when closed down.

orangeflowers

Someone I
 who would you say it too?

tacpot12

I think I would raise your concern with the Charities Commission. If they are misusing money that has been donated, (and they might not be), then if could give all charities a bad name. Raising a concern with  the Charities Commission will put the matter into their hand. I doubt they will investigate based on one report, but if someone else raises a concern, then the two reports might be enough for them to look into it.

Savvy_Sue

But if the rescue was never registered as a charity ... 

I would certainly let the company know that the rescue is no longer operating, and give whatever sources you have for this. How have your heard that this company has chosen to do this? 

Has the news appeared in the local press? They might be interested in the story, or in a follow-up to it. 

In your previous thread you used a 'we' at one point - I presume from your tone here that that was a typo? 

orangeflowers

Savvy_Sue said:

But if it was 'right' that they kept it.  

Now this company

orangeflowers

tacpot12 said:

I think I would 

Thank you for

Brie

orangeflowers said:

At the beginning, they raised money, approx £2000, to buy a large wooden summer house, which was being used as the animal hospital.  They have just, in the last fortnight, renovated this summer house to make it a personal space. Their son is using it as a bedroom/private space, so they obviously have no plans to re-open the wildlife rescue anytime soon.

Ummmm.... I would think that this is in contravention of planning so might be something to report to the local planning office.  In fact they may not have even known about the "hospital" and want to do something about that in retrospect as well.

Savvy_Sue

orangeflowers said:

Savvy_Sue said:

But if the rescue was never registered as a charity ... 

I would certainly let the company know that the rescue is no longer operating, and give whatever sources you have for this. How have your heard that this company has chosen to do this? 

Has the news appeared in the local press? They might be interested in the story, or in a follow-up to it. 

In your previous thread you used a 'we' at one point - I presume from your tone here that that was a typo? 

I wrote the previous thread as though it was from the rescue. I was just looking for information as the summer house they had built was financed by donations. I guess I wanted to establish if it was 'right' that they kept it.  

Now this company is donating money to them, my instincts are tell me to say something! I just wanted to ask what other people would do. I guess I would normally mind my own business, but it feels wrong to say nothing.

The company advertised that they were closing and a "sorry we are closed" post was made.

If they built the structure on their own property for a supposedly charitable purpose, and were then no longer needing it for that purpose, it's a moot point what should be done with it. The funds raised for that purpose had been spent, and it's often not feasible to move a structure like that somewhere else - or indeed any building.

If they'd been given a grant or had a substantial donation from an individual then my feeling is that they 'should' have offered to return the funds (indeed, the funder might have required it if they'd found out it was not needed so soon after building), BUT if the money was raised in dribs and drabs from the general public, for the general purposes of supporting the rescue, that's much harder.

IF they'd been a registered charity and IF funds had been raised for the specific purpose of building the 'hospital', then that would have been restricted funding, and it does become more of an obligation to return those gifts.

You're now referring to them as a 'company'. There are a whole heap of other accounting requirements if they were a LIMITED company, but I am guessing they were neither a limited company nor a registered charity. 

If that's the case we are back to spreading the word that they are no longer operating, especially to the company which wishes to make them 'charity of the month'. It is entirely possible that this 'rescue' is trying to make out that if only they had the funds then they would re-open in a heartbeat, but I don't think you're convinced that's likely ... 

orangeflowers

Savvy_Sue said:

orangeflowers said:

Savvy_Sue said:

But if the rescue was never registered as a charity ... 

I would certainly let the company know that the rescue is no longer operating, and give whatever sources you have for this. How have your heard that this company has chosen to do this? 

Has the news appeared in the local press? They might be interested in the story, or in a follow-up to it. 

In your previous thread you used a 'we' at one point - I presume from your tone here that that was a typo? 

I wrote the previous thread as though it was from the rescue. I was just looking for information as the summer house they had built was financed by donations. I guess I wanted to establish if it was 'right' that they kept it.  

Now this company is donating money to them, my instincts are tell me to say something! I just wanted to ask what other people would do. I guess I would normally mind my own business, but it feels wrong to say nothing.

The company advertised that they were closing and a "sorry we are closed" post was made.

If they built the structure on their own property for a supposedly charitable purpose, and were then no longer needing it for that purpose, it's a moot point what should be done with it. The funds raised for that purpose had been spent, and it's often not feasible to move a structure like that somewhere else - or indeed any building.

If they'd been given a grant or had a substantial donation from an individual then my feeling is that they 'should' have offered to return the funds (indeed, the funder might have required it if they'd found out it was not needed so soon after building), BUT if the money was raised in dribs and drabs from the general public, for the general purposes of supporting the rescue, that's much harder.

IF they'd been a registered charity and IF funds had been raised for the specific purpose of building the 'hospital', then that would have been restricted funding, and it does become more of an obligation to return those gifts.

You're now referring to them as a 'company'. There are a whole heap of other accounting requirements if they were a LIMITED company, but I am guessing they were neither a limited company nor a registered charity. 

If that's the case we are back to spreading the word that they are no longer operating, especially to the company which wishes to make them 'charity of the month'. It is entirely possible that this 'rescue' is trying to make out that if only they had the funds then they would re-open in a heartbeat, but I don't think you're convinced that's likely ... 

Sorry. My terminology was incorrect. The definitely are not a company. They are a non profit organisation, (apparently.)

Savvy_Sue

orangeflowers said:

Sorry. My terminology was incorrect. The definitely are not a company. They are a non profit organisation, (apparently.)

Oh, it's easy to slip from one description to another, but sometimes it's necessary to be very precise. 

As a non-profit organisation, there are really very few legally required checks, and nowhere to report concerns - whereas with a Registered Charity there is the Charity Commission. To be fair, you might not get anywhere even if they WERE registered. 

And if not a Ltd Company, there's no oversight / requirement to file accounts etc with Companies House. 

So I'd say you were left with making a noise in the media and raising their status with the company proposing to make them charity of the month.