Door to door charity fundraising...

qetu1357

fallen121 wrote: »

Much of the information provided here has been extremely valuable. Not just to me but to others.

I have heard of Crowe Clarke Whitehill as they won some kind of Award for being "Pension Auditor of the Year". To be frank, I don't rate these kind of industry awards very highly because the larger firms tend to take it turns to "win" based on who has done the most Business in the last 12 months. I'm sure the Partners and their wives had a good knees-up at the Annual Awards dinner, though. Good luck to them.

Apparently, as well as Pension Funds, CCW also audit a large number of charities (something I admit I was not aware of before today). However, it is precisely BECAUSE the same large conglomerate audit such a large number of UK charities I have to question their impartiality. They have a vested interest in making sure all these charities appear squeaky clean and above board because otherwise it throws their own business model into disrepute.

Crowe Clarke Whitehill were previously known as Horwath Clark Whitehill. A company which was severaly reprimanded by the ICAEW Investigation Committee over a property audit in 2008. So please don't assume they are squeaky clean. No large company is.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will. Perhaps I will never be convinced. But I am reassured by what others have said on here that I am not the only one who is concerned that the >£50k salaries paid to the chief executives of some of these "charities" are more to do with being seen to be a big player and being on a social par with wealthy benefactors. And I really do feel that salaries ought to be paid for from some kind of ring fenced fund set aside for that purpose paid for by some kind of subsidiary business; not funded by public donations intended for famine relief or whatever.

Please, I am not saying for a moment that charities should be run by hippies living in caravans on a salaries of £10,000 a year. That would never work. Even I realise that.

All I am arguing for is that you look beyond the heart tugging adverts and accept that some of the money you are paying out will inevitably end up paying for that nice house, prime time TV advert or seat at an awards dinner. If you can afford it and accept that then fine. But please, if that £8 a month deprives you or your children of something then please remember those Bank reserves. That starving child in Africa will NOT die if you do not sign that DD form, and if they do die then it is probably as a result of a whole host of other things which include corruption in some foreign country that even the most honest and transparent charity is never going to be able to prevent.

I am now going to shut up and give this thread back to the chugger discussion with much apologies for hijacking. If anyone else wants to send me links or suggestions or advice then please feel free to send me a PM.

Thank you for a honest and frank discussion - no-one has chucked any insults or disputed anyone's opposing point of view and I truly appreciate that.

I think too it has been an interesting and adult debate. Too many debates on here end up in name calling.

I think it is fairly obvious that charities need to justify not only the costs of generating income but also the ways - for example street fundraising (aka chugging) which whilst effective seems to irritate a significant number of people.

Also on salaries, charities need to justify why they have to pay people and why they have to pay some people significant money.

For example, charities could choose not to employ professionals and you could end up where £10m was raised from spending nothing as opposed to £50m is raised from spending £12m. Which is better? Personally I think the £38m net is better than the £10m net.

So in conclusion, some charities are better than others but I believe the overwhelming majority of charities in UK are fine and provide services to needy people etc that either the government/taxpayer can't provide or won't provide.

Mallotum_X

fallen121 wrote: »

Much of the information provided here has been extremely valuable. Not just to me but to others.

I have heard of Crowe Clarke Whitehill as they won some kind of Award for being "Pension Auditor of the Year". To be frank, I don't rate these kind of industry awards very highly because the larger firms tend to take it turns to "win" based on who has done the most Business in the last 12 months. I'm sure the Partners and their wives had a good knees-up at the Annual Awards dinner, though. Good luck to them.

Apparently, as well as Pension Funds, CCW also audit a large number of charities (something I admit I was not aware of before today). However, it is precisely BECAUSE the same large conglomerate audit such a large number of UK charities I have to question their impartiality. They have a vested interest in making sure all these charities appear squeaky clean and above board because otherwise it throws their own business model into disrepute.

Crowe Clarke Whitehill were previously known as Horwath Clark Whitehill. A company which was severaly reprimanded by the ICAEW Investigation Committee over a property audit in 2008. So please don't assume they are squeaky clean. No large company is.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will. Perhaps I will never be convinced. But I am reassured by what others have said on here that I am not the only one who is concerned that the >£50k salaries paid to the chief executives of some of these "charities" are more to do with being seen to be a big player and being on a social par with wealthy benefactors. And I really do feel that salaries ought to be paid for from some kind of ring fenced fund set aside for that purpose paid for by some kind of subsidiary business; not funded by public donations intended for famine relief or whatever.

Please, I am not saying for a moment that charities should be run by hippies living in caravans on a salaries of £10,000 a year. That would never work. Even I realise that.

All I am arguing for is that you look beyond the heart tugging adverts and accept that some of the money you are paying out will inevitably end up paying for that nice house, prime time TV advert or seat at an awards dinner. If you can afford it and accept that then fine. But please, if that £8 a month deprives you or your children of something then please remember those Bank reserves. That starving child in Africa will NOT die if you do not sign that DD form, and if they do die then it is probably as a result of a whole host of other things which include corruption in some foreign country that even the most honest and transparent charity is never going to be able to prevent.

I am now going to shut up and give this thread back to the chugger discussion with much apologies for hijacking. If anyone else wants to send me links or suggestions or advice then please feel free to send me a PM.

Thank you for a honest and frank discussion - no-one has chucked any insults or disputed anyone's opposing point of view and I truly appreciate that.

Do you know much about auditors? it would appear not from the poorly linked bits of info above.

Quite what the auditors have to do with the chief execs salary is an unsual thing to connect. The Auditors are checking that the accounts represent what has happened, they also check that the accounts have been prepared in accordance with financial standards and the charities act.

Most audit firms work with hundreds of clients, from time to time there will be mistakes, thats life, and its usually not down to dishonesty, although that is a bit less of a story than you wish to portray.

As for your industry awards point, that really did make me laugh, there are all sorts of different bodies that hand out all sorts of awards - so what?

There are lots of large audit firms in the UK, many of them audit charities, its quite a specialist area - different accounting standards etc - hence why firms audit several - it costs money to train people up to have the skills to do the job. The charities will want people with relevant experiance to act for them. But hey lets not let sense get in the way of a good rant about being impartial!

I would much rather a charity I was interested in was audited by a big firm than some small back street operation.

On the totaly unrelated point of chief execs pay, well on that you have a point, sadly too many of the large charities have more money than they know what to do with, Guide Dogs being a prime example, so they fritter it away, there are simply too many charities in the UK, employing far too many people and spending too much money on property, offices and admin. But thats not got anything to do with the auditors, its more down to the typical trustee of a charity being self important rather than actually caring for what they claim. As a result they dont merge with each other to create admin savings which could be better spent on the charities core activity. The charities commisison doesnt really do anything about this, so if it really bothers you then do something about it, and get political, both with politcians and the charities themselves. After all how many independent animal rescue centres do we really need - all employing a chief exec, all paying for premises, accountants, bankers and a whole load of other admin costs.

fallen121

I'm glad I made you laugh Mallotum. I don't claim to be an expert on auditors or anything. I'd heard about this particular firm because of a family connection which had had some dealings with them on the Pensions front, that is all.

"Praise Vent and Warnings" is supposed to be a forum where one can vent one's spleen, but I suppose some people just get a kick out of picking other people's postings to pieces and slagging them off. Each to their own, I suppose.

qetu1357

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Do you know much about auditors? it would appear not from the poorly linked bits of info above.

Quite what the auditors have to do with the chief execs salary is an unsual thing to connect. The Auditors are checking that the accounts represent what has happened, they also check that the accounts have been prepared in accordance with financial standards and the charities act.

Most audit firms work with hundreds of clients, from time to time there will be mistakes, thats life, and its usually not down to dishonesty, although that is a bit less of a story than you wish to portray.

As for your industry awards point, that really did make me laugh, there are all sorts of different bodies that hand out all sorts of awards - so what?

There are lots of large audit firms in the UK, many of them audit charities, its quite a specialist area - different accounting standards etc - hence why firms audit several - it costs money to train people up to have the skills to do the job. The charities will want people with relevant experiance to act for them. But hey lets not let sense get in the way of a good rant about being impartial!

I would much rather a charity I was interested in was audited by a big firm than some small back street operation.

On the totaly unrelated point of chief execs pay, well on that you have a point, sadly too many of the large charities have more money than they know what to do with, Guide Dogs being a prime example, so they fritter it away, there are simply too many charities in the UK, employing far too many people and spending too much money on property, offices and admin. But thats not got anything to do with the auditors, its more down to the typical trustee of a charity being self important rather than actually caring for what they claim. As a result they dont merge with each other to create admin savings which could be better spent on the charities core activity. The charities commisison doesnt really do anything about this, so if it really bothers you then do something about it, and get political, both with politcians and the charities themselves. After all how many independent animal rescue centres do we really need - all employing a chief exec, all paying for premises, accountants, bankers and a whole load of other admin costs.

"Too many of the large charities have more money than they know what to do with"

I'm interested to know who these large charities are. Who are they?

07mike

Would you stop complaining!

I personally volounteer for a charity and have done some polite door to door sales selling lottery tickets. The reason some people are to forward about the sales is that either they have had 20 people saying no before you (which is very dissapointing) or the charity desperatly needs the money. Most proper charities fundraisers are on commision of around 10% I did it for free as my charity was about to go bust and i partly saved it by being forward with people!!!

SmallL

Eugh, you never actually have time to say 'no'!
The other night a young female charity collector knocks at about 8pm (yes 8pm) and blabbers on about water for children in africa, she must have said 'im sure you will agree' at least 7 times in her speech.
When she finally finished i told her it was late, im a student and don't have spare cash and her standing there had allowed next doors cat in my house.
I wouldnt mind callers in sociable hours, but 8pm isn't sociable!

Pollycat

07mike wrote: »

Would you stop complaining!

I personally volounteer for a charity and have done some polite door to door sales selling lottery tickets. The reason some people are to forward about the sales is that either they have had 20 people saying no before you (which is very dissapointing) or the charity desperatly needs the money. Most proper charities fundraisers are on commision of around 10% I did it for free as my charity was about to go bust and i partly saved it by being forward with people!!!

When you say 'being forward with people' you actually mean being pushy and persistant, don't you?

I'll stop complaining when people (not just chuggers but window salespeople etc too) stop knocking on my door uninvited.

OK, you may be disappointed after being told 'no' for the 20th time but that doesn't give you the right to take it out on the 21st person by being 'forward'.

If you knocked on my door, I'd say (politely) 'no thank you'.
If you didn't take that as my final answer but instead you continued to be 'forward', you would find my politeness disappearing pretty quickly.

I give to the charities of my choice monthly by direct debit.
I don't want somebody from some random charity I've never heard of knocking at my door asking for money.

Savvysatsu

Yes it's disgusting when you have a roof over your head, live in a country where you always have change in your pocket and someone has the cheek to take 2 minutes of your time to ask you to help out a worthy cause. Especially when they're doing a job no one else would want to do, out in the cold for 8 hours straight.
How selfish they must be to disturb you while you make more money for corporate fat cats all day.

Edit, just saw this and frankly it's an appalling statement

SmallL wrote: »

blabbers on about water for children in africa

lincroft1710

Savvysatsu wrote: »

Yes it's disgusting when you have a roof over your head, live in a country where you always have change in your pocket and someone has the cheek to take 2 minutes of your time to ask you to help out a worthy cause.

2 minutes is an understatement, it's more likely to be 5 or 10 minutes. The organisations represented aren't always "worthy" causes.

Especially when they're doing a job no one else would want to do, out in the cold for 8 hours straight.

Their choice

How selfish they must be to disturb you while you make more money for corporate fat cats all day.

Rather stupid generalisation, you don't know who they work for?

Edit, just saw this and frankly it's an appalling statement

No it's not. I had one a few weeks ago who started a Q and A session about what I knew about the work of the large well known charity she represented and also said they had helped a neighbour (which I found hard to believe).

If she had just put an envelope through the door as they did in the past, she may have had a better response.

Although you may not agree with what was posted over 18 months ago, you do your cause no good by such a vehement first post.

forgotmyname

Savvysatsu wrote: »

How selfish they must be to disturb you while you make more money for corporate fat cats all day.

Except they are knocking on people's doors late into the evenings when people have come home and eating dinner.

Possible just home from some crappy job they hate and earn less than the collector and have more bills than the collector.

So many fake ones about also. I have reported several bag collecting companies for fake details.