to decide whether and when to exercise that power. 

Pending sale, the charity’s property is to continue to be used as best it can in accordance with the deed of 1904.

The Scheme will enable the charity’s income to be used to assist in providing facilities of the kind currently provided by the Church School Rooms. 

Guru Arjan Dev Gurdwara Sikh Temple Derby

Objections were received in relation to a draft order made under sections 18(5)(b) and section 26, proposing to appoint 15 individuals as trustees of the charity and clarifying some administrative provisions.

The objections were considered by the Head of Compliance Investigation Unit who also gave the applicants the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.

She concluded that the Order should be made on the terms proposed. She did however recommend the inclusion of some additional wording to make some small administrative amendments.

The Order was sealed on 03 March 2009.

Hastings and St Leonards Foreshore Charitable Trust

The Commission published a draft scheme which it proposed to make under section 16 of the Charities Act 1993. The draft scheme would appoint Hastings Borough Council as trustee of the charity, subject to the appointment of a "protector," responsible for reporting matters of concern to the Commission. The scheme would also allow the charity to use surplus income for any charitable purpose in the Borough of Hastings.

The review was conducted by John Wood and Andrew Purkis, two of the Commission's board members. They considered the seventeen (17) representations made in response to the publication of the draft scheme and six people who made representations took the opportunity to speak to the Commission on the telephone.

On considering the representations, the Commission concluded that it was in the interests of the charity for the scheme to be made, subject to amendments. The Commission decided that the scheme should be amended to improve its clarity and to introduce an obligation for the trustee to consult with advisory bodies on certain types of decision. The Commission considered that these amendments would improve the transparency and accountability of the charity's decision-making.

Hesketh Park, Dartford

The Commission received representations about a proposed Scheme that would modernize the trusts of the charity and give the trustee a power to lease a property on the charity's land.

The review was conducted by the Commission's Head of Legal (Compliance) who gave those who had commented on the draft Scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone. The reviewer took up with the trustee some of the concerns which had been made in the representations about the security of the building until it is leased.

After careful consideration of the representations the reviewer decided that the Scheme should be made with some modifications. The Scheme will still modernize the trusts of the charity and give the trustee a power to lease the property.

Hindu Cultural Resource Centre Sandwell

We received an objection to the draft Order under section 18(5)(b) and 89(1), published on 22 June 2009, which appointed interim charity trustees and enabled them to call and hold an independently-supervised election of charity trustees.

The objection was considered by the Head of Compliance Monitoring who also gave the applicant the opportunity to clarify his objection by telephone.

He concluded that the Order should be made on the terms proposed. He did however recommend some minor amendments to the wording of the Order by way of clarification.

The Order was sealed on 11 September 2009.

Iqra

On 29 April 2009 the Commission instituted a statutory Inquiry into this charity under s.8 of the Charities Act 1993:

(i) to examine to what extent the charity may have been used to facilitate terrorist, extremist, or other inappropriate activities; and

(ii) to seek to secure the proper application of the property owned and funds held by the charity.

The Commission was asked to review its decision to institute a statutory Inquiry.

The review, which was conducted by Board Members Simon Wethered and Andrew Purkis acting under the delegated authority of the Board, considered the evidence and the reasoning behind the original decision, as well as representations made on behalf of the applicants. The Board members decided that the decision taken by the Commission to institute the Inquiry had been a lawful, proportionate and reasonable decision properly taken.

Island and Royal Manor of Portland Historical Association (Incorporating the Friends of Portland Museum), The

The Commission was asked to review its decision not to make a direction under section 6 of the Charities Act 1993 (the 'Act') requiring the charity to change its registered name. The review was conducted by the Commission's Executive Director of Charity Services, David Locke.

The Commission recognised that the words "(Incorporating the Friends of Portland Museum)" in the registered name of the charity might be capable of both:

  • misleading the public as to the true nature of the purposes or activities of the charity; and
  • giving the impression that the charity is connected in some way with the Portland Museum Trust (the 'Trust') when it is not so connected

if in fact the charity had no ongoing liaison or connection with the Trust and undertook no activities in support of either the Trust or the Portland Museum.

However, following submissions from both the charity and the Trust, the Commission was satisfied that there is some ongoing contact between the charity and the Trust and that the charity does offer some support to the Trust and the Portland Museum. The Commission has accordingly decided that there are currently insufficient grounds for directing the charity to change its registered name under either section 6(2)(b) or section 6(2)(d) of the Act and the Commission has decided not to make such a direction.

Khalsa Centre

The Commission published a draft Order, which it proposed to make under sections 18 and 89 of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended) to appoint 4 people to be the interim trustees of the charity in order to facilitate trustee elections. The Commission received a letter making representations against the order being made, and a petition signed by 88 people objecting to the proposed Order.

The review was conducted by the Commission's Head of Compliance Investigations (Liverpool) who gave the applicants that could be contacted the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

On considering the representations, the Commission decided that the order should be made to allow the elections to proceed as soon as possible.

Kidd Legacy being part of Central Park, Dartford

The Commission was asked to review a Scheme sealed on 24 October 2008. The purpose of the Scheme was to allow the charity to hold part of their endowment as income producing capital. The object of the charity was restated, but the terms on which the property of the charity is held were not altered.

The review was conducted by the Executive Director of Charity Services who also gave the objector the opportunity to discuss their concerns with him on the phone.

He concluded that the Scheme served the best interests of the charity and should remain in place as drafted.

The matter was appealed to the Charity Tribunal (as it was then) by two appellants and on 16 November 2009 the Tribunal issued its decision to allow the appeals in part. Following representations from the parties, the Tribunal made an order on 16 February 2010 which amended the Scheme so that:

  • the Scheme is expressed to be administrative and therefore subject to the existing trusts;
  • the objects clause is deleted (with the effect of reinstating the original objects); and
  • the local authority Committee which manages the charity is constituted in a way which prevents a conflict of interest arising in relation to the Council and its dealings with the charity.

Lady Elizabeth Hastings' Estate Charity
Lady Elizabeth Hastings' Educational Foundation
Lady Elizabeth Hastings' Non-Educational Charity

The Commission received representations about a proposed Scheme that would replace the existing trusts of the charities. The Scheme would appoint a non-charitable company as trustee of the charities, vest the land owned by the Estate charity in the new company and update certain provisions of the existing trusts, including the objects of the charities.

A review of the representations was conducted by a senior manager in the Commission’s Operations Liverpool team, who gave those who had commented on the draft Scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

Following careful consideration of the representations made to the Commission, the reviewer decided that the Scheme should be made as drafted.

Land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park

The Commission was asked to review its conclusions that land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park is held by Oldham Metropolitan Council (the Council) as charity trustee and to enter the land in the register of charities.

The review considered whether the land is held on charitable trusts (and is therefore entitled to remain on the register of charities) or whether the Commission is obliged to removed it from the register under section 3(4) and 4(2)  of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended by the Charities Act 2006). 

Having examined the evidence before it, the Commission concluded that the land is held by the Council on trust to hold it as a public recreation ground for ever.  It concluded that the decision is finely balanced, but the balance of probability points towards charity because the land was purchased with money raised by charitable appeal and the intention was clearly that it be held as a public recreation ground as a war memorial for generations to come.

In consequence, subject to the income qualification, it is entitled to remain on the register of charities.  As the Commission has exercised its discretion to waive the income requirement, the application that it be removed from the register should be refused.

Land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park

In its capacity as charity trustee, Oldham Borough Council asked the Commission to make an order to authorise it to dispose of part of the land held by the charity. It was proposed that the disposal, of part of the land known as Lower Failsworth Memorial Park, would take effect as a swap for other land that the Council owns in its statutory capacity. Under charity law, this would be a ‘connected person' transaction and requires the Commission's authority.

In February 2011, the Commission decided not to make the requested order. Subsequently, in its capacity as charity trustee, the Council asked the Commission to review the decision. Our review procedure offers a genuine opportunity for our decisions to be looked at afresh by a senior officer who was not involved in taking the original decision.

Having considered all the information received (including additional information and evidence from the Council and parties who had made submissions in connection with the original application) the Commission decided to make an order to authorise the disposal.

View full document (PDF)

Levick Trust, The

The Commission received representations about a proposed scheme that would amend the objects of the charity and allow the trustees to lease the property to the local authority to use the property in accordance with the amended objects. The trustees had set out proposals to lease the property because the buildings did not meet modern care standards and had been empty for some time. The charity had previously provided a residential home and accommodation for people aged over sixty years of age.

The review was conducted by a senior manager who gave those who had commented on the draft scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

The Commission may only make a scheme to change the purposes of a charity in certain circumstances (known as the “cy-pres principles”). The reviewer concluded that, although a cy-pres occasion had arisen, the proposed objects were not close enough to the original purposes to fall within the scope of the cy-pres principles. The reviewer decided that the scheme should be made, but with modification.

The modified scheme was made on 2 March 2011.

Litcham Relief in Need Charity

The charity's aims are to relieve persons in need, hardship or distress in the Parish of Litcham. The charity owns investment land, part of which is being used for allotments which the charity lets to produce an income.

In 2007, the Charity Commission appointed one trustee by Order to re-establish a quorate body of trustees, who then co-opted two more trustees under the terms of the governing document. However this trustee body is fundamentally split on the question of whether land, held as investment property and used as allotments, should be sold. There is also a dispute over the terms of office of trustees.

The Commission had decided that there were no grounds for further involvement. The decision not to intervene was reiterated in November 2009 and, in December 2009, a Local Resolution case upheld the case outcome.

The decision review concluded that there was no evidence of misconduct or mismanagement of charity assets and there is a quorate body of trustees able to make decisions. It upheld the decision not to intervene as there are no grounds that would justify the use of the Commission's regulatory powers.

Llanfair Waterdine Charities (503441)

The Commission had received complaints about the management of the charities and in particular that trustees were renting land in contravention of the Scheme which governed the charities (the governing Scheme). After considering submissions from the trustees, the Commission offered to make a Scheme to amend the governing Scheme that would allow the trustees to rent land belonging to the charities. The Commission received two representations about the proposed Scheme.

A review of the representations was conducted by a senior manager, who gave those who had commented on the draft Scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

After receiving further information from the trustees, and after speaking to the people who had made representations, the reviewer concluded that it is appropriate to make the proposed Scheme, with amendments. The new Scheme provides a power which allows trustees to be granted a grazing licence for up to 12 months. It also provides that the Commission’s consent is required for a trustee to take or hold an interest in land other than a grazing licence.

Louth Swimming Pool

The Commission received representations about a proposed Scheme that would allow the trustee to sell the property belonging to the charity and provide for how the proceeds of sale would be used. The trustee had set out proposals to sell the property because the swimming pool was no longer needed following the construction of a municipal swimming pool on other land.

The review was conducted by a senior manager, who gave those who had commented on the draft Scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

The Commission may only make a Scheme to change the purposes of a charity in certain circumstances (known as the "cy-pres principles"). The reviewer concluded that there was insufficient information available to support a decision under the cy-pres principles and that further information was needed before a final decision could be made. Therefore it was not appropriate to make the Scheme at that time.

After receiving further information from the trustee and the organisation named as the recipient of the proceeds of sale, the reviewer concluded that it is now appropriate to make the proposed Scheme, with some amendments.

Manchester and District Home for Lost Dogs

The Commission was asked to review its conclusions following complaints received about the governance of the charity. The review was conducted by Commission Board Member, Simon Wethered, and the Commission's Director of Legal Services and Compliance, Kenneth Dibble (the Panel). The Panel considered the Commission's conclusions in relation to claims about the accuracy of a trustee meeting record (which was crucial to other matters) the validity of recent Annual General Meetings and the subsequent effect on the validity of trustee appointments, alleged conflicts of interest within the trustee body and other aspects of the charity's governance.

The Panel concluded that there is some doubt about the validity of trustee appointments given the procedures adopted at Annual General Meetings and there are a number of conflicts of interest arising within the trustee body which need to be properly and effectively managed. The Panel recognised the positive response of the Charity to recommendations made as a result of the Commission's enquiries into the original allegations and concluded that no further regulatory involvement by the Commission's would be proportionate. The Panel made a number of recommendations about managing conflicts of interest and other governance matters, and advised that the doubt about trustee appointments should be resolved at the next Annual General Meeting.

Mareham le Fen Village Hall

Mareham Le Fen Memorial Lawn

The Commission received representations about a proposed scheme that would provide for the charities to be administered as one charity. The trustees applied for the scheme as they felt that merging the charities would result in more efficient administration, pooled experience and knowledge and provide the potential to expand and develop facilities.

The case was considered by the Head of Specialist Casework Division and the Head of Mergers, who had the benefit of speaking to the individuals who made the representations. Those individuals had thought that the proposed scheme would enable the trustees to sell the existing Village Hall and Memorial site.

It was concluded that the proposed scheme should be made on the basis that the scheme is for the administration of the charities and will not affect the statutory power of sale that the trustees already have. It was pointed out to the trustees that in exercising the statutory power of sale it is best practice to consult with the local community.

Maryland Residential Home (Formby) Ltd

Objections were received in relation to a draft Scheme to authorise the sale of the Home to a connected person, below the valuation of the property that the trustees had obtained.

The objections were considered by a panel comprising the Head of Charity Services and a senior caseworker who also gave those who had commented on the draft scheme the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.

The Head of Charity Services concluded that the Scheme should be made because the trustees have demonstrated that the course proposed represents the best way forward that can reasonably be achieved by the charity. He considered that it is expedient in the interest of the charity to authorise the proposed sale.

The Scheme was sealed on 22 May 2009.

Needy Kids Fund Charitable Trust, The

Having considered its proposed activities, the Charity Commission has decided that the organisation, The Needy Kids Fund Charitable Trust, can be registered as a charity, provided that the following objects are adopted:

For the benefit of children and young people:

1. To advance education;

2. To prevent or relieve their poverty and to relieve their sickness.

Nottingham Bangladesh Centre

Objections were received in relation to a draft order made under sections 18(5)(b) and section 26, proposing to appoint 11 individuals as trustees of the charity and clarifying some administrative provisions.

The objections were considered by the Head of Compliance Monitoring who also gave the applicants the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.

He concluded that the Order should be made on the terms proposed. He did however recommend the inclusion of some additional wording to clarify matters.

The Order was sealed on 13 February 2009.

Oughtibridge and District Community Association (501945)

The Commission published a draft Order, which it proposed to make under section 18(5) of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended) to appoint ten people to be the interim trustees of the charity in order to facilitate trustee elections. The Commission received two representations, one supporting the proposed Order and one objecting to it.

A review of the representations was conducted by a senior manager in the Commission's Specialist Casework Division, who gave the applicants the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

On considering the representations, the Commission decided that the Order should be made to establish a membership for the charity and call an Annual General Meeting at which trustee elections can be held.

rania Child Development Centre

The review was conducted by a lawyer in the Commission’s Legal Division. The reviewer did not consider whether or not the organisation was established for charitable purposes only under s1(1)(a) of the Charities Act 2006, but whether or not it was subject to the control of the High Court as set out in s1(1)(b) of the Charities Act 2006. In doing so, the reviewer considered whether the trust was subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court according to the principles in the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987.

Having considered the information supplied by the applicant, the reviewer considered that the organisation, whether or not it was established for charitable purposes only, is not subject to the control of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in respect to charities.

Royal National Institute of Blind People, The

The Commission authorised the payment of the charity's Chair for acting as Chair because the charity had demonstrated the expediency of doing so against the criteria set out in Trustee payments and expenses (CC11), in particular because it would benefit the charity to have a Chair who is blind. (The Commission's consent was required under the charity's Royal Charter.) But the Commission considered that there should have been greater clarity before the election about the possibility that consent for remuneration might be sought. And the Commission was concerned that it had only emerged at a late stage that the charity had no operative mechanism for electing a new Chair, pending proposed constitutional changes that would require Privy Council approval.

View full document (PDF)

Saint Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (1109008, formerly 1119839-1)

1. In April 2009 a number of Orders were made by the Charity Commission in relation to this charity under s.18(1) of the Charities Act 1993:

i. to vest the charity's interests in land in the Official Custodian for Charities; and

ii. to appoint an Interim Manager to the charity, with specific functions to address immediate and serious difficulties which it faced.

2. The Commission was asked to review its decisions to make (and subsequent decisions not to discharge) these Orders.

3. The review, which was conducted by Board Members John Wood and Simon Jones acting under the delegated authority of the Board, considered the evidence and the reasoning behind the original decisions, as well as representations made on behalf of the applicant.

4. The Board Members decided on 3 February 2010 that the Orders are upheld (unvaried) because it remained necessary or desirable for them to remain in place for the purposes of protecting or securing the proper application of the property of the charity.

5. The applicant has been advised of the decision, the full reasons for it and the right for persons with standing to bring an appeal against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Charity).

Shieldwall Trust, The

The organisation The Shieldwall Trust, with objects:

2.2 The objects of the Trust are to advance for the benefit of all the inhabitants, but primarily for the benefit of the English inhabitants ("the primary beneficiary class"), of the counties of Nottinghamshire and Oxfordshire and County Durham and their respective neighbourhoods and such other of the counties of England as the Trustees shall at their sole discretion from time to time determine ("the area of benefit"),

2.2.1 by associating with local authorities, voluntary organisations and the said inhabitants in common effort to provide in the interests of social welfare, facilities for recreation and other leisure time occupation of individuals who have need of such facilities by reason of their youth, age, infirmity or disability, financial hardship or social circumstances, with the object of improving their conditions of life;

2.2.2 such other charitable objects as the Trustees shall determine from time to time provided always that such other charitable objects shall be exclusively charitable under English law. (the 'Objects')

2.3 The word English in clause 2.2 means all those persons in the area of benefit whose ethnic or national origin racial group within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976 is by virtue of their descent or origin the English racial group and no other.

applied to be registered as a charity.

The Commission concluded that it had not been established for purposes that all fall within the descriptions of purposes in s.2(2) Charities Act 2006 nor was it demonstrated that its purposes are for public benefit as is required by s.2(1)(b) of that Act.

Accordingly it concluded that the organisation is not established for exclusively charitable purposes and cannot be entered onto the Central Register of Charities.

Shri Guru Ravidass Cultural Association, Birmingham

A review of the Commission's decision to appoint 25 individuals as charity trustees of the Shri Guru Ravidass Cultural Association, Birmingham ("the charity") by a section 18(5) order dated 7 January 2008 ("the Order"). The review was conducted by Board Members Simon Wethered and Theo Sowa acting under the delegated authority of the Board.

Having considered the evidence and the representations made by and on behalf of the applicants, the Board Members concluded that the Order had been proportionate and properly made in the interests of the charity and should therefore stand.

The Board Members did however consider that the Order should have been more explicit about the terms on which the 25 people were appointed as charity trustees. They therefore recommended that a further order is made under sections 18(5), 89 (1) and (5) of the Act to vary the Order by clarifying the terms of the charity trustees' appointment.

Sivayogam

Decision of the Commission to remove Mr Nagendram Seevaratnam ("the applicant") as trustee, charity trustee, agent and/or officer of the charity named Sivayogam ("the charity").

The Commission opened a statutory inquiry on 20 March 2007 and the applicant was suspended as a trustee on 28 March 2007. After considering all of the evidence and representations made by and on behalf of the applicant, the Members of the Board found that there was sufficient evidence of mismanagement or misconduct on the part of the applicant to justify his removal from office as trustee of Sivayogam.

The final decision and an order of removal under section 18(2)(i) of the Charities Act 1993 was made on 27 March 2008.

The matter was appealed to the Charity Tribunal (as it was then) in May 2008. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and the order made on 27 March 2007 was quashed by an order of the First-tier Tribunal (Charity) dated 13 October 2009.

Soteria Network

The Commission was asked to review its decision not to enter Soteria Network, an unincorporated association, in the register of charities.

The review concluded that Soteria Network, with objects:

  • To provide, or further the provision of, support to persons who are experiencing, or have experienced, severe mental distress or disturbance, especially psychosis.
  • To advance a better understanding of mental health and mental distress, especially psychosis, but promoting research and by obtaining, making records of and disseminating information about the same to the public.

is a charity for the public benefit.

The Commission concluded that the Soteria method as practiced by the Soteria Network under the first object is charitable falling within the description of the advancement of health and is for public benefit.

The second object is an object to carry out research for the public benefit and is a charitable purpose.

View full document (PDF)

St Mary's Hall

Objections were received in relation to a draft Scheme which amongst other things would widen the beneficial class to include boys up to the age of 12, appoint Roedean School as trustee and permit Roedean to absorb the property of St Mary's Hall at a later date.

The objections were considered by the Head of Legal Compliance who also gave the applicants the opportunity to clarify their objections by telephone.

He concluded that the Scheme should be made, but that it should simply appoint Roedean as trustee and widen the beneficial class to permit the admission of boys up to the age of 12. If Roedean wish in future to merge fully with St Mary's Hall, they will need to approach the Commission for consent.

The Scheme was sealed on 15 April 2009.

The Druid Network

The Druid Network, an unincorporated association with objects:

'To provide information on the principles and practice of Druidry for the benefit of all and to inspire and facilitate that practice for those who have committed themselves to this spiritual path.'

was recognised as a charity for the advancement of religion for the public benefit.

The Commission concluded that Druidry, as promoted by The Druid Network, consistent with the beliefs and principles set out in its Constitution, is established for exclusively charitable purposes for the advancement of religion for the public benefit.

View full document (PDF)

The Egyptian Community Association in the United Kingdom

The Commission published a draft order, which it proposed to make under sections 18, 26 and 89 of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended) to appoint 6 people to be the interim trustees of the charity in order to facilitate trustee elections. The Commission received 36 identical letters making representations against the order being made.

The review was conducted by the Commission's Head of Charity Commission Direct, who gave the applicants that could be contacted the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

On considering the representations, the Commission concluded that the order will allow the elections to proceed and that the order should be made (under sections 18 and 89) subject to amendments.

The Lytham Schools

The charity operates a day school for boys and girls, the King Edward VII and Queen Mary School. As well as operating the school, the charity owns the premises occupied by two voluntary aided primary schools and provides other support to the two primary schools and other schools in the area.

In July 2011 the trustees of The Lytham Schools told the Charity Commission that the future of the King Edward VII and Queen Mary School was threatened because of financial challenges and a continuing decline in pupil numbers. The trustees proposed merging the King Edward VII and Queen Mary School with another school (Arnold School) operated by the United Church Schools Trust.

The Charity Commission drew up a draft scheme in discussion with the trustees' legal representative, which would change the purposes of the charity, appoint a corporate trustee and allow a lease of the King Edward VII and Queen Mary School site to the United Church Schools Trust. The draft scheme was published in September to allow members of the public to comment on the proposals. The Commission received approximately 120 representations, the majority of which opposed the making of the scheme.

A review was conducted by the Commission's Head of Operations Wales. The reviewer carefully considered all of the representations and gave the people who had commented on the draft scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone. There was great concern about the lack of consultation with parents and other stakeholders regarding the proposed merger.

The Commission may only make a scheme to change the purposes of a charity in certain circumstances (known as the 'cy-pres principles'). The test for the Commission was whether a cy-pres occasion has occurred. The test in this case is whether the property "can be more effectively used in conjunction" with other charitable property given for similar purposes.

On considering the representations, including a briefing prepared by a Parents Group and further information supplied by the trustees to support their decision, the reviewer concluded that the scheme should be made with some modifications.

The scheme has been made under sections 13 and 16 of the Charities Act 1993. There is a right of appeal against the scheme to the First-tier Tribunal (Charity). Further details about the time limits for an appeal, form of notice of appeal and how to apply can be found on the Tribunal website.

View full document (PDF)

The Orchard

The Commission received representations about a proposed Scheme that would add two purposes to the objects of the charity if the property cannot be used for the original purposes. The additional objects would allow the property to be used for the relief of elderly people who are in need by the provision of a day care centre and for other charitable purposes for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area of benefit.

The review was conducted by a senior manager in the Commission's Specialist Casework division, who gave those who had commented on the draft Scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations by telephone.

Following careful consideration of the representations made to us, the reviewer decided the Scheme should be made with some modifications. The Scheme will continue to include the additional purposes, but without reference to an area of benefit.

An error in the publication details of the draft Scheme on the Commission's website gave the impression that the Scheme would give the trustee a power of sale. However, this is not the case and the Scheme will not give a power of sale.

The Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation

The trustees of the Edward Heath Charitable Foundation contacted the Charity Commission in July 2010 to seek permission to dispose of the charity's principal asset, Arundells, the former home of Sir Edward Heath in Cathedral Close, Salisbury.

The Charity Commission drew up a draft scheme in discussion with the charity's trustees, which would give them power to sell Arundells. This would not mean that the trustees would have to sell, but it would give them permission to sell should they decide to do so. The draft scheme was published in May to allow members of the public to comment on the proposals. The Commission received over 200 representations, the majority of which opposed the making of the scheme.

The Commission has carefully considered all of the representations made concerning the scheme and has met the main interested parties to discuss their concerns, including the Chair of Trustees for the charity.

Whilst we are fully aware of the charity's current circumstances, the Commission has decided that the scheme should not be made to give the trustees permission to sell Arundells. The reviewer in this case is not satisfied that the trustees have adequately explored the range of alternative ways of generation income.

Instead the Charity Commission has advised the trustee board to explore alternative options to secure the necessary funding to avoid having to sell Arundells. Four of the six charitable objects of the charity relate specifically to Arundells, and the reviewer considers that continuing to own Arundells is an integral element in the charity's purposes. Therefore the reviewer considers it necessary for the trustees to explore the feasibility of the various methods of generating funds that may be open to them.

The Commission recognises the current financial position of the charity and concerns over future costs and repairs, as well as the genuine commitment of the trustee board to want to act in the best interest of the charity and its current and future beneficiaries. However the Commission is not minded to grant the scheme before all other methods of generating funds have been explored.

It is open to the trustees to make a fresh application to the Commission for a scheme at a future date.

View full document (PDF)

The Town Field

The Town Field is a recreation ground which is also registered as a village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965.  A member of the public asked the Commission to consider removing the charity from the register of charities on the grounds that it no longer owns the recreation ground and hence no longer exists.  He argued that an order of the Commons Commissioner vesting the land in the local authority had the effect of supplanting the charitable trusts.

The Commission's decision not to remove the charity from the register was reviewed by the Head of Legal Compliance, who had the benefit of speaking to the applicant by telephone.

The reviewer concluded that the Commons Commissioner's order had not had the effect of lifting the charitable trusts, and that even if had had that effect, the charity would have a good legal case for recovering its property.  In those circumstances, it could not be said that the charity owned no property.  The charity continued to exist and would remain on the register of charities.

The Way of the Livingness, The Religion of the Soul Trust

The Commission considered an application by The Way of the Livingness, the Religion of the Soul Trust (the Trust) for registration as a charity. The Trust has the following objects:

1. For the benefit of the public to advance The Way of the Livingness as a religion by encouraging and facilitating Soul-full religious practice by existing followers and adherents by means of:

a. living in full the principles of the Way of the Livingness

b. the provision and maintenance of buildings used for religious practice and for religious instruction

c. the conducting of religious ceremonies

d. to provide buildings open to the public for people to enter and benefit from personal soulful contemplation

2. For the benefit of the public to raise awareness and understanding of religious soul-full life by the development of the key principles relating to self love and energetic integrity thereby enhancing individuals understanding of themselves and the energetic world in which they live thus reducing illness and disease and restoring a harmonious vital life in unison with all as equal service minded members of society.

3. For the benefit of the public to operate a universal educational programme to support these principles via lectures, workshops, discourses, books, tracts, films online education books, religious resource centres and libraries and through the living of the principles themselves as active examples within community life.

4. For the benefit of the public to promote mediation, harmonious union and study thereby assisting men and women in the improving the quality of their performance and service in their chosen field by integrating these principles across all fields of work in harmony and in union with all.

5. For the benefit of the public to assist and visit the sick and dying.

6. For the benefit of the public to work for reconciliation, truth telling and harmonious union by the promotion of the understanding that by living in harmony with our surroundings we improve the environment for all.

7. For the benefit of the public to develop the understanding of love and harmony as the true form of peace and human rights by the promotion of the understanding that all people are equal and that in union there is only love and harmony with one another.

8. For the benefit of the public to organize the holding of long or short stay retreats where those who attend return to society to practice their way of love, harmonious interation [sic] and living.

On the evidence before it, the Commission concluded that the organisation is not established for exclusively charitable purposes and cannot be entered in the register of charities for the following reasons:

  • The Way of the Livingness appears to be a form of theosophy which the court has decided is not a religion as charity law understands that term. Even if it were not a form of theosophy, the Commission is not satisfied that it falls within the definition of religion in charity law.
  • The objects are set out individually and the second object (raising “awareness and understanding of religious soul-full life”) is not charitable.
  • The dissolution clause in the Trust Deed may allow the Trust’s assets to be applied for non-charitable purposes.
  • On the evidence before it the Commission concluded that public benefit had not been demonstrated.

In reaching its conclusion, the Commission confirmed that it is neither its role nor intention to judge the inherent worth of the Trust for the Way of the Livingness, but only to consider the narrower question of whether it met the test laid down in law for registration as a charity.

Thomson Reuters Foundation

The Commission was asked to give a direction under section 6(2)(a) Charities Act 1993 requiring the registered name of the Thomson Reuters Foundation ("TRF") to be changed on the ground that it was, in the opinion of the Commission, "too like" the name of the Thomson Foundation ("TF").

TF and TRF have no constitutional or operational connection, but both bear the family name of Roy Thomson, 1st Baron Thomson of Fleet (1894-1976), who founded both TF and the media group, Thomson Corporation. TRF changed its name from "Reuters Foundation" to "Thomson Reuters Foundation" in 2008 when its principal funder (Reuters Group PLC) was acquired by the Thomson Corporation, and became part of the Thomson Reuters group. The Central Register was updated on 17 July 2008. Both TF and TRF provide journalism and media training in developing countries, and TF provided evidence of confusion between the two charities amongst its beneficiaries and funders.

In the opinion of the Commission, the registered name of TRF is similar to, but not "too like", the registered name of TF. Although the registered names share the words "Thomson" and "Foundation", this reflects their shared Thomson family heritage. And the inclusion of the well-known and distinctive word "Reuters" sufficiently distinguishes TRF's name. So there are insufficient grounds for directing TRF to change its name under section 6(2)(a).

But the Commission remains concerned that TRF's name may give the impression that TRF is connected with TF in ways that it is not, which may confuse supporters and beneficiaries. The Commission expects to see further evidence of tangible steps taken by TRF to distance itself from TF in the field of journalism training, to avoid public confusion over the similarity of names.

The Commission is reluctant to use its powers in ways that interfere with proprietary or other human rights where this can be avoided by charities working together. The Commission has requested both charities to engage in mediation with a view to agreeing a way forward that will avoid, or minimise, the risk of public confusion. The Commission will consider any evidence of confusion, and steps taken to avoid confusion, provided within six months. The Commission will then consider whether there are grounds for giving a direction under section 6(2)(d) of the 1993 Act requiring TRF's name to be changed on the ground that it is likely to give a misleading impression of the charity's connection to TF. Unlike the section 6(2)(a) power (which may only be exercised within 12 months of the name being recorded in the Central Register), there is no time limit for making a direction under section 6(2)(d).

Upton House Christian Eventide Home

Upton House Christian Eventide Home (the charity) owned Upton House in Cromer, Norfolk, as designated property for a residential home for elderly Christians. The sole trustee, itself a charity, took the decision to close the residential home because it was not longer financially viable. Attempts to sell the property for continued use for its purposes were unsuccessful and it was sold to a private buyer.

The trustee contacted the Charity Commission to request a Scheme to amend the purposes of the charity to enable the proceeds of sale to be applied. The Commission took the view that the proceeds of sale were held on a special trust. It drew up a Scheme to amend the purposes of the special trust so that the funds could be applied for other similar purposes.

The Commission gave public notice to its intention to make the Scheme. Four representations were received, all objecting to the proposed Scheme.

A review of the representations was conducted by a senior manager in the Operations team, who gave those who commented on the draft Scheme the opportunity to clarify their representations orally by telephone. The reviewer also requested and considered additional information from the trustee and other interested parties.

The Commission may only make a Scheme to amend the purposes of a charity in certain circumstances (known as the "cy-pres principles"). The reviewer concluded that the cy-pres principles had been met and the Scheme should be made, but with modifications.

Uturn UK

The Commission considered an application from Uturn UK Limited for registration as a charity. It has the following objects:

i. to advance citizenship and community development by the promotion and activation of the Street Associations initiative which will seek to bring together residents of streets together in local groupings within a framework which will engender civic responsibility and volunteering; and

ii. to promote the Christian faith and Christian values, with particular emphasis on the Christian faith for its own sake and on the relevance of Christian values to the restoration of a well-functioning community.

On the evidence before it, the Commission concluded that the company is not established for exclusively charitable purposes and cannot be entered in the register of charities.

Although phrased as being about community development and civic responsibility, the first object doesn't fall within what the law has recognised as charitable. Street Associations is not a defined term and the factual matrix does not support the view that street associations as a means will result in an exclusively charitable outcome. The Commission could not form the view on the evidence before it that, even should the first object fall within the description of purposes in s.2(2) of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended by the Charities Act 2006), that it is for public benefit.

The second object may fall within the description of purposes in s.2(2)(c) as advancing religion but it is ambiguous. The Commission did not need to consider whether this second object is an exclusively charitable object in light of its conclusion that the first object was not and as a result the company could not have exclusively charitable purposes.

In reaching its conclusion the Commission is not to be taken as making any judgement in relation to whether street associations are or are not a good thing. As the court has recognised, not everything that is a good thing is charitable.

Wales Parish Festival Hall

The Commission received representations about a proposed scheme that would appoint a charitable company trustee of a village hall charity and widen the charity's area of benefit to include not just the local parish but also the surrounding area.

The case was considered by the Head of Legal Compliance, who had the benefit of speaking to the member of the public who had made the representations.

He concluded that the scheme should be made, since the appointment of a corporate trustee was part of a project to build a new village hall which was plainly in the interests of the charity. However, amendments were made to the scheme to ensure that only the inhabitants of the parish would be involved in confirming any proposal to dispose of the property.

Top of page

© Crown Copyright

© 2012 Crown Copyright          Copyright Notice, Disclaimer and Privacy Statement