Jump to content

How Many Straws To Break The Camel’s Back ?


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

No - I don't think that's a criminal act is it? I was thinking more about accidents causing harm to licence holders where they were the foreseeable result of a failure to keep locks safe etc.. Anyway, I googled that and it looks like I got it wrong - because the Trust is an incorporated company, it has it's own 'legal personality', which means that the Trust is liable on it's own part - not the trustees. As far as I understand, the same would (and does) go, since you ask, for the refusal to licence a boat which meets the 3 specified conditions in the '95 Act.

Here - https://www.abi.org.uk/globalassets/sitecore/files/documents/publications/public/2014/voluntary/abi-trustee-liability-guide.pdf

Edited by Teasel
to add link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is surprising that there is still widespread misunderstanding - much wider than just the membership of this forum - about what it means to be a charity. A link to one of several very helpful and informative pages on the Charity Commission (CC) web site has already been posted - from that page you can locate others that look at specific aspects in detail.

For the government, since granting charitable status (and with certain exceptions that can only be done by the CC) confers significant benefits, it is important that the definitions align reasonably well with public opinion. Hence the fact that the law is regularly updated - the last major change was, I think, in 2011.

Most importantly, the Charitable Aims with which a charity is registered, are  - like the Mem and arts for a limited company, permission rather than mandatory. The CC have to be satisfied that everything that a reg charity does falls within those aims but it has no powers if it fails to do any of them. If CaRT, say, decided to abandon its commitment to navigation but focus entirely on being a fishing, walking and cycling asset then that is not of concern to the CC.

However, charities generally are reliant of donors, whether public, institutional or private and most of their arrangements require a CC registration number for starters (incidentally makes it sometimes a little complicated for those of us who are exempt or excepted charities). Generally, however, donors look at the actual work of the charity and will makes donations based on that, the most important document being their annual report. Further, donations will often be restricted and the charity may only spend them in line with those restrictions. The control of restricted funds is  itself very much part of the charity governance regulatory environment.

Charities cover a wide range of activities and it is up to donors (not beneficiaries) to determine whether they will support them. I personally shy well clear of animal charities but that is just my choice. What is not possible, within the regulatory context, is for those who might wish to benefit from a charity, to complain (formally) that the charity is not working for them - unless it is doing something outside its aims.

Two important protections, beside the CC oversight: one is that the aims cannot be extended unilaterally by the charity unless the CC approves. This can be done but is a bit bureaucratic. This often happens when the charity finds that there is no longer a possibility of spending its money on the original aims. For example, if the charity was formed, may be over a century ago, to provide a recreational or educational building and that building no longer exists, perhaps it just fell down, then unless the charity has other aims approved the money cannot be used - not something that the CC likes.

Secondly, the charity must be wholly governed by Trustees who are required to operate within quite demanding rules that generally prevent them from gaining any advantage from being a trustee. This can, for example, be quite complicated when a Trustee is the best person professional both to be a Trustee and also to provide a service to that charity. That situation requires extra care in squaring it with the CC.

Much of the debate in the preceding posts seems to stem from people wanting to have a go at CaRT and their performance and that is their entitlement, here or anywhere else - although insult or libel is not, so care has to be taken. But most of this criticism has to be taken in an arena other than that controlled by CC (and somewhat separately HMRC). The most effective arena will be that of donors - so lobby your MP as the public purse is till the largest 'donor' to CaRT! Recourse to a dictionary (real or imagined) is most definitely not helpful.

(You may care to infer that I have had quite a bit to do with the governance of charities . . .)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people also seem to be concerned about trading activities: many charities set up limited companies (that may have one of several legal structures) whose purpose to do what the charity itself cannot or, usually for tax reason, does not want to do, and those charities can mitigate corporation tax (eg) by covenanting all of their profit to the main charity.

There may well be some independent trustees as well as those from the main board who act as the 'subsidiary's' board of directors, keeping a balance between maintaining compatibility with the main charity but also having some independent oversight or skills not otherwise significant to the charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think that Nigel pointed out that they have unlimited liability, in certain cases and certainly in the 'breach of trust' - it is somewhere in 'the small print'.

Are you thinking of this clause?

Indemnity
Without prejudice to any indemnity to which a Trustee may otherwise be entitled, every Trustee of the Trust shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Trust in relation to any liability incurred by him or her in that capacity but only to the extent permitted by the Companies Acts; and every other officer of the Trust may be indemnified out of the assets of the Trust in relation to any liability incurred by him or her in that capacity, but only to the extent permitted by the Companies Acts.

Examples:

Directors' personal liabilities for company debts can be proved if it can be shown that they performed any inappropriate actions eg Continuing to pay shareholders dividends whilst the company is insolvent. ... Disposing of the company's assets at undervalue or no value.

I apologise. I was confusing trustees, who are directors of Canal & River Trust (the company limited by guarantee) with council members who are the equivalent of shareholders in a normal limited company. If C&RT went bust, then council members would be liable for any debt up to a maximum limit of £10 each.

I have just checked with someone who has a reasonable knowledge of this area and am told that because C&RT is a charity (i.e. registered with the Charity Commission) it is subject to charitable law. As it is registered as as a limited company (at Companies House) it is also subject to company law.

I was also told that it is very rare for action to be taken by the Charity Commission against trustees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

most of this criticism has to be taken in an arena other than that controlled by CC (and somewhat separately HMRC). The most effective arena will be that of donors - so lobby your MP as the public purse is till the largest 'donor' to CaRT!

Thanks Mike - that's cleared quite a lot of my confusion up anyway! I guess there's always going to be a difference between the 'charitable wrongs' CRT may or may not commit in the way they run the waterways and the private/public law 'wrongs' against individuals. or particular groups. 

 

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I would have thought so ?

An act of Parliament is not being complied with  ?

crime - Legal Definition. n. An act or omission that violates the law

No - not all violations of the law are criminal offences - some of them are civil or public law 'wrongs' - so they don't lead to 'punishments' but to 'remedies.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I would have thought so ?

An act of Parliament is not being complied with  ?

crime - Legal Definition. n. An act or omission that violates the law

You will need to distinguish between (a) doing something that is outwith the aims and powers of the charity (b) failure to meet one or more of the aims (c) something else that you disagree with

The first step would be to establish that the action is non-trivially a violation of a law (not just a failure to meet the aims). This, of course, is a matter of dispute and as always can only really be resolved by a court of sufficient standing.

But more importantly for the question as asked, it would then be necessary to decide whether such an action was directly controlled by the Trustees. For example, I was a Trustee of a medium sized charity that was prosecuted under health and safety legislation for a delinquent inaction by a member of staff which resulted in minor injury to another member of staff who had acted irresponsibly. The person in the dock, representing the charity, was the company secretary/chief executive. Although the charity was fined (in my view wrongly but it was a low level court so there was no motivation to challenge the principle which the judge used but was at least arguable) there was no suggestion that either the staff or the trustees would be held personally liable. This has been the case for very much more serious cases of accidents - there is now a corporate manslaughter option and a slightly greater possibility of charging an individual but the culpability bar seems to be set rather high.

It is a greater risk for financial or governance irregularities - I do know a similar charity where the trustees were held personally liable for costs incurred ultra vires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I apologise. I was confusing trustees, who are directors of Canal & River Trust (the company limited by guarantee) with council members who are the equivalent of shareholders in a normal limited company. If C&RT went bust, then council members would be liable for any debt up to a maximum limit of £10 each.

I have just checked with someone who has a reasonable knowledge of this area and am told that because C&RT is a charity (i.e. registered with the Charity Commission) it is subject to charitable law. As it is registered as as a limited company (at Companies House) it is also subject to company law.

I was also told that it is very rare for action to be taken by the Charity Commission against trustees.

I don't think that the latter two paras require any great specialist insight. The first is almost a tautology. They apply to any body that is either a charity or a registered company (incidentally, some might be an Industrial and Provident Society - Company Limited by Guarantee, with slightly different regulatory context)

The second is also much more widely true. Company directors are rarely subject to prosecution whether or not they are charities. In general, corporate and charitable oversight by the various regulators seeks to operate with other levers of influence - many of them have the power to impose fines which may still be infrequent but not quite so.

That said, few Trustees of small and medium charities understand that they share a joint and several liability just what liability means!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I don't think that the latter two paras require any great specialist insight. The first is almost a tautology. They apply to any body that is either a charity or a registered company (incidentally, some might be an Industrial and Provident Society - Company Limited by Guarantee, with slightly different regulatory context)

The second is also much more widely true. Company directors are rarely subject to prosecution whether or not they are charities. In general, corporate and charitable oversight by the various regulators seeks to operate with other levers of influence - many of them have the power to impose fines which may still be infrequent but not quite so.

That said, few Trustees of small and medium charities understand that they share a joint and several liability just what liability means!

Regarding financial liability, C&RT trustees hold trustee liability insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Regarding financial liability, C&RT trustees hold trustee liability insurance.

As a Company Director I took advice on this subject.

A company may (but is not obliged to) indemnify you in respect of certain proceedings brought against you by third parties. An indemnity can potentially cover both the cost of the claim itself and the costs involved in defending it but never the following:

  • the unsuccessful defence of or fines imposed in criminal proceedings
  • penalties imposed by regulatory bodies.

It is common for a company to take out directors’ and officers’ (D&O) insurance on behalf of its directors. Policy cover and terms vary but typically deal with directors’ liabilities arising from claims of negligence, breach of duty or other default. Standard policy exclusions include fraud, dishonesty and criminal behaviour but the directors should ensure they understand any limitations on cover and that insurance policies are kept under regular review

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/12/2017 at 13:19, cuthound said:

The online moorings at Llangollen are chargable  (£6 per 24 hours, max stay 48 hours, payable at the boat trip centre) as well as those in the offline 'marina' area. Both have electricity and water available, which takes some of the sting out of the charge. I have used and paid for both online and offline mooring there.

This has been the case since around 2000 IIRC when  the offline 'marina' area was opened.

I have never moored overnight there since the day they started charging 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking in response to reading all the comments, based on my distant past involvement in running a charity, I would say the Trustees are the named persons who are recognised by law as the responsible keepers of the tangible assets for which they are required and empowered to dispose of in accordance with the aims and objectives of the charity in the event of the ultimate winding up or closure.   And if insolvent, Trustees were in no way liable for debts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

As a Company Director I took advice on this subject.

A company may (but is not obliged to) indemnify you in respect of certain proceedings brought against you by third parties. An indemnity can potentially cover both the cost of the claim itself and the costs involved in defending it but never the following:

  • the unsuccessful defence of or fines imposed in criminal proceedings
  • penalties imposed by regulatory bodies.

It is common for a company to take out directors’ and officers’ (D&O) insurance on behalf of its directors. Policy cover and terms vary but typically deal with directors’ liabilities arising from claims of negligence, breach of duty or other default. Standard policy exclusions include fraud, dishonesty and criminal behaviour but the directors should ensure they understand any limitations on cover and that insurance policies are kept under regular review

Interesting to have confirmation on that. I may at some time in the future report a C&RT director to the Information Commissioners Office for a possible criminal breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well I'm pretty dense and once thought I knew the difference between a charity and a charitable trust, and which of the two CRT is. 

But it turns out I don’t. Could you explain for me please? I’d be much obliged. 

There isn't a difference!

A Charitable Trust is simply one way in which a Charity can be organised.

The problem here is that too many people can't see past "Charity" as "An organisation that provides relief to people/animals", and they tie themselves in linguistic knots to say that CRT isn't a Charity, but it is something else that is vaguely Charitable.

All the tripe about "there are many definitions of charity, and most of them say...." means NOTHING.

There is only one definition that counts here, and that is the definition in The Charities Act 2011.

No matter how many dictionary definitions of Charity the hard of thinking wheel out, often to point out that CRT behaves in an "uncharitable" way, the simple fact is that it meets the definitions in the Act, and it is a Charity.

Charities have an absolute duty to use their funds for THEIR charitable purposes, as opposed to generally being nice to all comers. It might fit some people's definition of Charity if the RSPCA fundraising shop emptied their till and bought bacon sandwiches for the homeless, but that is NOT their charitable purpose, so they don't (indeed must not) do that.

In the same way, CRTs charitable purpose is maintaining the waterways, not providing free boat licences and free moorings to the poor.

 

  • Greenie 3
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mayalld said:

There isn't a difference!

A Charitable Trust is simply one way in which a Charity can be organised.

The problem here is that too many people can't see past "Charity" as "An organisation that provides relief to people/animals", and they tie themselves in linguistic knots to say that CRT isn't a Charity, but it is something else that is vaguely Charitable.

All the tripe about "there are many definitions of charity, and most of them say...." means NOTHING.

There is only one definition that counts here, and that is the definition in The Charities Act 2011.

No matter how many dictionary definitions of Charity the hard of thinking wheel out, often to point out that CRT behaves in an "uncharitable" way, the simple fact is that it meets the definitions in the Act, and it is a Charity.

Charities have an absolute duty to use their funds for THEIR charitable purposes, as opposed to generally being nice to all comers. It might fit some people's definition of Charity if the RSPCA fundraising shop emptied their till and bought bacon sandwiches for the homeless, but that is NOT their charitable purpose, so they don't (indeed must not) do that.

In the same way, CRTs charitable purpose is maintaining the waterways, not providing free boat licences and free moorings to the poor.

 

They could, of course, dispense with collecting licences and mooring charges if they found other ways of generating sufficient income - doing so otherwise would be delinquent on this duties. For example they could persuade Parliament to allow them to charge through a scheme of tools, perhaps collected electronically. Whether that is likely or sensible is for you to assess! But it would not be remotely illegal although doing so without obtaining the necessary legislation might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mayalld said:

 

No matter how many dictionary definitions of Charity the hard of thinking wheel out Blah blah .

In the same way, CRTs charitable purpose is maintaining the waterways, not providing free boat licences and free moorings to the poor.

 

I think you are deliberately being contentious. No idea why. Nobody mentioned free boat licences and moorings.

Very sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I think you are deliberately being contentious. No idea why. Nobody mentioned free boat licences and moorings.

Very sad. 

Perhaps not in this thread, though they may have done as I haven't read every single post, but I have read it suggested on here a good few times that CRT should cut people who can't pay their dues 'more slack' because they are a 'charity'.

A position born from ignorance of what CRT's charitable status actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MJG said:

Perhaps not in this thread, though they may have done as I haven't read every single post, but I have read it suggested on here a good few times that CRT should cut people who can't pay their dues 'more slack' because they are a 'charity'.

A position born from ignorance of what CRT's charitable status actually is.

I just think it's very sad when people call others dense, hard of thinking and ignorant, just because they think they know more than others. In fact people often do it when the views they have held for many years are being challenged. 

I've learnt a few things I didn't know from this thread. Rudeness, or putting people down, doesn't do anything to help support an argument  or sway an opinion. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I just think it's very sad when people call others dense, hard of thinking and ignorant, just because they think they know more than others. In fact people often do it when the views they have held for many years are being challenged. 

I've learnt a few things I didn't know from this thread. Rudeness, or putting people down, doesn't do anything to help support an argument  or sway an opinion. 

Splendid.

It's not about 'thinking' people know more than others its about 'actually' knowing more, gained from readily available and accessible information.

What this thread reminds me (not teaches me) is how uppity people can get when this is pointed out.

Ps referring to ignorance by the way is not always an insult, it just means somebody is ignorant or devoid of facts in this instance.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MJG said:

Splendid.

It's not about 'thinking' people know more than others its about 'actually' knowing more, gained from readily available and accessible information.

What this thread reminds me (not teaches me) is how uppity people can get when this is pointed out.

Ps referring to ignorance by the way is not always an insult, it just means somebody is ignorant or devoid of facts in this instance.

Well having used the word dense first you had already shown your intent before using the word ignorant. Or is there another more savoury definition for the word dense? 

Intent is more important than words anyway. Your intent on this thread shines through. It's to start an argument with someone because you are probably bored. :)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowland al said:

I think you are deliberately being contentious. No idea why. Nobody mentioned free boat licences and moorings.

 

Yes they did. I did. Or sort of did, by proxy. I mentioned how on other threads people have on many occasions put forward the opinion that crt are a charity so should cut those who have fallen on hard times some slack, and I asked how this argument should be countered. 

So now this thread has reached the length were it goes in circles. People post with points already made because they haven’t read the thread because there are too many posts, then other people come on explaining that has already been covered but covering it again, this making the thread even longer and compounding the problem. Just like I’m doing now :-/

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Well having used the word dense first you had already shown your intent before using the word ignorant. Or is there another more savoury definition for the word dense? 

Intent is more important than words anyway. Your intent on this thread shines through. It's to start an argument with someone because you are probably bored. :)

No I'm not bored, what is your excuse though?, you seem argumentative enough.

As I pointed out and I will repeat saying somebody is ignorant is not an insult when it points out they are lacking in knowledge, its just a fact.

The other and separate fact is there are lots of dense people on social media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MJG said:

No I'm not bored, what is your excuse though?, you seem argumentative enough.

As I pointed out and I will repeat saying somebody is ignorant is not an insult when it points out they are lacking in knowledge, its just a fact.

The other and separate fact is there are lots of dense people on social media.

 

In addition there is a very loose correlation between dense-ness and ignorance. Dense people tend on the whole to be less well informed than bright people. Plenty of exceptions but in general this often holds true. 

This is also the reason politicians seem misguidedly to think education makes the population cleverer. Surely only dense people can possibly believe this! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.