Resource library

The Fundraising Regulator’s decision following an investigation into the Presidents Club Charitable Trust.

The final decision following an investigation by the Fundraising Regulator into the fundraising practices of Brain Tumour Research.

Miss A applied for a job with a charity, which then added her to its donor mailing list. When she asked them to stop and to remove her personal details, she said her request was ignored.

Mr B received a charity collection bag from a company despite telling them that he did not want to receive them. He said that receiving them caused him distress.

After cancelling his regular donation to a charity, Mr C kept getting telephone fundraising calls from them – despite telling them he didn’t want to hear from them again.

Mr D complained about lottery fundraisers who were selling prize draw tickets. He felt that the fundraisers were aggressive and very misleading.

Mr E told us that a fundraiser was fundraising on the street without the proper licence in place.

Mr F complained about the behaviour of a charity street fundraiser, who he said was also blocking a public walkway.

After complaining to a charity about unwanted emails in 2015, Mr G then received unwanted fundraising text messages from them in 2016.

Mr H complained two charity fundraisers were pressurising members of the public to donate. He said they became aggressive when asked questions about the charity’s work, and wouldn’t confirm how much of the money being raised went to the charity.

Mrs J complained that a charity was selling a product on the basis that “all proceeds” would go to them, and that this was false and misleading.

Mr K said his father asked a charity to remove his mother from its mailing list as she now lives in a care home, but Mr K’s father was added to its database instead.

A charity failed to verify the identity of a volunteer that visited Mr L’s property collecting sponsorship money on their behalf.

Mr M complained about disturbing messaging on the outside of a charity's mailing. Despite asking the charity to remove his details from its database, the charity continued to contact him.

A charity was showing only the Gift Aid entry price to an event on their website, and not the Standard entry price. Mr N found this to be “misleading” because visitors would expect to pay the higher price.

Mr P complained that a fundraising event he attended in aid of a charity was a “rip-off”.

Ms Q used the Fundraising Preference Service (FPS) to stop a charity contacting her, but they continued to send her marketing mailings afterwards.

Mr and Mrs R’s son is a member of a local charitable sports club. The club asked Mr and Mrs R to raise £800 so they could send a team to a sporting event. But Mr and Mrs R thought this amount was more than they needed.

Mr S and Ms T alleged that the charity was making false statements on its website while fundraising.