Name and type of organisation: Depher Community Plumbing and Heating Community Interest Company (registered company no. 11335052)
Fundraising method: Digital - social media and online fundraising platforms
Code themes examined: Misleading information, evidencing claims, dealing with complaints, controversial fundraising, case studies, lotteries and general versus restricted use fundraising
Code breach? Yes
The complaint
Depher is a Community Interest Company (CIC) that offers free or subsidised plumbing and heating services to vulnerable people, such as older or disabled people. The investigation was launched because of ongoing regulatory concerns, following multiple complaints received in December 2023 and January 2024 about the Community Interest Company (CIC) Depher. The complaints were about similar themes, mostly misleading fundraising and how Depher dealt with complaints.
We met with the CIC’s director and provided compliance advice about misleading fundraising, general versus restricted use fundraising and the importance of having a complaints policy. We gave some time for the CIC to implement the changes. However, this did not happen, and as we remained concerned about potential breaches of the Code of Fundraising Practice (the code), we decided an investigation was needed. During this time, we were also contacted by a journalist who shared their concerns about the CIC’s fundraising.
What happened?
We considered information from the CIC and reviewed the information available on its various social media pages and donation pages across multiple online fundraising platforms. We also reviewed the information the journalist provided.
During our investigation, the director of the CIC changed and Depher is no longer an operational organisation. However, the current director of Depher is also the director of a new CIC, Community Elderly and Disabled Support CIC, which aims to undertake the same activities and is at the same registered address. We therefore engaged with the director about ongoing compliance requirements at the new CIC.
Our decision
Misleading information
Depher CIC used the same images on social media multiple times to ask for donations. This is allowed; however, the images were not dated and the context given to the image changed each time. This included using images of the same people but featuring different stories about them against them. We found this to be misleading. Additionally, on multiple occasions the CIC was not able to evidence claims made as part of its fundraising efforts.
Controversial fundraising
We appreciate that the CIC grew significantly in size. However, the lack of a fundraising strategy was not addressed as a potential risk to the CIC’s reputation, and expert advice was not taken, even after we requested this. We found the CIC’s frequent reference to potential death or death from suicide in its materials was controversial fundraising. We did not see evidence of the reputational risks from this being considered.
Complaints
We saw evidence the CIC had a process to deal with complaints and saw some examples of this in action. However, the CIC could not show it had a process to learn from complaints it received, and they also did not seem to have taken on board advice provided by other bodies following previous complaints.
The purpose of donations
We found the amount of online fundraising pages available for the CIC would probably be confusing for a donor. We also saw that on one fundraising page the information suggested the donations were both for a specific (restricted) purpose and for general use by the CIC. We therefore found the purpose of donations to be inconsistent. The CIC did demonstrate it is able to ringfence money and updated its objectives, so the fundraising was aligned with these. However, there were some displeased that the CIC used donations to purchase a house as an asset. It is outside of the scope of the Fundraising Regulator to consider such decision-making.
Case studies
Case studies were a big part of how the CIC asked for donations. The consent form we saw was fairly recent and did not provide space for people to consent to how their information could be shared. The CIC could not show it has a process to think about issues of vulnerability and capacity for consent. The CIC continued to post personal images and information on social media without appropriate measures in place even after we shared our concerns.
Lotteries
The CIC was able to evidence it had appropriate permissions for lotteries completed as part of its fundraising efforts.
Code sections considered
Code of Fundraising Practice, version effective 1 October 2019 (last updated 4 June 2021)
Section 1.3. Informing donors and treating people fairly
- Standard 1.3.1: breach identified
- Standard 1.3.2: breach identified
Section 2.1 General Duties
- Standard 2.1.6: breach identified
- Standard 2.1.8: breach identified
Section 2.1 Complaints and concerns about fundraising
- Standard 2.4.3: no breach identified
- Standard 2.4.4: breach identified
Section 2.7. Using funds
- Standard 2.7.1: breach identified
- Standard 2.7.3: no breach identified
- Standard 2.7.4: breach identified
- Standard 2.7.6: no breach identified
Section 3.4. Case studies
- Standard 3.4.1: breach identified
Section 12.1 Lotteries – general responsibilities
- Standard 12.1.1: no breach identified
- Standard 12.1.2: no breach identified
Our recommendations
We recommend the following:
- The CIC collaborate with external expert providers to:
- Seek advice about its fundraising activities, particularly its use of social media and online fundraising platforms.
- Develop its fundraising strategy further to make sure that all fundraising approaches consider transparency, risk, and reputation to both the CIC and the wider sector.
- Develop a process for the CIC to record fundraising related decision making appropriately.
- Make sure there is a process in place for the CIC to produce and share case studies in line with legal requirements and to make sure that case studies do not have the potential to be misleading.
- Create a process to make sure the CIC can evidence claims made within fundraising materials.
- The CIC streamline its online fundraising campaigns to ensure clarity for potential donors about the purpose of their donation and the aims of the CIC.
- The CIC review any currently active social media account attached to Depher or Mr. Anderson (even those not actively used) to make sure that the information provided on them, including images and case studies, is compliant with the code.
- The CIC reviews its social media content to remove any existing online images or videos where the consent for the online publication of these materials may not be compliant with the code.
- The CIC develop and implements a policy and appropriate plan to make sure that learning from complaints and concerns are captured, analysed, and implemented to ensure effective positive change.
Outcome
The CIC has not yet responded to our investigation report. However, we will continue to try and engage with the CIC to support the implementation of our recommendations and will share our findings with the CIC Regulator.