Decision

One Nation

Published 8 March 2019

This decision was withdrawn on 18 January 2022

This Inquiry report has been archived as it is over 2 years old.

A statement of the results of an inquiry into One Nation (registered charity number 1156200).

Published on 8 March 2019.

The charity

One Nation (‘the charity’) was registered on 14 March 2014. It is governed by a trust deed dated 01 November 2013.

The charity’s objects are the relief of financial hardship of people living in any part of the world who are the victims of natural or other kinds of disaster, trouble, by providing such persons with grants, goods, and other services to support their basic needs of education, food, clothing and shelter.

The charity’s entry on the register of charities can be found on GOV.UK.

Issues under Investigation

The Commission’s concerns in respect of the trustees’ administration of the charity began prior to its registration in March 2014.

The Commission met with the then trustees of the charity on 28 February 2014 and subsequently on 18 January 2015 issued them with a report providing regulatory advice and guidance in respect of their management of the charity. The Commission’s report, in particular gave advice in respect of:

• the limited checks and vetting undertaken on individuals linked to or volunteering for the charity
• ensuring that partners are suitable and appropriate for the charity to work with
• the requirement to account for charitable expenditure, particularly overseas.

The charity registered with the Commission on 14 March 2014. Following this, on 30 September 2015 the trustees attended a Commission Outreach event aimed at the trustees of newly registered charities working overseas. At this event the then trustees were given further advice and guidance in respect of:

• trustees legal duties, including compliance with a charity’s governing document
• improving understanding of the risks of working in high risk areas, with a focus on moving funds, due diligence and monitoring and verifying end use of funds
• the charity law requirements regarding trustee decision making

The Commission’s unease in respect of the charity’s management and activities continued and led to further engagement with the trustees. At a meeting with the trustees on 28 July 2016, the Commission raised concerns regarding a number of partnerships or collaborations between the charity and various individuals and organisations, specifically with regard to the level and rigour of due diligence conducted by the trustees prior to entering into these relationships. Concerns were raised with the trustees at that time with respect to the charity’s connections to:

• Live Updates from Syria (LUFS) and individuals connected to it, one of whom (‘Individual A’) is subject of an arrest warrant issued by the Australian authorities for incursions into foreign countries with the intention of engaging in hostile activities. Another (‘Individual B’) posted a comment on their personal social media account “When Jews start apologising for what happens in Gaza daily then Muslims can start apologising for Paris,” the day after the terrorist attack on the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo. The Commission is aware that this post has been deleted from Individual B’s social media account. The trustees confirmed that the views expressed by Individual B do not reflect those of the charity or its trustees.

• An individual (‘Individual C’) who volunteered for the charity; the Commission has seen evidence of him expressing views the Commission considers it is not appropriate for the charity to be associated with for example, offering support for an individual convicted in the USA of attempted murder Aafia Siddiqui, and sharing an article by the reported head of an organisation designated as a terrorist group by a number of countries and organisations including the United Nations Security Council. The trustees confirmed that the views expressed by Individual C do not reflect those of the charity or its trustees.

Despite the Commission’s engagement with the charity, the Commission continued to have regulatory concerns in respect of the trustees’ administration of the Charity. A statutory inquiry into the Charity was opened on 16 November 2016.

The Commission’s regulatory concerns were:

• the administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees with specific regard to decision making and managing conflicts of interest

• due diligence by the trustees in respect of the charity’s agents and partners

• financial controls and management of the charity by the Trustees

The Commission was aware that the trustees were working with or connected to a number of individuals or groups and the Commission considered that because of the nature of the organisations or individuals concerned these relationships may adversely affect the charity’s reputation or the reputation of charities in general.

The administration, governance and management of the Charity by the trustees with specific regard to decision making and managing conflicts of interest:

Employment of a trustee

The Commission identified serious regulatory concerns regarding the trustee’s decision making, and the recording of such decisions, both generally and in particular in respect of the decision to employ one of the trustees (the Trustee) to a senior management position at the charity.

Clause 28 of the charity’s governing document prohibits the employment of charity trustees without the Commission’s prior consent, clause 19 provides information regarding the management of conflicts of interest. The minutes of the trustees’ meeting held on 29 November 2015 document the decision to employ the Trustee in a senior management position, however, the minutes show that the Trustee was present at the meeting, and there is nothing in the minutes to indicate how, or if, this conflict of interest was identified and/ or managed. Even if adequate steps had been taken to manage this conflict, there does not appear to be any recognition by the trustees that the charity would still have needed to obtain the Commission’s consent in order to proceed with the Trustee’s employment. During the Inquiry the trustees told the Commission that the Trustee had left the meeting while the decision was made and that the minutes of the meeting had been incorrectly recorded. The Commission considers that without its consent the Trustee’s salary was an unauthorised trustee benefit. The Commission acknowledges that prior to taking up employment with the Charity, but after the decision to employ him was made, the Trustee resigned from his position as a trustee.

The trustees did not undertake an open and free competition for the senior post occupied by the Trustee. The employment of the Trustee in these circumstances constitutes a breach of trustee duty and misconduct and/ or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. The Commission considers that either the trustees did not effectively manage this conflict of interest or failed in their duty to keep proper minutes of the meeting as required by the Governing Document and that this is evidence of misconduct and/ or mismanagement by the trustees in the administration of the Charity.

Due diligence and aid convoys

During a meeting with the charity in February 2014, the Commission provided regulatory advice and guidance including in relation to the vetting of volunteers and due diligence of individuals and partner organisations with whom the trustees decide to work.

On 3 September 2014 the Commission issued a regulatory alert, entitled ‘Syria and Aid Convoys ’ in this alert the Commission raised the risks of charities participating in convoys taking aid to Syria and highlighted the requirement for trustees to properly vet volunteers – further the Commission advised that trustees should consider carefully whether a convoy is the most effective way to deliver aid.

Further to its 2014 alert the Commission issued advice and guidance to trustees in respect of convoys to Syria in its document ‘Tackling Abuse & Mismanagement’, published on 17 December 2015. The Commission said “We do not condone or support the use of aid convoys as an effective or safe way to deliver aid.”

The Commission’s review of the charity’s records relating to its convoy activity, identified a number of concerns in relation to the trustees’ management and specifically their oversight of the individuals travelling on such convoys. There is no evidence of volunteer forms, some only partially completed, having been reviewed or scrutinised by the trustees. If the trustees had reviewed the forms they may not have allowed individuals who declared convictions and/ or motoring offences to participate in the convoys. Some of the documents were not fully completed and identical wording was used on a number of forms, for example in response to questions about the applicants ‘views on terrorist groups’. The Commission saw evidence of volunteers recording convictions for assault, drunkenness, being disqualified from driving and speeding offences. It is the Commission’s understanding that volunteers would have been required to drive vehicles on the aid convoys and there is no evidence that the trustees had a system to identify those volunteers who were disqualified from driving and therefore would have been unable to assist with driving. The Commission found that the trustees failed to act responsibly and diligently in respect of their management of the vetting of volunteers for its convoys.

Whilst the Commission recognises that organising or participating in convoys is no longer a current activity of the charity, nevertheless it is considered that the lack of review and scrutiny of volunteers by the trustees is evidence of poor practice and misconduct and/ or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. ###Financial controls and management of the charity by the trustees:

The Commission has raised concerns with the trustees relating to their failure to account properly, as is their legal duty, for all of the charity’s income. Among other things the trustees had failed:

• to prepare the charity’s accounts for the financial years ending 30 September 2014; 2015 and 2016 in compliance with the Charities Statement of Recommended Practice (SoRP)
• to account for all of the charity’s income – in particular the Commission was concerned by the failure of the trustees to account for the contents of containers sent to Syria; not only have the trustees failed to account financially for the contents but there is evidence that they did not know what the contents of some containers had been. These concerns are compounded by the fact that the charity’s container aid programme constituted a sizeable aspect of its work at that time
• to account correctly for restricted funds – in particular Gift Aid which should, in line with the recommendations of the SoRP be applied to the project or purpose for which the original donation was given – this is against a context of the charity stating that it operates a 100% donation policy. The Commission’s regulatory concerns are heightened by the fact that the Commission has engaged with the trustees on a number of occasions previously, having
  • provided bespoke advice and guidance through meetings and correspondence with the trustees since February 2014 and in the Commission’s report of 18 January 2015
  • provided advice at a Commission Outreach event attended by the trustees in September 2015

The inquiry sought to investigate:

• whether or not the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law
• the trustees’ management of relations and work with other individuals and organisations and their due diligence leading up to and during such relationships
• the trustees’ decision-making
• the financial controls and management of the Charity

The inquiry closed on 8 March 2019 with the publication of this report.

Findings

Whether or not the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law

The inquiry found that the trustees had failed to act upon regulatory advice and guidance provided by the Commission prior to the inquiry being opened. The charity and its trustees had benefitted from regulatory advice and guidance given at a meetings on 28 February 2014 and in the form of a report dated 8 January 2015. In September 2015 the then trustees, attended a Commission outreach event specifically for trustees of newly registered charities working internationally and which covered:

• trustees legal duties, including compliance with a charity’s governing document
• improving understanding of the risks of working in high risk areas, with a focus on moving funds, due diligence and monitoring and verifying end use of funds, the ‘know your’ principles and partners as a common regulatory issue
• the Commission’s expectations around decision making

The trustees’ management of relations and work with other individuals and organisations and their due diligence leading up to and during such relationships

The trustees must carry out appropriate due diligence on those individuals and organisations that the charity receives donations from, gives money to or works closely with. The inquiry found that the trustees entered into agreements and arrangements with individuals and organisations that the Commission considered inappropriate and in this respect the trustees failed in their duty to protect the Charity’s property and assets, including its reputation by failing to perform proper due diligence checks prior to entering into and during these relationships.

The trustees had, prior to the opening of the inquiry, organised and participated in overland convoys to Syria/ Turkey. Volunteers wanting to travel on these convoys were required to complete an ‘application’ form designed to test the individuals’ suitability. The inquiry found that the trustees did not follow the Charity’s own internal processes and that the information obtained by means of these application forms was not reviewed or scrutinised; if they had, the inquiry cannot see how the trustees could have allowed certain individuals to have participated based on the information provided. The inquiry finds this as further evidence of trustees’ failure to complete proper due diligence.

The trustees confirmed that they charity no longer work with LUFS and associated individuals following the Commission raising concerns with them about the charity’s association with the organisation. The Commission has seen evidence that at a meeting on 8 October 2016, the Trustees made a decision not to work with LUFS and the trustees have provided the Commission with a copy of a letter written to LUFS on 19 October 2016 terminating the Charity’s relationship with them. While the trustees took this action promptly once the Commission raised the issues with them, the Commission finds that this failure to assess risk, complete due diligence and properly asses partners was a systemic failure of the trustees and continued even after the advice and guidance provided by the Commission.

The trustees’ decision-making

The inquiry found that the trustees could not demonstrate compliance with the charity’s Governing Document with regard to, internal decision making and managing conflicts of interest.

The inquiry found that the trustees employed a former trustee of the charity, in a senior management position in the charity. The employment of trustees without the prior consent of the Commission is prohibited by the Governing Document. The inquiry found that this trustee was present and took part in the meeting at which this decision was made; or that, if they were not present, the trustees failed to record them absenting themselves from the decision. The Commission considers that either the trustees did not effectively manage this conflict of interest or failed in their duty to keep proper minutes of the meeting as required by the Governing Document. Payments made to the trustee, of around £13,000 were unauthorised. The Commission required the trustees to consider whether they would seek the return of these funds from the trustee. The trustees confirmed to the inquiry that they decided that it would not be in the best interests of the Charity to seek restitution.

The financial controls and management of the Charity

The inquiry found that the trustees had failed to account for all of the Charity’s income as they are required, and that they had provided incorrect information to the Commission. In particular, the Commission saw evidence that the trustees had sent a number of shipping containers to Turkey/ Syria that contained donated goods; that the contents of these containers was not always fully recorded and that the value of the donated goods did not appear in the statement of financial activities in the charity’s accounts; consequently the trustees had undervalued the charity’s income.

The Commission found that the trustees had failed to complete the Charity’s accounts for the financial years ending 30 September 2014, 2015 and 2016 as required by charity law – the Commission’s accountants provided the trustees and their accountant with tailored advice in this respect. Following this the Commission required the trustees to resubmit the Charity’s accounts for the financial year ending 30 September 2016, which they did.

The inquiry finds that the trustees took appropriate steps to comply with the requirements of the Order made under section 84 of the Act – see regulatory action taken for more information, including the employment of a charity consultant to assist them strengthen the Charity’s controls and governance – they have provided the Commission with documents required and have improved the standard of the accounts filed with the Commission. However, the Commission was concerned that some of the documents provided by the trustees, in response to the Order, made reference to positions/ roles that did not exist at the charity and the Commission considers this to be evidence that the trustees had failed to properly review the adopted documents. The Commission expects the trustees to adhere to these documents, keep them under review and ensure that they are fit for purpose as the charity moves forward.

Conclusions

The Commission concluded that there was mismanagement and/ or misconduct in the administration of the Charity by the trustees because:

• the trustees failed to act on the advice and guidance provided to them before the opening of the inquiry by the Commission
• the trustees employed a former trustee without the Commission’s prior consent, as required in the governing document and made unauthorised payments to him.
• the trustees failed, as is their legal duty, to abide by the charity’s governing document
• the trustees entered into funding and implementing agreements with individuals and organisations without carrying out the required due diligence and considering risks to the charity
• the trustees failed to account for all of the charity’s income as they are legally required to do and were only able to remedy this matter after being given tailored advice by the Commission

The Commission concludes that the Charity’s administration, governance and management was not fit for purpose at the time of opening the inquiry but that there are signs that the trustees have taken steps to strengthen these areas.

The Commission concludes that while the trustees have improved the charity’s governance that the Commission is mindful that the trustees have in the past been provided with substantial advice and guidance following which the Commission still found it necessary to open an inquiry regarding the management and administration of the charity. Assurances were provided to the Commission during the inquiry regarding its partnerships with certain organisations and individuals, the Commission would view very seriously further evidence of connections between the charity and these organisations or those linked to them.

Regulatory action taken

On 14 December 2016, being satisfied that there was or had been misconduct and/ or mismanagement in the administration of the charity and that it was necessary or desirable to act to protect the property of the charity the Commission made an Order under the provisions of section 84 of the Act – directing the trustees to take steps to improve the governance of the charity including:

• following the provision of bespoke advice given to the trustees by the Commission’s accountants, the trustees were required to resubmit the Charities annual accounts for the financial year ending 30 September 2016 so as to be compliant with charity law
• reviewing their decision to employ a trustee in a senior management position and to seek the Commission’s permission to employ them
• reviewing their existing policies and procedures, and/ or introduce new ones in respect of due diligence and monitoring of activities undertaken on behalf of the Charity by partners

The Commission monitored the progress made by the trustees to ensure their conformity with the Order and as part of this the Commission requested documents from the trustees including updates on their progress towards the required compliance.

On 21 December 2017 the Commission met with the trustees and employees of the Charity to verify the trustee’s compliance. At the meeting the Commission reviewed the charity’s accounts and other areas including the trustees:

• assessment of volunteers and their applications
• assessment of partners and partnership agreements
• preparation of meeting minutes
• monitoring and accounting connected to the charity’s container aid project(s)
• adopted policies

The trustees’ evidenced improvements to some areas, for example, the recruitment and assessment of volunteers for the charity, the assessment of partners and recording and accounting for aid donated to the charity and sent overseas in containers.

The Commission identified some deficiencies in work carried out by the trustees to address the Commission’s Order, for example, some minor areas of improvement were needed in respect of the charity’s accounts. Some policies adopted by the trustees had review dates that had been missed, the Commission found that some contained ambiguities and/ or information not relevant to the charity for instance one policy contained reference to and a section on the Freedom of Information Act and there was mention of a non-existent project group. Advice was given to the trustees to remedy these.

Issues for the wider sector

The purpose of this section is to highlight the broader issues arising from the Commission’s assessment of the issues raised publicly that may have relevance for other charities. It is not intended as further comment on the charity in addition to the findings and conclusions set out in the earlier sections of this report, but is included because of their wider applicability and interest to the charity sector.

When choosing local partners to work with, trustees must conduct adequate due diligence checks to ensure that:

• the activities they intend to carry out through their local partners are in furtherance of their charity’s purposes
• their partners are and continue to be appropriate for the charity to work with
• the trustees have taken reasonable steps to monitor the use of funds to make sure that:
  • their partners can and will apply their funds for proper charitable purposes
  • the funds reach their partners and end beneficiaries

Trustees should put agreements between their charity and its partner organisations in writing, and specify the funds being made available, the timeframe for delivery of the project and measures of success. The agreement should set out clear requirements for reporting to the charity on progress and financial expenditure. The requirements set out in the agreement should address any risks specific to the region the local partner works in. This is important as it will help both parties understand their relationship and what they can expect from each other.

Charities can’t usually pay their trustees. Trustees usually volunteer their services and receive no payment for their work. Restrictions apply to trustees (or someone with a financial connection to a trustee, such as their partner, dependent children or a business partner). If a trustee does receive payments or other benefits from their charity, the trustees must, in making their decision, ensure that they abide by their charity’s governing document, that they deal properly with any conflict of interest or loyalty and that the trustees ensure that their decision is correctly recorded and in the charity’s best interests.

Trustees must ensure that they meet their legal duties under charity law when they are selecting donors, partners and beneficiaries. It is essential that the trustees properly assess those partners with whom they choose to work and that partners are appropriate for the charity to be involved with.

Trustees organising or participating in aid convoys need to carefully consider whether organising and/ or participating in a convoy is really the most effective way to deliver aid. Trustees need to take proper steps to ensure that the aid they are providing is only used for lawful humanitarian purposes, they must account for its proper use and take reasonable steps to guard against abuse. This includes ensuring volunteers are properly vetted before being allowed to fundraise or travel on behalf of a charity.

All registered charities are required by law to file annual returns and accounts with the Commission and to keep their information on the public register up to date. The duty to file annual accounts and the trustees’ annual report with the Commission applies to all registered charities whose gross income exceeds £25,000 per year. The way in which each charity must maintain, prepare and report its annual accounts depends on its income and expenditure, gross assets and constitution. Further information about the accounting and filing requirements can be found on the Commission’s website.