bogus charity: Everyone's Children's Trust

Tangible

I haven't used the word 'profit' at all, and more correctly it would be a surplus, and they have neither, with all their charitable collections being consumed by expenses.

In simple terms you would judge the effectiveness of a business by its ability to produce a profit/surplus, and to emphasise the difference between a charity and a business, a charity would be judged by its achievements in performing charitable deeds. A charity could even make a loss and still be deemed very effective.

It appears to have achieved neither a surplus, nor performed any charitable deeds during the period covered by the accounts provided.

It's not really possible to say any more than that, but that's enough.

heretolearn_2

'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. '

I don't really want to argue with you over semantics though - I know what you mean - really it was some comments by others on this thread and elsewhere that I wanted to clear up as there is a lot of confusion out there over 'how can a charity be a ltd company' and that there is something somehow dodgy about it motives for doing this.

We agree that the accounts show a disappointing use of their funds. :-)

Tangible

I understand your point heretolearn and don't disagree. It was useful to have a 'faux' dispute to highlight the salient issues.

ju1i3_2

I wanted to clarify a couple of points.

When I first started looking at this charity they did not have a working phone number (even though they spent £3,300 on telephone in their accounts), email address or web site. There was no way to get in touch with them except to write them a letter. Their address is the same as a car dealer (TDI Autos). It sure doesn't look like it could include a charity office (see google streetview). For a charity actively collecting money these things rang alarm bells.

They spent £2,700 on raffle prizes although they did not hold a raffle. That is 10% of their income. That sounded suspect to me.

In addition to the fact that they spent no money on good causes these are the reasons I think they are bogus and not just incompetent. Perhaps I'm too suspicious but all those things add up to: something is not right here.

Tangible

I'm doing my best to be even handed and fair in commenting on the charity, but I do share many of the concerns you have ju1i3.

On the page headed "Here we have a selection of appeals we helping." it shows full face pictures of an intended donee of their charity which makes me feel uncomfortable. A charity ought to be sensitive about those it intends to assist

Though it isn't a business, it appears to have been formed and run in every respect as you'd expect a business to be run, with an office and all the ancillary expenses of a much larger organisation. You might expect a fledgling charity to begin from a founder's home, using their own property and faciliies, if for no other reason, than to allow it to grow and perform their charitable works from the outset.

It seems to have been formed at the outset to be a large charity with a focus on its own existence. A charity has credibility from its works, not the facilities it provides to itself.

ju1i3_2

Still awaiting Charity Commission to do *something*. That's obviously not going to happen. I have since read a number of posts about how little they do.

Everyone's Children's Trust still hasn't submitted their 2010 Annual Return which was due 3 weeks ago.

ECT is doing "promotion and collection" at High Chelmer shopping centre on Oct 22nd (http://highchelmershopping.co.uk/exhibitors.html). I have asked both the shopping centre management and Chelmsford council licensing dept to check out ECT before they allow them to hold such a collection. The collection is still going ahead so presume they can't be bothered!

This has been a real opener that questionable charities can hold collections and the venue/shop has not vetted them in any way. Do not assume that a charity is ok just because they're at Sainsburys or Chelmsford shopping centre - or wherever.

qetu1357

Their website is quite rubbish.

http://www.everyones.org.uk/our%20appeals.html

I'm personally surprised that High Chelmer shopping centre have granted them permission to raise money where you compare their track record with the other charities they have granted permisson to - Guide Dogs for the Blind, RNLI, UNICEF.

In 2009 their income was just under £20k and their expenditure just under £22k.

PlutoinCapricorn

I agree that there is nothing sinister about a registered charity that is also registered as a limited company. This reduces liability in case of debt, is more official when contracts need to be signed and people employed and is needed for a trading arm: mugs and T-shirts for example.

Some reputable charities do file their accounts late, although the Charity Commission has tightened up in recent years and highlights this as you have seen.

However, I would never give anything to charities such as this. The bad English on the everyones.org.uk website is a red flag to me for a start, and they have not said why they have entered a very crowded market. The fact that they have not made themselves ready for inspection before going public is another red flag.

Some recently registered charities do accrue income for a while before disbursing anything but they do not use the charity as a vehicle for paying themselves a salary or spend a lot of the income on expenses in the meantime. I know that many trustees run charities without payment in the early days - they are philanthropists and want to give not take - and they do everything from their homes.

I suppose that the Charity Commission do have bigger fish to fry, but it is good to see that people are learning what to look out for and where to go for information.

PlutoinCapricorn

I have had a look at the accounts and have seen the expenses for myself. I am still not sure whether or not they are a genuine charity - perhaps they are - but they are certainly not one I would donate to. Their priorities are all wrong. If they were a profit making business some initial investment might be justifiable, but in this case they are not making the best use of their donors' money.

The post by a 'supporter' does not fill me with confidence either: it is not well expressed.

Tangible

It is reported that a complaint about another charity prompted this response from the Charities Commissioner's office.

According to charity commission telephone advisors, no charity complaint is investigated unless the commission receives around 3000 similar complaints.

Is it a case of another quango that exists for no discernible purpose ?

Many of these quangos that purport to perform some regulatory function are really little more than register keepers performing a simple administrative task. In doing this they miss the point in that their laxity casts doubt on the 'bona fides' of all charities registered with them.

A Charity Commission registration is clearly meaningless. It's just a bureaucratic process for record keeping purposes.