Decision

Charity Inquiry: Richmond Psychosocial Foundation International

Published 2 December 2021

This decision was withdrawn on 4 December 2023

This report has been archived in line with our policy as it is over 2 years old.

Applies to England and Wales

The charity

Richmond Psychosocial Foundation International (‘the charity’) was registered on 25 September 2006. It is governed by a Memorandum and Articles of Association, incorporated on 24 April 2006 as amended by Special Resolution passed on 10 September 2016 (‘the governing document’).

The charity’s primary objects are the preservation and promotion of good mental health and the relief of the distress, isolation and exclusion of people living with mental health problems, learning disabilities, consequences of abuse and related problems in the UK through the provision of residential, day and ancillary services.

The charity currently operates a residential home (the White House) in Twickenham, London providing care for adults recovering from mental health issues and adolescents with complex emotional needs. The charity also, previously operated a second home in Richmond, London (Lancaster Lodge).

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

Trustees

According to the Commission’s records the following have served as trustees of the charity:

Trustee A – Geoffrey J Benton – (Chair) (22 October 2014 until his death in February 2019)

Trustee B – Jonathan Manson (6 July 2015 to 25 June 2019)

Trustee C – Catherine Keevil (6 July 2015 to 31 March 2016)^{[footnote 1]}

Trustee D – Susan Martins – appointed 18 August 2016

Trustee E – Opeyemi Oyinsan – appointed 7 April 2019

Trustee F – Dr Sominjiba Amonia Gasper - appointed 1 September 2020

Trustees A, B & C are referred to in this report as the former trustees.

The former trustees engaged and fully co-operated with the Commission during the course of its engagement with the charity.

Trustees B, D and E are collectively referred to in this report as the interim board, until the point Trustee B resigned (April 2019 – 25 June 2019).

Trustees D, E & F are collectively referred to in this report as the new board of trustees and are now responsible for the administration and management of the charity going forward. It is recognised that the new board of trustees has made significant progress to address the governance failings and misconduct and/or mismanagement set out below.

Elly Jansen was founder of the charity and acted as consultant to the former board of trustees until she stepped away from her involvement with the charity in 2018. She is referred to in this report as the founder.

Background and issues under investigation

In May 2016, a young woman, Sophie Bennett, took her own life whilst in the charity’s care and resident at Lancaster Lodge. Following the death of Sophie Bennett, the Commission opened an operational case in June 2016 to examine safeguarding matters. The case was closed in May 2017 to allow relevant regulatory and statutory agencies to investigate the tragic incident.

Following complaints received about the administration and management of the charity, a Regulatory Compliance case was opened in May 2018, which focused on a number of regulatory concerns about the governance and financial controls of the charity, including:

• inadequate separation of the affairs of the charity and other related parties
• potential failure to manage conflicts of interest

The Commission met with former trustees on 19 September 2018 and following the meeting offered the charity advice and guidance to address regulatory concerns identified. The Commission found no evidence of the charity’s money being diverted from charity funds into private hands.

Following the inquest hearing^{[footnote 2]} into Sophie Bennett’s death, a Coroner’s report^{[footnote 3]} dated 13 February 2019 was published, making findings that the changes (as set out in the Coroner’s report) at Lancaster Lodge and serious governance failings by the former trustees of the charity, during the material period (in and after January 2016) had directly contributed to the death of the young woman.

On 5 March 2019, the Commission opened a statutory inquiry into the charity under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011 (the Act) to examine these governance failings. The scope of the inquiry was to examine:

• whether the trustees had complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law; in particular whether they had sufficient oversight of safeguarding arrangements and had adequate policies and procedures in place and fulfilled their accounting and reporting requirements

• the trustees’ response to the Coroner’s report into the death of Sophie Bennett and what changes they were making as a result

The Inquiry closed on 2 December 2021 with the publication of this report.

The Commission’s role in safeguarding issues

The Commission has an important regulatory role in ensuring that trustees comply with their legal duties and responsibilities as trustees in managing and administering their charity. Its aim is to protect public confidence in the integrity of charities. In the context of safeguarding matters, it has a very specific regulatory role which is focused on the conduct of the trustees and the steps they take to protect the charity and its beneficiaries.

The Commission’s safeguarding work is often part of a much wider investigation involving or being led by other agencies. The Commission is not responsible for dealing with incidents of actual abuse and it does not administer safeguarding legislation. It cannot prosecute or bring criminal proceedings, although it can and does refer any concerns it has to the police, local authorities and the Disclosure and Barring Service which each have particular statutory functions.

The Commission’s aim is to ensure that charities that work with or provide services to vulnerable beneficiaries take reasonable steps to protect them from harm and minimise the risk of abuse. It may consider any failure to do so as misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. It may also be a breach of trustee duty.

The Commission’s published guidance on its regulatory role and its expectations of charities and trustees on safeguarding is available on gov.uk

Issues not in the inquiry’s remit

The Commission has worked closely with the Adult Social Services team at the London Boroughs of Richmond upon Thames and Wandsworth and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) during this inquiry. As relevant statutory agencies on safeguarding and the quality-of-care provision respectively, they oversee the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable people using the charity’s services. The Commission’s role where criminality involving a charity is identified is to support the criminal investigation and consider the implications for the way in which the charity is being run.

The inquiry’s remit was not to investigate or make any determination as to whether the trustees had committed a criminal offence under UK law. The CQC investigation was dealing with this aspect^{[footnote 4]}.

Following publication of the Coroner’s report, the Commission was informed that the CQC would be instigating legal proceedings against the charity for offences under regulations 12 and 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014; and that a former Registered Manager of Lancaster Lodge would be prosecuted pursuant to section 91 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Findings

Whether the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities under charity law; in particular whether they had sufficient oversight of safeguarding arrangements and had adequate policies and procedures in place and fulfilled their accounting and reporting requirements.

As part of the Regulatory Compliance case, the former trustees A & B met with the Commission to discuss its regulatory concerns relating to governance and financial matters. Following the meeting with the Commission on 19 September 2018, the Commission issued regulatory advice and guidance to the former trustees on a range of issues so that they could effectively discharge their duties to the charity going forward. The former trustees provided written assurances with supporting evidence^{[footnote 5]} that they had taken steps to address the Commission’s regulatory concerns relating to governance and financial controls and taken steps to ensure sufficient financial controls were in place, going forward.

Following the outcome of the inquest, the inquiry met^{[footnote 6]} with the charity to discuss its regulatory concerns, specifically relating to governance failings in respect of safeguarding matters. The charity was represented by trustee B and trustee D (appointed 18 August 2016). Although the trustees co-operated with the inquiry, the existing board of trustees were (on professional advice) restricted in fully discussing historical safeguarding matters with the Commission because of the risk of jeopardising criminal proceedings brought against the charity by CQC.

The inquiry has been impeded in discussing historical safeguarding matters with the charity and relied on the conclusions of the Coroner’s report to reach a finding on this aspect of the inquiry. However, trustee A, as former chair of the charity had as part of the inquest proceedings, acknowledged the concerns raised by the Coroner and accepted them as falling below the standard of care, Sophie Bennett should have expected to have received in the months leading up to her death.

Coroners findings^{[footnote 7]}

On 19 September 2016, the Senior Coroner commenced an investigation into the death of Sophie Bennett. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 8 February 2019. The findings and conclusions of the inquest were published in the Coroner’s Report dated 13 February 2019. The conclusion of the inquest was that the “changes at Lancaster Lodge in and after January 2016” contributed to the death of Sophie Bennett (in May 2016). The following matters^{[footnote 8]}, relating specifically to the former trustees were identified, in the Coroner’s Report, as being contributory factors to the death of Sophie Bennett:

“Leadership and oversight by the board of RPFI was grossly inadequate, in relation to

• the need to have in place robust employment procedures
• the appointments of the clinically unqualified [REDACTED] and, later, the clinically unqualified art therapist as Clinical Lead, [the appointments (or lack of) of a statutorily-approved registered manager, and of an adequate number of trained and qualified staff
• supervision and control of the changes introduced at PERSON instigation
• decisions made by the (unqualified) acting manager and staff in relation to the treatment to be given to the residents, and other steps required to meet their needs and safety
• communication with other agencies involved in the care of the residents
• the keeping and production (including to the Court, for the purpose of the inquest) of the Board’s own records, communications and contracts
• knowledge and performance of the Board’s fundamental obligations including their duty of candour (not least in the Board having to fulfil its mandatory obligation to report to the CQC five instances of admission of Lancaster Lodge residents to hospital)”

Additionally, the Coroner identified other failings in the management and administration of the charity, which were ultimately the responsibility of the former Board of trustees and contributed to the death of Sophie Bennett:

• the uncertainty surrounding the discontinuation of external therapies contributed to a feeling of anxiety and uncertainty
• departures of critical staff members including registered manager, clinical leads and key workers; there was no “registered manager” at Lancaster Lodge who met the statutory criteria
• introduction and effect of a regime perceived by Sophie to be akin to a “boot camp” and the changes impacted negatively on Sophie’s wellbeing and upon her mental state
• replacement staff, across all levels were not adequately trained, skilled, educated or experienced and Lancaster lodge, lacked the relevant number of staff
• changes at Lancaster Lodge in and after January 2016 resulted in the deterioration in the care provided by Lancaster Lodge
• inadequate rating by the CQC following the March 2016 inspection
• consultation regarding the changes in care regimes was not relayed effectively to both staff and residents
• the registered manager was told to leave without carrying out a sufficient handover or allowing a transition with residents and other staff members
• various RPFI/Lancaster Lodge staff did not hold the relevant qualifications for the roles in which they were carrying out responsibilities
• various observations that it was “chaotic” staff were “in the deep end” and “learning on the job” this created a feeling for residents of generally being unsafe
• changes were based on a 1 day audit, which was grossly inadequate and completed by a person not qualified clinically, or in the field of mental health, to conduct such an audit
• no adequate consultation with staff or residents regarding substantial changes introduced as a result of the audit and no adequate regard to the negative impact of any sudden introduction of changes on the mental stability of the residents
• significant decisions regarding Lancaster Lodge and the residents were made by a consultant to the Board, rather than the Board
• errors or omissions in the management of risk by RPFI between 28 April 2015 and 2 May 2016

Based on the Coroner’s findings and conclusions and the trustees’ acknowledgement of failings, the Commission finds that the former trustees failed to carry out their duties and responsibilities as trustees. As former trustees of the charity they were individually and collectively responsible for the management and administration of the charity.

On the evidence it saw, the inquiry was not satisfied that the charity’s former trustees had adequately discharged their legal duties and responsibilities under charity law.

Collectively these findings amount to misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity and a breach of trustee duties. By failing to provide sufficient leadership and oversight of the charity, the former trustees were responsible for and/or contributed to or facilitated misconduct and/or mismanagement in the charity.

Breach of trustee duties

The duty to comply with your charity’s governing document and the law

Charities and their trustees may be subject to a range of laws and regulations depending on what the charity does, where it works and how it is set up. The Commission expects trustees to take reasonable steps to find out about legal and regulatory requirements, comply with them and keep up to date with any requirements, for example with Social Care Legislation and Regulations. Ensuring that a charity has adequate policies and procedures appropriate for the charity’s particular circumstances and which reflect both legal requirements (mandatory) and good practice is an important aspect of managing any risks, this includes safeguarding policies and procedures.

As the relevant statutory agency on the quality-of-care provisions, the CQC oversee the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable people using the charity’s services. As such, the CQC instigated legal proceedings against the charity for offences under regulation 12 and 22 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014; and the former Registered Manager of Lancaster Lodge was prosecuted pursuant to section 91 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The prosecution was delayed due to challenges made to legal proceedings by the Defendants although they subsequently entered guilty pleas to a charge of failing to provide safe care and treatment resulting in service users, including Sophie Bennett, being exposed to a significant risk of avoidable harm. The matter was listed for sentencing on 5 March 2021^{[footnote 9]} and resulted in substantial fines/costs issued against the Defendants.

The former trustees’ failure to comply with the law meant that the charity’s beneficiaries were not provided with the safe care and treatment that was expected. This exposed its beneficiaries to significant avoidable harm and contributed to the death of Sophie Bennett, as well as exposing the charity to criminal proceedings by the CQC. This resulted in criminal sanctions being imposed against the charity and individuals associated with the charity and thereby, resulting in significant financial loss^{[footnote 10]}. This was a breach of the trustee duty to comply with the law and is misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity. The Commission also finds that it is likely that public trust and confidence in the charity and charities generally has been adversely affected by these criminal prosecutions.

The duty to manage your charities resources responsibly

The Commission expects trustees to protect both, their beneficiaries from harm and protect their charity’s resources, and to act responsibly, reasonably, and honestly. This is sometimes called the duty of prudence. Prudence, is about exercising sound judgement which includes:

• avoiding exposing the beneficiaries, charity’s assets or reputation to undue risk
• making sure the charity’s assets are only used to support or carry out its purposes

The Commission requires trustees to put appropriate procedures and safeguards in place and take reasonable steps to ensure these are followed, otherwise they risk making the charity vulnerable to all kinds of abuse and risk exposing the charity and individuals related to the charity to harm and being in breach of their duties.

The findings in the Coroner’s report demonstrate that the former trustees failed to manage their resources responsibly, thereby exposing its beneficiaries and reputation to avoidable risk. In particular, the former trustees failed to manage its staff who are a significant resource of the charity. Consultation regarding the changes made at Lancaster Lodge were not effectively relayed to staff or residents and staff were considered to be “chaotic” and “not trained or aware of crisis management and awareness of risks”. The inquiry considers that the former trustees’ failure to act prudently in managing their staff which contributed to a feeling for residents of generally being unsafe, is misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.

The duty to act in your charity’s best interest

Trustees are required to act exclusively in the best interests of their charity.

As part of that responsibility the trustees must take reasonable steps to protect staff, volunteers and those connected with the activities of the charity, from harm. Any failure by charities to manage safeguarding risks adequately is a serious regulatory concern and risks them being in breach of their trustee duties.

The failings in the management and administration of the charity as outlined in the Coroner’s Report are examples of the former trustees failing to carry out their duties and responsibilities as trustees and demonstrate how they failed to act in the best interests of the charity. This included taking advice from the founder of the charity and which was “followed by RPFI staff without ever meeting or having knowledge of the residents”. Additionally, the former trustees failed to ensure that Lancaster Lodge had a registered manager who met the statutory criteria. Changes were introduced with no adequate consultation with staff or residents. Changes were made on the basis of an audit carried out by a person not clinically qualified in the field of mental health to conduct such an audit. Inadequate regard was given to the negative impact any sudden introduction of changes may have on the mental stability of the residents. There was also found to be no, or no adequate checks and controls by the staff, or by the acting manager, on the keeping of essential documents including risk assessments and progress reports, which were also found to be inadequate, unreliable and misleading. This resulted in a risk to the safety of the residents.

The duty to act with reasonable care and skill

Trustees are jointly and equally responsible for the management of their charity. To be effective and to meet their statutory duties as charity trustees they must contribute to the management of the charity and ensure that it is managed in accordance with its governing document and general law. They should be able to devote sufficient time to enable them to play a full and active role.

A charity is entitled to the independent and objective judgement of each of its trustees, acting in the best interests of the charity.

From explanations offered by former trustees, it is the Commission’s view that the former trustees placed an over reliance on trustee A, as chair of the board having greater involvement and management of the charity’s affairs.

Additionally from discussions with former and current trustees, there was also some ambiguity amongst staff, current and former trustees about the founder’s exact role in the charity and whether she may have been acting as a de facto trustee. The inquiry found insufficient evidence to establish that Ms Jansen acted as a trustee and this is also strongly denied by Ms Jansen. It is her position, and that of the former trustees, that decision making was the remit of the board of trustees with Ms Jansen acting as consultant to the board. Although, the Inquiry considers that the former trustees may not have managed relationships with Ms Jansen appropriately.

The duty to ensure your charity is accountable

Trustees must comply with statutory accounting and reporting requirements and should also be able to demonstrate that the charity is complying with the law, is well run and effective. Trustees must also ensure accountability within the charity, particularly where they delegate responsibility for specific tasks or decisions to staff and/or volunteers.

The former trustees of the charity accepted that in hindsight there were failings in the financial management and administration of the charity. At the meeting with the inquiry on 3 June 2019, trustee B acknowledged that the former chair, trustee A, had acted as “operational lead” between the charity’s staff and the board. From explanations offered, there appeared to be an over reliance on trustee A to manage the affairs of the charity. This was illustrated by the following examples of misconduct and/or mismanagement:

• the charity was found to be in default of its filing requirements and had failed to comply with its statutory duties to submit accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2018. The accounts and Trustees’ Annual Report for the period ending 31 March 2018, were submitted 54 days late

• failure to submit accounts and accompanying documents (including the annual return) to the Commission is considered a breach of a trustee’s statutory obligations under sections 162, 163 and 164 of the Act. It is also a criminal offence, under section 173 of the Act. It is also misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of a charity

• by the time of the June 2019 meeting the charity had complied with their filing requirements. Trustee B and D accepted that the charity had been late in filing its accounts, attributing this failing to unfortunate circumstances involving the illness and subsequent death of the former chair, trustee A, who oversaw these matters^{[footnote 11]}. The charity has since complied with their statutory filing obligations on time

• the Commission became aware that 2 individuals, no longer connected to the charity (the founder and a former CEO ) continued to be signatories to the charity’s bank account even after leaving the charity. Despite receiving detailed advice^{[footnote 12]} on strengthening financial controls and processes by the Commission in September 2018, the charity failed to take steps to promptly amend signatories to the charity’s bank account. Trustees B and D said that they had tried to comply with the advice, but by way of explanation for the delay they informed the Commission that the change in mandate was being overseen by trustee A (prior to his death) and since his death the trustees had experienced some difficulties in meeting the requirements of the bank and securing the completion of relevant forms to allow the bank to process their applications

• in the June 2019 meeting, the trustees provided assurances that they would take steps to rectify matters with the bank. However, supporting evidence provided to the Commission demonstrates that this matter was not rectified by the charity until 4 October 2019. Although there was no evidence of misappropriation of charitable funds, the inquiry found that the trustees had failed to ensure the charity’s funds were not put at undue risk.

Following the inquiry’s meeting with the former trustees and having considered the information and explanations provided, it is the Commission’s view that the former trustees:

• demonstrated a lack of understanding of their responsibilities and duties as trustees
• accepted there were failings in the management and administration of the charity
• acknowledged there had been a lack of leadership and oversight by the former board in respect of safeguarding matters

The trustees’ response to the Coroner’s report into the death of Sophie Bennett and what changes they are making as a result

The Coroner’s report placed on the charity a legal requirement to respond to concerns raised by the Coroner within 56 days of the date of the report, namely by 10 April 2019.

The inquiry met with trustees of the charity, in June 2019 (represented by trustee B & D) to discuss the charity’s response to the Coroner’s report into the death of Sophie Bennett and what steps they had taken to address the Coroner’s concerns.

Trustee B informed the inquiry that the former chair, trustee A, as operational lead had liaised with the Coroner’s Court but following his death in February 2019, trustee B, with the support of trustee D, had assumed these responsibilities on behalf of the charity and provided a written response to the Coroner in a letter dated 4 April 2019.

It was reported to the inquiry that trustee A, as former chair of the charity had as part of the inquest proceedings, acknowledged the concerns raised by the Coroner and accepted them as falling below the standard of care, Sophie Bennett should have expected to have received in the months leading up to her death.

The charity’s view was that the concerns raised by the Coroner were historical in nature since Lancaster Lodge had been closed since 2017 and a decision had been made not to reopen it in summer 2018. The charity was also keen to highlight that it had taken steps to appoint additional trustees. Following the death of trustee A, trustees B, D and new trustee E formed an ‘interim board’ until trustee B resigned in late June 2019. Trustee F was appointed in September 2019 forming the ‘new board of trustees’ along with trustees D and E. Both boards having taken steps to strengthen the governance of the charity and provide effective and more robust leadership at the White House.

The new board of trustees demonstrated that they have learnt lessons from the tragic events which had taken place in 2016 and were committed to ensuring the charity had suitable policies and procedures in place. They demonstrated that they have taken steps to ensure they provided a safe environment for everyone the charity encounters, including its beneficiaries, staff, volunteers and the wider circle of people that the charity come into contact with. They were able to demonstrate that they have strengthened governance processes to ensure, not only that the charity has sufficient safeguarding processes and policies in place but that they are adhered to. The new board of trustees are now responsible for the administration and management of the charity going forward.

Significant progress has been made to address the governance and improve oversight and control by the new board of trustees. Safeguarding policies and procedures have been reviewed and the charity appointed a designated safeguarding lead to report on safeguarding matters to trustees in weekly updates. They had also reviewed Health and Safety Policies and had in place a new management team who were tasked with reviewing its administrative systems and processes. A new Registered Manager had been appointed together with new appointments of care staff and going forward, the charity has introduced a structured induction and training programme (which included safeguarding training) for staff employed at the White House to ensure that new staff were suitably qualified, and their skills and qualifications remained current and up to date. Recruitment and HR policies had been reviewed and strengthened to ensure appropriate vetting and references were secured for staff employed by the charity and that skilled people were in position.

Additionally, the charity had commissioned an independent expert report which had been shared with the Commission, illustrating improvements made to strengthen its governance and safeguarding provisions.

The White House was last inspected by the CQC on 12 November 2019^{[footnote 13]} and the published report indicates that the charity is meeting its quality framework and has a “Good” Rating.

From explanations and supporting documentation provided, the Commission is satisfied that the interim board immediately following the Inquest’s findings and the new board of trustees have considered the Coroner’s report and taken steps to address concerns raised and addressed live safeguarding issues.

Conclusions

The Commission concluded that there were serious breaches of trustee duties and misconduct and/or mismanagement in the charity’s administration and management. There was evidence of both poor governance and poor financial management of the charity.

The inquiry concluded that the former trustees had not complied with or fulfilled their duties as trustees under charity law. There was a failure to:

• comply with law relating to safeguarding legislation, resulting in criminal prosecutions, criminal sanctions and substantial fines
• manage the charity’s resources responsibly and thereby exposing the charity, its beneficiaries and reputation to avoidable harm
• act in the best interests of the charity, resulting in harm to Sophie Bennett and a risk to the safety of other residents
• exercise reasonable care and skill in the execution of their roles and as a result exposed the charity and its beneficiaries to significant risk to harm
• exercise reasonable care and skill in the execution of their roles resulting in inadequate leadership and oversight in relation to safeguarding matters
• ensure their charity is accountable by filing annual accounting information, in accordance with their statutory obligation, on time
• promptly amend signatories to the charity bank account as outlined above, exposing the charity’s funds to undue risk

The charity has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for its beneficiaries, staff and volunteers and are required to ensure beneficiaries are protected from harm. From the evidence seen by the Inquiry, the Commission concludes that the former trustees failed to carry out their duties and responsibilities as trustees. They were collectively responsible for, and/or contributed to and/or facilitated the misconduct and or mismanagement in the charity by failing to provide sufficient leadership and oversight of the charity.

Regulatory Action Taken

During the course of the inquiry the following regulatory action was taken:

• the Commission exercised its legal powers, provided under section 47 of the Act to issue directions for the purposes of information gathering and in order to obtain financial documents relating to the charity
• the Commission engaged with public bodies regarding matters which were outside its scope and remit under its statutory information sharing gateways in section 54-56 of the Act
• the inquiry invited trustees to attend a meeting on 3 June 2019 to discuss regulatory concerns and seek further explanation from the trustees. The charity was represented by trustee B and trustee D (appointed since 18 August 2016)
• on 23 August 2019, the inquiry issued regulatory advice and guidance to the new board of trustees on a range of issues including governance, financial controls and safeguarding matters under section 15(2) of the Act
• on 6 January 2020, the inquiry exercised its permanent protective powers and issued notice of its intention to disqualify, under section 181A of the Act, trustee B, for a period of 12 years. The proposed disqualification would prevent the individual from being a trustee of or for any other charities and holding any office or employment with senior management functions in any charity in England and Wales throughout the period of their disqualification. Trustee B provided representations in response which were dealt with internally through the Commission’s Decision Review procedures
• on 9 April 2020, the Decision Review concluded that the grounds for disqualification were met and the period of disqualification was not reduced. However having considered further mitigation factors, a voluntary undertaking was offered and accepted from trustee B on 1 June 2020 not to be a trustee and/or hold an office or employment with a senior function in any charity in England and Wales for a period of 12 years
• a voluntary undertaking was accepted from trustee C on 2 February 2021 not to be a trustee and/or hold an office or employment with a senior management function in any charity in England and Wales for a period of 5 years
• the inquiry also considered the involvement and fitness matters in respect of the founder of the charity, in the administration and management of the charity. The founder was invited to meet with the investigation team to answer questions relating to her involvement with the charity. She was willing to assist the inquiry and was able to provide partial response to written questions put to her by the inquiry. The inquiry was also informed by the new board of trustees that the founder had stepped away from the charity and since 2018, was no longer involved with the charity. The Commission did not consider it appropriate, proportionate or in the public interest to exercise its permanent protective powers to pursue disqualification

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.

Safeguarding & protecting others

Protecting people and safeguarding responsibilities should be a governance priority for all charities. As part of fulfilling their trustee duties, trustees must take reasonable steps to protect people who come into contact with their charity from harm.

Certain types of charity are set up to assist or care for those with special needs, perhaps because of their age, physical or mental ability or ill health. Trustees must identify any risks the charity’s activities may present to their beneficiaries and, as a matter of priority, ensure that the charity has adequate measures in place to safeguard people the charity works with.

Every trustee should have clear oversight of how safeguarding and protecting people from harm are managed within their charity. Effective trustee boards lead by example, setting and owning the charity’s values, setting the standard, and modelling behaviours that reflect those values, and requiring anyone representing the charity to reflect its values positively. Keeping people safe is a core consideration for all charity trustees and they must ensure that their charity’s safeguarding arrangements are appropriate and robust. This involves not only ensuring adequate policies and procedures exist but also actively taking steps to ensure they are implemented and monitored in practice.

Trustees must be able to demonstrate that policies, procedures and practice are checked and challenged to ensure that they are fit for purpose. You must make sure your charity:

• works within all relevant statutory guidance
• keeps accurate records
• stays aware of current affairs, trends and themes and how these can influence your policies and practices
• complies with its policies and procedures, as well as with good practice and legislation
• updates policies and procedures to reflect changes to statutory requirements, good practice and current issues

If you change the way you work, such as working in a new area or in a different way, charities should:

• review current policies and make sure they are suitable
• consider whether extra policies are needed to cover any new situations or risks
• record these discussions and decisions as part of risk management procedures

Protecting people from harm is not an overhead to be minimised, it is a fundamental and integral part of operating as a charity for the public benefit. A charity should be a safe and trusted environment. Public trust and confidence depend on the conduct of trustees and how they meet their trustee duties which include safeguarding responsibilities.

For further help about safeguarding and trustee duties see the Commission’s Strategy for dealing with safeguarding issues in charities and Safeguarding and protecting people for charities and trustees.

You may need to make a report to the Commission if a serious safeguarding risk materialises. As well as reporting to us, you should also notify the police, local authority and/or relevant regulatory or statutory agency responsible for dealing with these incidents.

Governance

Trustees are representatives of the charity they govern or the charitable funds they are responsible for, in the charity sector. Trustees must be aware of and act in accordance with their legal duties. The conduct of trustees plays an essential part in driving public trust and confidence in the charity sector. When the conduct of trustees falls below the standards expected there can be damage to the reputation of individual trustees, the charity and possibly the wider charity sector.

Trustees are jointly and equally responsible for the management of their charity. To be effective and to meet their statutory duties as charity trustees they must:

• be familiar and act in accordance with the charity’s governing document and general law
• act collectively and contribute to the management of the charity. Trustees who simply defer to the opinions and decisions of others are not fulfilling their duties. They should not allow their judgement to be swayed by personal prejudices or dominant personalities
• be able to devote sufficient time to enable them to play a full role. A charity is entitled to the independent and objective judgement of each of its trustees, acting in the best interests of the charity

Delegation

Trustees often delegate day to day activities to particular trustees (such as the chair), volunteers or staff. Many charities also have power to delegate decision making to sub-committees or senior staff. It is legitimate for trustees to delegate decisions regarding the day to management of a charity to staff and others. Delegation can help trustees to govern more effectively and staff can have an important role in informing trustee decision making by providing valuable information and advice. However, where they do, the trustees must always retain ultimate responsibility and accountability for all decisions that are made.

Trustees remain collectively responsible for all decisions that are made and actions that are taken with their authority. They are ultimately accountable for everything done by the charity and those representing the charity. Trustees should consider and decide collectively which decisions they will delegate. Unusual decisions and those of high risk should not be delegated. Trustees must actively understand the risks to their charity and make sure those risks are properly managed; the higher the risk, the greater the expectation and the more oversight is needed.

Trustees must also be able to ensure that delegated authority is being properly exercised, through appropriate monitoring and reporting procedures (and, where appropriate and possible, independent checking). It is important to have clear and appropriate channels of communication between staff and trustees to ensure these are followed.

Financial Controls

Trustees must ensure that their charity has adequate financial controls in place and that the funds of their charity are applied for the benefit for which it has been set up. Charities are accountable to their donors, beneficiaries and the public.

Trustees, being equally responsible for the overall management and administration of the charity should ensure that financial controls are not only adequate but provide sufficient information to satisfy the trustees that the controls are being observed. If, due to the nature of the charity, its work, location and /or set up the trustees’ delegate supervision of financial arrangements to one or a small number of trustees or employees, they need to ensure that there are adequate arrangements in place for proper reporting back to the whole trustee body. There should be a clear audit trial of where bank accounts are held, what they are held for and who has access to them. In this way, issues can be identified at an early stage and steps taken to rectify matters.

The Commission has produced guidance to assist trustees in implementing robust internal financial controls that are appropriate to their charity. Internal Financial Controls for Charities (CC8) is available on the commission’s website. There is also a self-check-list for trustees which has been produced to enable trustees to evaluate their charity’s performance against the legal requirements and good practice recommendations set out in the guidance.

There are legal requirements for charities to submit yearly financial information to the Commission. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. The Commission also regards it as mismanagement and/or misconduct in the administration of the charity. Every charity’s accounting record must be sufficient to show and explain its transactions and disclose with reasonable accuracy its financial position. What sort of information charities must submit depends on a charity’s legal structure and income. Charitable companies and unincorporated organisations with an income under £10,000 must only submit an Annual Return to the Commission detailing their income and spending. The requirements become increasingly rigorous the larger a charity is. All charities that have an income of more than £25,000 must have their accounts externally scrutinised (by independent examination or audit). Read further guidance on how to prepare a charity annual return.

1. The period of trusteeship is not agreed as accurate by Catherine Keevil, whose position remains that she was appointed trustee of the charity in October 2015. ↩

2. 7 & 8 February 2019. ↩

3. https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/sophie-bennett/. ↩

4. https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/richmond-psychosocial-international-foundation-rpfi- prosecution. ↩

5. 12 October 2018. ↩

6. 3 June 2019. ↩

7. https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/sophie-bennett/. ↩

8. These are extracts from published Coroners Report. ↩

9. https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/cqc-prosecutes-richmond-psychosocial-foundation- international-after-death-patient. ↩

10. £40,000 fine imposed on the charity and ordered to pay a further £20,000 towards costs; former registered manager received a £3,000 fine and order to pay £10,000 towards costs. ↩

11. Trustees B and D did inform the Commission at the time that the accounts would be filed late. ↩

12. Which included that “the trustees should take immediate control of the charity’s bank accounts and to introduce frequent comprehensive financial reports from the charity’s auditor. ↩

13. Latest inspection: 12 November 2019 – Report published 4 December 2019 The White House. ↩