Casework Insights and Trends: 2024-25

A complainant told us that a vulnerable relative had changed their will to benefit a charity at a time when they were under significant stress and caring for a dying partner. They were concerned that the charity had been directly involved in drafting the new will and that it had not recognised or appropriately supported the donor’s vulnerable circumstances. 

Our investigation confirmed that the charity helped draft the will and that it did not have policies or procedures to identify or support people who may be in vulnerable circumstances. We also found a conflict of interest, as the will was prepared by a staff member and witnessed by a trustee.

We identified breaches of the code relating to involvement in will-writing, managing conflicts of interest, and treating people fairly. The charity has since introduced relevant policies and strengthened its governance. 

Fundraisers should consider the needs of donors who may be in vulnerable circumstances. Clear policies, training and procedures can help staff and volunteers recognise when someone may be struggling to understand information about your fundraising or make a decision about whether to donate. 

Fundraisers should be alert to signs that a donor may lack mental capacity. In these situations, their donation must not be accepted. Other donors may need fundraising information to be communicated differently to assist them in making an informed decision about whether to donate. You must not make assumptions about whether someone is in a vulnerable circumstance based on their personal characteristics but should notice signs of someone having difficulty and respond appropriately. For example, someone may noticeably be having difficulty remembering, understanding, communicating or weighing up information. 

When handling complaints involving a donor in vulnerable circumstances, organisations do not need to ask for proof of that vulnerability. Instead, they should consider what happened at the time of the fundraising interaction, what the fundraiser knew or could reasonably have known, and whether the donor’s needs were considered. If new information is provided later, organisations should reflect on whether they would have accepted the donation had they known it at the time. 

We investigated concerns about a fundraising appeal run within a charity. The organisation had asked only its own members to donate to a time-limited project to buy a new property.

Although the organisation achieved its overall goal, our findings showed it did not fully recognise that asking its members for donations towards its charitable activities still counts as regulated public charitable fundraising. It did not explain what would happen if the appeal did not meet its target or timescale, and it did not have a dedicated or accessible process for handling fundraising complaints. The organisation also initially treated the complaint as an internal matter rather than a fundraising concern. 

We identified multiple breaches of the code. We also recommended that the charity review its fundraising and complaints policies and ensure staff understand that members are entitled to the same fundraising standards and protections as any other donors.

When a fundraising appeal targets a specific, defined group (for example, members of a faith community), and the funds will be used for charitable purposes, it is still public charitable fundraising and the organisation must follow the code – even if the group is made up of internal members. If the appeal is online, people outside that group may also be able to donate.

The code’s glossary also defines donation, donor, and charitable institution.

We published our second investigation into a CIC after receiving a significant number of new complaints following our original findings in 2022. Although the organisation said it had made some training improvements, we continued to receive reports of pressurised and misleading street fundraising, obstruction of public spaces, and activity taking place without the required licences. Several complainants also said they were led to believe the organisation was a charity. 

A lead complaint described a member of the public feeling harassed during an interaction with the CIC’s representatives and receiving no response after attempting to complain directly.

The CIC did not respond to any of our requests for information. Based on the evidence from complainants, we concluded that it had breached the code in areas including legal and open fundraising, misleading donors, placing undue pressure on the public, failing to handle complaints, and not learning from previous concerns.

The Fundraising Regulator has continued to bring together representatives from licensing teams, law enforcement, central government and other regulators to help ensure that charitable fundraising carried out by all CICs meets legal and regulatory expectations. The group is now well established and will continue working to promote good practice.

Organisations engaging in street or face-to-face fundraising should ensure their practices protect the public and maintain trust. This includes giving people space to walk freely, avoiding any behaviour that could feel persistent, intrusive or pressurising, and ending interactions promptly if someone does not wish to engage.

Fundraisers should communicate clearly about who they represent and the purpose of the activity, taking care not to give the impression of being a charity where this is not the case. Organisations should also check in advance whether licences or permissions are required for the locations and times they plan to operate and comply with any local conditions.  

Finally, when concerns are raised, responding promptly and reviewing training helps prevent repeated issues and demonstrates a commitment to respectful and responsible fundraising.