Innuendo and muck spreading is hardly charitable

Innuendo and muck spreading isn't charitable, and yet the insinuation is there, from another local dog rescue charity that people ought to beware of Happy Staffie Rescue.

Their website proudly states:

"As a registered charity we are governed by the Charity Commission, be aware that other rescues may not have charity status or may be registered as a company. You can be sure that 100% of the money you give us goes to helping the dogs."

So why has this got my gander up?

Happy Staffie Rescue after all is a registered charity, gaining charitable status from the Commission in November 2009.

The problem (for them) is our legal framework, the basis around which we legally operate is as a company. However we are not Tesco, BP or Ford. They are companies limited by share capital. We are what is known as a company limited by guarantee (no share capital).

When starting a charity you have to decide what legal framework to use and there are generally three available a) an unincorporated association b) a company limited by guarantee or c) a trust.

A trust is only available to certain organisations. But an unincorporated association or a company limited by guarantee are based on the choices the trustees make and how they see their charity operating.

For example, an unincorporated association generally is useful to smaller charities, particularly those based around a local community issue. Village clubs, affiliates of larger charities and sports clubs are often set up on this basis. There are limitations to what an unincorporated association can undertake, which are not present in a company limited by guarantee. We decided on the latter principally in case we intended to enter into the contracts for services - for example leases on buildings, kennels, insurance, etc. This proved to be the case. This framework also provides a legal identity for the charity, and enables access to more services as time goes by.

So are we alone in this?

Certainly many major charities are registered as a company limited by guarantee. Save the Children Fund is a clear example. And they come in all shapes and sizes - take these three dog-related charities - The Blue Cross, Support Dogs and West Yorkshire Dog Rescue. All three are registered charities, and all three have a legal framework of a company limited by guarantee, just like us.

So let us look at their words again.

"As a registered charity we are governed by the Charity Commission,"

No surprise there. All registered charities in England and Wales are regulated by the Charity Commission regardless of their legal framework. Whether they are an association, a company limited by guarantee or a trust they are all regulated by the Commission.

But, in addition to the Charity Commission we are also regulated by Companies House. This means that not only do we have to comply by the regulations of the Charity Commission we must also comply with the rules and regulations of the Companies Act. This means our accounts are overseen by both government agencies.

And, we have charitable status from HM Revenue & Customs, granted 13 November 2009. This is no mean feat. The application is not straightforward - it isn't simply that you are a charity. You must show them through evidence and accounts that you are charitable. Therefore not only have our accounts been scrutinised by the Charity Commission and Companies House but also HM Revenue & Customs.

Three government agencies watching what you do, ensuring you do the right thing. Our 'friendly' fellow dog rescue is as far as I can see only regulated by the Commission.

Then there is this curious statement:

"... be aware that other rescues may not have charity status or may be registered as a company."

Now there is a real legitimate concern to bogus callers, the sort of people who drop endless clothes bags through your letterbox and in the finest small print you find some charity is getting 5p for every £1 raised. But of course their statement is far too vague to be pinpointed on those charities. It is no coincidence that their statement first appeared as we came together in summer 2009.

In the beginning we had to registered first as a company, then raise £5,000 then apply to the Charity Commission. So their little jibe fitted nicely against us as at one time we were not a registered charity but were a registered company (23 June 2009 to 12 November 2009). This is followed by the final statement:

"You can be sure that 100% of the money you give us goes to helping the dogs."

Following on from the first lines the suggestion is that even as a charity, if your legal framework is a company there may be a doubt as to whether 100% of the money goes to helping the dogs.

It could be that they are trying to suggest that as a company money must be going to shareholdings - but as our legal framework states we are not a company limited by share capital but a company limited guarantee (no share capital). There can be no dividend issued. There are no owners. The directors are the trustees and cannot be paid in any form other than their reasonably incurred expenses - for which no director/trustee has received a single penny from the charity. This is not our choice - it is law. Period.

And finally, as a company limited by guarantee we have to provide complex accounts with a profit and loss statement and balance sheet. We are subject to what is called an Independent Examination, and next year expect it that we shall be subject to an Audit if our income and expenditure reach the required levels.

Therefore in summary, contrary to what is muttered:

We are a Registered Charity

We have gained Charitable Status from HM Revenue & Customs

We have been granted 100% charitable relief against Business Rates

Our accounts and annual report have been submitted to the Charity Commission.

Our accounts and annual return have been submitted to Companies House

Our accounts and annual report have been submitted to HM Revenue & Customs

Our accounts have been scrutinised and given the all clear by an Independant Examination by an accountant.

There can be no doubt about the validity of our charitable status, the aims and purposes of our organisation or the appropriation of funds.

At a time when we have themed our latest newsletter around Transparency and Openness it is a shame others can not be the same.