Name and type of organisation: The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) (Registered number 209603)
Fundraising method: Telephone
Code themes examined: Treating donors fairly, donors in potentially vulnerable circumstances and complaints handling
Code breach? No
The complaint
The complainant contacted us about the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI - the charity) and a telephone donation made by their parent, for whom they held Power of Attorney (POA). The complainant told us that their concerns centred around their parent’s unusually large donation of £15,000 to the charity in May 2022.
The complainant said that when they became aware of the donation in January 2023, they contacted the charity. They told the charity that their parent, who was in their late 80’s, had stress and anxiety due to the loss of their spouse. The complainant said they had explained to the charity that they were concerned that when their parent donated, they were potentially vulnerable. They believed their circumstances at that time had not been thoroughly examined before the donation was accepted.
The complainant also explained how they had escalated their concerns through the charity’s complaints process but were unhappy with its response. The complainant said that, based on the information they had seen, they did not think that the charity had followed its own documented processes on receiving major donations and dealing with individuals in vulnerable circumstances.
The Fundraising Regulator opened an investigation to look at if the charity had followed the standards outlined in the Code of Fundraising Practice (the code) when accepting the donation.
What happened?
We reviewed information from both the complainant and the charity. This included, but was not limited to, all emails shared between the two parties, and the charity's internal policies and procedures regarding vulnerable people and major donors. Its quality assurance programme, system records related to the donor in question, complaints handling process, and correspondence from the donor's doctor concerning their circumstances at the time of the donation were also reviewed.
Before our investigation was completed, the complainant provided the charity with further information from the donor’s doctor about their parents, health and circumstances at the time of the donation. On receipt of this information, the charity decided to refund the donation as an act of goodwill.
Our decision
Treating donors fairly and recognising vulnerability
We reviewed the complainant's initial concerns raised with the charity about the donor's circumstances, as well as the information available to the supporter experience team member responsible for handling the incoming telephone donation. However, based on the information given to us, we found no evidence to suggest that the donor lacked the capacity to understand the decision they were making.
Additionally, we did not think that the supporter experience team overlooked signs that the complainant's parent was in a vulnerable position at the time of the donation.
Fundraisers are not experts in vulnerability but should be able to recognise signs of potential vulnerability and respond appropriately, which may sometimes mean delaying a donation. Additionally, age, physical impairment or recent bereavement does not automatically show vulnerability. Each case should be assessed as a whole, and decisions to decline or accept a donation should be clearly documented.
We acknowledge that the charity has chosen not to record calls. We also understand that the charity believes its staff are always aware of signs of vulnerability or individuals in vulnerable circumstances, and therefore, it is not proportionate for them to detail the risks considered on every call. However, without call recording as a safeguard, accurate record-keeping is essential both during and after a telephone call. We did not think that a sufficient record of the call in question was made by the staff member who took the donation.
Without proper recording, it becomes difficult later to know whether a donor showed signs of potential vulnerability, such as slurred speech or deafness, which might have required further investigation before a donation was accepted. However, in this case, we saw that the donor's longstanding relationship with the charity meant that their age and potential physical impairments alone would not have led the call handler to decline a donation. This is because there was no suspicion of a lack of capacity or that a donation of such a large amount would have left them in vulnerable circumstances.
Although the charity refunded the donation, our investigation remained focused on whether the charity followed the standards outlined in the code when it accepted the donation. Therefore, while we consider there is room for improvement in how the charity instructs its supporter experience staff to document conversations with people in potentially vulnerable circumstances, we have not found that the charity breached the sections of the code related to treating donors fairly.
We do not think that the later refund implies the charity breached the code, but that it responded appropriately and in line with its internal processes once it became aware of the potential vulnerability of a donor.
Complaints handling
We reviewed the complaint timeline which showed that the relationship between the charity and the complainant broke down. The complainant's dissatisfaction grew due to the charity's delay in sharing information, likely caused by a reluctance to disclose internal policies and a misunderstanding of the process after a power of attorney (POA) was provided.
Charities and complainants may not always manage to reach an agreement that satisfies both sides; as a result, complainants may still be dissatisfied. However, a complainant's continuing dissatisfaction with the charity does not necessarily mean the charity had not followed the code when investigating the complaint.
We found no evidence that the charity obstructed the complaint on purpose. Instead, it seemed to investigate the matter thoroughly and proportionately. Therefore, while there were areas for improvement in how the complaint was managed, we do not think the charity acted in a way that breached the standards set out in the code.
Code standards 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 1.3.7: no breach identified
- Standard 1.3.9: no breach identified
- Standard 1.3.10: no breach identified
- Standard 2.4.3: no breach identified
Our recommendations
Although the charity has now refunded the donation and we have not found it in breach of the code, we still consider it necessary to make recommendations.
We recommend that:
- If the charity continues not to record incoming telephone calls, it should review the information its supporter experience team records when accepting donations. This should include paying attention to what is recorded about how the staff member has assessed potential risk flags, such as recent bereavement or large one-time donations. We also recommend that the charity think about requesting that the notes include a brief reference to any donor history that has been considered before accepting a donation.
- The charity reviews its process for managing complaints on behalf of donors. It should review its POA process making sure that all staff understand the steps that need to be followed and why. It should also consider whether having a POA is always necessary to discuss a donor's record with an advocate or representative, and in what circumstances a Letter of Authority would be acceptable instead.
- The charity reviews its fundraising policies and procedures and consider which ones would be appropriate to share if it receives a request in the future. If the charity declines a request, we also recommend that it documents why sharing information poses a risk to the charity, for example, commercial damage.
Outcomes
The charity has refunded the donation in question and has begun work on our recommendations.