bogus charity: Everyone's Children's Trust

melancholly

well it's true that the website (without ct) does work, although perhaps they could try and get their listings on other websites correct as that's where the wrong website is advertised ( eg http://new.thebiggive.org.uk/charity/view/6255/overview).

correct version here:
http://everyones.org.uk/index.html

i am a bit concerned that this thread is effectively now on at least an other 5 forums where the same first post has been used..... i can't easily tell if it is a fake charity but there are more websites accusing them than saying anything else about them (but to be fair it doesn't mean anything if the allegations all come from the same place).

marka1989

i rang the charity and the website is everyones.org.uk
im not defending nor agreeing with anything im just stating that the points raised were incorrect

Tangible

The set up of the charity isn't very impressive and appears quite amateur, which may be down to a surfeit of goodwill over ability, but the original complaint was over the allegation that the accounts showed that proceeds were being spent on expenses rather than good works. I have not seen the accounts and therefore cannot comment on that aspect but charities must be open to public scrutiny and comment as they expect and receive public trust and generosity.

Running a charity is an onerous task and shouldn't be undertaken lightly.

ju1i3_2

I will clarify a few things that have been mentioned.

1. The web site address given in the accounts (2009 being the latest available) and at the Charity Commission site *was* www.everyonesct.org.uk. There was no site at that address. A whois lookup (until recently) said the domain name registration was "suspended".

2. They have indeed now changed the web address at the Charity Commission entry. A whois lookup reveals it was last changed on 2-8-2011 (to change the name servers and make the site live?).

3. The phone number given at the Charity Commission has now also been changed. The previous one given did *not* work.

The points I raised were correct at the time I raised them. It looks like they have reacted to this negative publicity.

4. I cannot help but think they have removed the "childrens trust" part because they were obviously taking advantage of the similarity to the well-known well-respected Childrens Trust charity.

I have uploaded the accounts (which I requested and received from the Charity Commission). People can make up their own mind. (https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=d01153364a8814f2&sc=documents&uc=1&id=D01153364A8814F2%21117#) I haven't used skydrive before but I hope you're able to see that pdf.

ju1i3_2

marka1989 wrote: »

I recently read the above article in regards to the eveyones childrens trust. i have to say that many of the points raised are incorrect and wrong. i have rang the phone number stated on the charity commision website which works perfectly well. also the website clearly states it is down due to maintenance. i have read many good and posative things about this charity and the hard work it does and the money spent on good causes. this is one of the many childrens charaties i support and will continue to do so. due to some very sad pesonal circumstances i beleive childrens charaties such as this one are a vital asset to this country.

Please share with us, what good and positive things? Where did you read them? Links please.

Tangible

As I said, and others have mentioned, when being critical of a charity you must be cautious and objective when commenting on their activities, and by looking at the accounts obtained by cu1i3 I would make these comments.

On the good side.

The charity is properly constituted and is run in accordance with the regulations governing companies and charities, and has presented properly prepared accounts.

On the negative side.

Based on the accounts presented, the charity appears not to have performed what could be described as a'charitable act' during the period covered by those accounts - year ending 31st October 2009 - which would presumably be disappointing to those who contributed to the collections totalling £ 19.846.

Effectively it appears that until this charity has raised £20,000 plus per annum, it has no funds available for charitable acts and its set up befits that of a much larger charity than it appears to be, judging from the itemised list of expenses.

As it is a business, as well as a charity, it is proper to critique its effectiveness, which would be demonstrated by the surplus funds available for charitable acts (profit), and on these figures it has none.

There is nothing improper in these figures. It just isn't a very effective charity, but I can't say whether or not this makes them worse or better than others operating in the same field. We know that there has been controversy over expenses and salaries to those running other charities.

I have done my best to make my comments objective and reasonable.

heretolearn_2

1) There is a lot of confusion on this thread re the charity also being a 'business' as it also is a Limited Company. this doesn't make it a business. This is a very common structure for charities - it's called being a charitable company as opposed to being a charitable trust, but they are still charities. There is no business with a turnover/profit, still just a charity with income/surplus. People seem to think it makes this a business which is supposed to put its profits into the charity, and that's not how it works at all. (It is possible for a charity to run a business for this purpose, but it's nothing to do with the fact that most charities are charitable companies. 'Company' does not equal 'business' in this context.

All the major charities are charitable companies, and all of the smart small ones too. We recommend for several reasons that our clients who are still charitable trusts convert to charitable companies. there's nothing odd or dodgy about it, honest!

heretolearn_2

but on a purely personal and non-professional level, looking at those accounts it seems poorly run and they have gone to an accountant who doesn't understand what 'charitable activities' is supposed to cover. It's not the admin expenses, that's for sure. However the accountant has not done and Independent Examination of the accounts, so has basically either just put his/her name to whatever the client gave them, or did the accounts but like many accountants doesn't understand how charity accounts really work.

There's clearly been zero actual charitable activity through the year.

Probably well meaning amateurs rather than anything deliberate or fake though?

Tangible

Technically and legally it's a charity heretolearn , but I think most people would have trouble considering that an entity that has collected nearly £20,000 and spent it all on running costs, without appeaing to have spent a penny on any charitable cause, is in practicality or morally anything but a business.

It doesn't appear to have done anything wrong in legal terms, and I have avoided criticism so far, but I would have expected the prime driving force of any charity to be performing charitable acts. Indeed it has evidenced that during that period it is missing the one component that defines a charity in the minds of most people.

The primary method to promote itself is its own past record and, if it continues in the same vein, it will wither and die, which won't be a loss to the charity community, it appears.

It is correct and proper that all charities are open to scrutiny and criticism, and one that appears not to be performing chartabe acts can't expect to escape.

I'm not making wild accusations. I'm stating the obvious.

heretolearn_2

I'm not defending the fact that they haven't used any of the money for charitable acts, not at all.

but they are still not a business so it's not useful to talk of what they should or shouldn't do with their 'profits'.