Why is it so hard to deal with the Charity Commission?

We have been advising charities on governance matters for nearly 20 years. In that time we have helped register well over 200 charities (with a 98% success rate) and supported over 100 charities to secure consents from the Commission, ranging from simple consents to transfer assets to complicated consents for land transactions.

Over that time it has felt like the Commission has become less and less predictable both in the timing and substance of its responses. Here are just a few examples:

• When applying to register two very similar (simple) charities recently, one was registered 3 days after submitting the application and the other remains in the system awaiting assignment of a case officer, which is currently taking an average of 23 weeks. This suggests an inconsistency in the application of criteria to triage applications when submitted.

• Similarly, we registered a more complex charity in early 2025 with minimal questions from the Commission but for a very similar application submitted only a few months later we have, so far, had almost 50 clarification questions from the Commission, none of which were asked about the earlier application despite almost identical language being used in both applications around most of the matters they sought to address.

• Until quite recently, when the Commission suggested amendments in objects they tended to suggest more flexibility and less specificity and now they appear to be seeking details and specifics that will almost inevitably require a charity to seek consent for an amendment to its objects in the future. In many cases they are not accepting language used in their own example objects (or the objects of even quite recently registered charities) and insisting on, what feels like, unreasonable detail.

• A client seeking consent for a land transaction has recently been asked for records of meetings dating back 10-20 years, which for a small volunteer run charity doesn’t feel realistic (particularly as the older records are not held digitally).

• When updating governing documents with proposals to update regulated clauses (not objects) to align with the most recent model clauses, usually consent is provided within seconds but occasionally the consent is not automatic and the application sits in a queue for months before being granted, despite the text in the applications being identical.

• Other simple consents, such as authorisation to transfer assets from a small unincorporated charity to its corporate successor, seem never to be questioned but sit in a queue awaiting a decision for months.

Some of this is clearly because the Commission is grossly under-resourced, in common with many other public sector regulators (e.g. when applying for probate).

Some of it is, in our view, because the regulatory rules and requirements are unnecessarily complicated (one small charity client recently had to seek a barrister’s opinion to navigate what should be a simple transaction).

But it often feels like the answer depends on which case officer is assigned (we are getting to know which case officers ask more or fewer quetsions and the style of objects drafting preferred by different case officers).

We know we are not alone in this experience. Every charity solicitor, barrister and governance consultant and almost every charity client we have ever spoken to has had the same experiences. All agree that the regulator is unpredictable and at times appears capricious in its decision making (and all agree it is grossly under-resourced).

Recently, the founder of the Good Law Project justified a move to transfer their ownership to a Jersey “purpose” trust by saying that they, “wanted the public interest features of a charity but outside of the moving political guardrails policed by the Charity Commission”.

The Charity Commission Chair, Dame Julia Unwin, attempted to recognise these challenges in a recent speech but appeared to us to be asking for more regulation, not simpler regulation. Our reading is that she seemed to be excusing some of the more aged and outdated approaches as necessary to protect charitable assets even though context and practice has moved on dramatically over the decades. Of course, most charities cannot afford to challenge the Commission’s decisions in tribunal and without successful challenges such approaches (and associated guidance) won’t change in substance.

Unusually for one of our blogs, we don’t have a solution, other than to say we are here to help clients struggling with these challenges. Surely something has to change soon!

Like this article?Join 250+ charity professionals receiving free monthly insights on governance, strategy and fundraising and much more.

Want to find out more? Contact us at julian@almondtreeconsulting.co.uk to discuss your organisation’s needs.