The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO ) has criticised the Charity Commission for failing to implement its recommendations to improve following its investigation into the regulator’s handling of two sexual abuse cases at charities.

These probes had “uncovered several failings, including around its decision making and its communication with complainants”.

The ombudsman had recommended the Commission apologise and provide financial redress to the two complainants involved and act “to stop the same failures being repeated”, including reviewing its handling of the cases, as well as its risk assessment and communication guidance.

But the ombudsman says that the Commission has failed to comply with all recommendations made.

While financial remedy has been provided to the complainants and a review of case handling has taken place the regulator “has not acknowledged or addressed all the failings identified, implemented service improvements to our satisfaction or accounted for the decisions it made”.

The concerns have been raised by the ombudsman as it lays its reports into the regulator’s handling of the two cases before MPs this week.

It is calling on parliament “to hold the Charity Commission to account” for failures to adhere to the ombudsman’s recommendations in full.

Commission accused of blocking MPs’ access to reports

The ombudsman had planned to lay the reports before parliament in March but says this was delayed after the Charity Commission launched legal action against the ombudsman over its findings.

PSHO chief executive Rebecca Hilsenrath says the Commission had “prevented us from” laying the reports before parliament “by bringing legal proceedings”.

The reports laying before parliament this week follows an intervention last week by MPs, who accused the Commission of “deliberately” taking legal action to prevent their access to the reports.

A Charity Commission spokesperson denied the regulator had “asked the court to block the laying of any report before Parliament”.

But they added that they asked “to delay considering the reports to allow the courts to give judgment on our own and the Ombudsman’s statutory remits first”.

Hilsenrath added: “The Charity Commission indicated throughout our investigations that they did not agree with our findings.

“They have not complied with the bulk of our recommendations, despite our best efforts and our willingness to work with them to ensure compliance. It is important that the Commission provides a full apology for their failings.

“I am pleased that Parliament has taken an interest in these cases and has given us the opportunity to bring them to the attention of the House so that it can intervene.

“The purpose of our investigations is always to encourage learning and service improvements. If an organisation looks at what went wrong, it will be able to stop the same mistake from happening again.”

Complainants also raise concerns

The two complainants involved in the cases have also criticised the Charity Commission for failing to adhere to the ombudsman’s recommendations.

Lara Hall, the complainant in one of the cases, who has waived her right to anonymity, has joined the ombudsman and MPs in accusing the Commission of trying to block MPs’ access to the reports.

“The Charity Commission’s repeated failures have caused me profound pain and ongoing injustice,” said Lara.

“Instead of holding a trustee to account for appalling sexual exploitation, it questioned my experience and forced me to relive my worst trauma. How can survivors feel safe reporting abuse if they think they will be treated like I have?”

She added: “By trying to block Parliament from seeing the reports, the Commission attempted to avoid scrutiny - striking at the heart of accountability in our democracy. Even now, it refuses to accept responsibility or act to put things right.

“It is my hope that by bringing the reports to Parliament’s attention action will finally be taken. The Commission must urgently address safeguarding to protect vulnerable people. Right now, it is failing in its core duty.

“It is time for change, oversight, and accountability within the Charity Sector so what happened to me is never repeated.

“I call on Parliament to hold the Commission to account and restore public trust. People deserve to feel safe approaching charities, and they deserve a regulator that takes safeguarding seriously.”

The other case involved allegations of possible concealment of child sexual abuse at a charity.

The PHSO agreed earlier this year with complainant Damian Murray that the Charity Commission had failed to properly respond to the allegations.

Damian said: “For over seven years the Charity Commission has refused to act upon my complaint about the concealment of child sexual abuse.

“The Charity Commission has doggedly resisted all efforts by me, and latterly the Parliamentary Ombudsman, to encourage it properly or promptly to discharge its statutory responsibilities, choosing rather to shield the charity and its Trustees from scrutiny and accountability.

“After much unnecessary time incurred due to this resistance, the Ombudsman's report has now been laid in Parliament. I trust now that politicians will hold the Commission to account, where I as an ordinary UK citizen failed.”

The Charity Commission spokesperson added: “We have long accepted that there are genuine and important lessons for the Commission to learn from these two sensitive cases, principally in the way in which we communicate with complainants, and we have made improvements to our processes as a result. We have previously apologised to both complainants.”

“The Commission undertook detailed reviews in each case, as set out by the Ombudsman, and concluded that the overall outcome in each case was sound. In the case of Ms Hall, we had already issued an official warning to the charity concerned.

“But it is our view that by making the decision that we did not comply with certain recommendations in its reports, the Ombudsman has misunderstood our remit and overstepped its role, meaning that its decision making was unlawful.

“We respect the work and authority of the Ombudsman, but it is vital that we, in turn, are enabled to do the job that Parliament set us.

“We have worked hard to seek to resolve the matter with the Ombudsman directly, but this has not proven possible. For that reason, we have brought legal action at the High Court.”

---