Happy Staffie Rescue is proud to announce that the trustees have appointed two new trustees as part of its ongoing plans to increase governance of the charity.
The board of trustees (also known at directors) met today with the two new applicants and after consideration voted unanimously to approve the appointment of Sue Davies and Sonya Cave taking the total number of trustees to seven.
The board of trustees reiterated its determination to further expand the board of trustees in the coming weeks with two additional applicants being considered. It hopes this will be achieved before the end of April bringing the total of trustees on the board to nine.
The trustees have also discussed the Charity Commission's recommendation to seek young board members and is looking at ways of identifying and attracting positive, active and engaged 18-24 year old people who might be interested in joining.
Showing posts with label Governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governance. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Thursday, 29 March 2012
New trustees appointed
The board of trustees has today voted to appoint two additional trustees to the charity.
The appointment follows plans made by the trustees to expand their number to increase governance activity of the charity.
The Official Meeting voted unanimously to appoint Charlene McQuoid and Mark Hannaford to the board, subject to Charity Commission approval.
The appointment follows plans made by the trustees to expand their number to increase governance activity of the charity.
The Official Meeting voted unanimously to appoint Charlene McQuoid and Mark Hannaford to the board, subject to Charity Commission approval.
Board of Trustees to be expanded
The trustees of the charity have set forth plans to expand their current number of three to 8-10 trustees before the end of May, subject to suitable persons being available.
The board recognises that the charity must demostrate better governance by more frequent meetings of the board of trustees, but to do so might be difficult because the governing document for the charity stipulates that a minimum of three trustees must attend a meeting for that meeting to having voting rights.
The board has decided to make its meetings at least monthly, and by increasing the number of its members this will be more easily achieved.
The board will shortly be seeking applicants from within the existing voluntary support of the charity before considering external applicants.
The board recognises that the charity must demostrate better governance by more frequent meetings of the board of trustees, but to do so might be difficult because the governing document for the charity stipulates that a minimum of three trustees must attend a meeting for that meeting to having voting rights.
The board has decided to make its meetings at least monthly, and by increasing the number of its members this will be more easily achieved.
The board will shortly be seeking applicants from within the existing voluntary support of the charity before considering external applicants.
Friday, 23 December 2011
Accounts for 2010/2011 pass examination
Our 2010/11 accounts have been finalised by our accountant Crump Pearce & Co. Ltd and have passed independent examination.
These accounts have now been submitted to HM Revenue & Customs, Charity Commission and Companies House.
For anyone interested, the final accounts (which include the accounts for 2009/10) can be downloaded for free via the Charity Commission web site here.
These accounts have now been submitted to HM Revenue & Customs, Charity Commission and Companies House.
For anyone interested, the final accounts (which include the accounts for 2009/10) can be downloaded for free via the Charity Commission web site here.
Friday, 9 September 2011
Protecting our identity - trademark application successful
The charity has successfully obtained its trademark to protect the name of the organisation.
We have used the name for over two years and have noticed some other unofficial organisations using names very similar to ours in the last few months. This has led to concerned contact from supporters that people may be posing as our charity.
The charity took the reluctant step to apply for its trademark in June and following the required due process, obtained confirmation of its trademark today.
The charity will defend its identity forcefully when required, initially by writing directly to those who may in the future take our name.
We have used the name for over two years and have noticed some other unofficial organisations using names very similar to ours in the last few months. This has led to concerned contact from supporters that people may be posing as our charity.
The charity took the reluctant step to apply for its trademark in June and following the required due process, obtained confirmation of its trademark today.
The charity will defend its identity forcefully when required, initially by writing directly to those who may in the future take our name.
Monday, 13 December 2010
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.
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.
Monday, 4 October 2010
Inter-departmental information sharing
It is such a shame that as yet, the Governments various intertwining bodies do not join up in sharing information.
The Data Protection Act, much like Health and Safety advice can be taken to strictly, resulting in little or no information being shared when it would actually benefit the customer.
An example for us is our accounts. We are a registered charity (England and Wales) so our accounts have to be submitted to the Charity Commission. Our legal framework is a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) so we also have to submit the same accounts to Companies House. In addition, because it is a company (in name) the same accounts also have to be submitted to HM Revenue and Customs.
Each has their own way of doing it.
For the Charity Commission will simply log on and upload a pdf file of the accounts, which over time will then appear on our listing on their web site.
For Companies House the accounts can again be submitted online, though in our case our accountant is sending them direct.
HMRC need the accounts sent as well, and again they can be done online or by post.
What a shame that it cannot be sent to one of them, and the information shared to interested parties.
Of a more frustrating concern is that HMRC does not accept the charity being registered with the Charity Commission as proof it is actually a charity. So we have to complete a form of dozen pages, send them the same Memorandum and Articles of Association that were also sent to both the Commission and Companies House, a copy of our accounts (ditto), and examples of our charitable activities. They then decide whether we charitable and can claim Gift Aid.
I understand both the tax code and the Charity Commission are reviewing practices, but I guess it would somewhat stretching it to believe that joined-up government would come from this.
The Data Protection Act, much like Health and Safety advice can be taken to strictly, resulting in little or no information being shared when it would actually benefit the customer.
An example for us is our accounts. We are a registered charity (England and Wales) so our accounts have to be submitted to the Charity Commission. Our legal framework is a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) so we also have to submit the same accounts to Companies House. In addition, because it is a company (in name) the same accounts also have to be submitted to HM Revenue and Customs.
Each has their own way of doing it.
For the Charity Commission will simply log on and upload a pdf file of the accounts, which over time will then appear on our listing on their web site.
For Companies House the accounts can again be submitted online, though in our case our accountant is sending them direct.
HMRC need the accounts sent as well, and again they can be done online or by post.
What a shame that it cannot be sent to one of them, and the information shared to interested parties.
Of a more frustrating concern is that HMRC does not accept the charity being registered with the Charity Commission as proof it is actually a charity. So we have to complete a form of dozen pages, send them the same Memorandum and Articles of Association that were also sent to both the Commission and Companies House, a copy of our accounts (ditto), and examples of our charitable activities. They then decide whether we charitable and can claim Gift Aid.
I understand both the tax code and the Charity Commission are reviewing practices, but I guess it would somewhat stretching it to believe that joined-up government would come from this.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
GuideStar listing
If you require further information about the charity we have updated our free listing on the GuideStar.org.uk web site.
Friday, 30 July 2010
Independent Examination complete
The independent examination of the accounts (as required by law) have been completed by our accountants and the final accounts and report for 2009-10 is now complete.
Now that was a journey.
My continued thanks to Tim Pearce and Crump Pearce & Co. for his advice and help.
Now that was a journey.
My continued thanks to Tim Pearce and Crump Pearce & Co. for his advice and help.
Friday, 4 June 2010
Charitable Incorporated Organisation
A new format for forming and running a charity could become a reality in 2011 - the Charitable Incorporated Organisation.
This new format gives charities the security of a legal entity while removing the duplication of the reporting requirements of Companies House. This in theory should cut administration and accounting costs.
However, this is yet to be passed through Parliament and with a new Government with what is almost certain to be a busy parliamentary period the chances of the CIO seeing the light of day could be slim.
When I first of the CIO I thought it was a wise idea, simply for removing the reporting requirement to Companies House. However there is the very real concern over whether the CIO will be quickly recognised as the entity it is. CIO's will still be registered charities, but they will be a "CIO" and this might deter some people. It will be particularly problematic for those charities that sources funds from overseas where the CIO entity will be unknown.
While moving the framework of the charity from a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation is very appealing, the manner in which it has to be undertaken is not. To move from one to the other the registered charity cannot simply fill a form in or press a button. They have to register the new CIO, then wind up the existing company and transfer all the assets to the CIO. For amateurs and volunteers such as ourselves this might be a bridge too far. We could probably engage an accountant or a solicitor to do the work for us, but at what cost?
Time will tell whether the CIO does become a reality and at that time we will consider long and hard over the long term benefits of moving to the new structure.
This new format gives charities the security of a legal entity while removing the duplication of the reporting requirements of Companies House. This in theory should cut administration and accounting costs.
However, this is yet to be passed through Parliament and with a new Government with what is almost certain to be a busy parliamentary period the chances of the CIO seeing the light of day could be slim.
When I first of the CIO I thought it was a wise idea, simply for removing the reporting requirement to Companies House. However there is the very real concern over whether the CIO will be quickly recognised as the entity it is. CIO's will still be registered charities, but they will be a "CIO" and this might deter some people. It will be particularly problematic for those charities that sources funds from overseas where the CIO entity will be unknown.
While moving the framework of the charity from a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation is very appealing, the manner in which it has to be undertaken is not. To move from one to the other the registered charity cannot simply fill a form in or press a button. They have to register the new CIO, then wind up the existing company and transfer all the assets to the CIO. For amateurs and volunteers such as ourselves this might be a bridge too far. We could probably engage an accountant or a solicitor to do the work for us, but at what cost?
Time will tell whether the CIO does become a reality and at that time we will consider long and hard over the long term benefits of moving to the new structure.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Accountants appointed
We are pleased to have appointed Crump Pearce & Co. of Evesham as our chartered accountants to prepare our first annual accounts.
Crump Pearce & Co. were selected partly because of the way they offered help and advice at our initial enquiries and also because of the very generous terms they offered. We were pleased with the help offered by many of the companies we approached and this has reassured us on this next major governance issue.
We look forward to working with Crump Pearce and are excited about the preparation of our first annual accounts and annual report. Our first annual report will appear on our web site in due course.
Crump Pearce & Co. were selected partly because of the way they offered help and advice at our initial enquiries and also because of the very generous terms they offered. We were pleased with the help offered by many of the companies we approached and this has reassured us on this next major governance issue.
We look forward to working with Crump Pearce and are excited about the preparation of our first annual accounts and annual report. Our first annual report will appear on our web site in due course.
Defending MRCTAL?
I have to write something to defend MRCTAL, though it is becoming extremely difficult the more I read.
That organisation has taken a position that it is the leading animal welfare organisation in the country and spends hundreds of thousands of donated pounds reinforcing this view.
They seem to have a rather enthusiastic use of euthanasia for the animals it collects and this in part I believe is because it has allowed itself, in its own words to become the last point of help. Which of course they are not. They want everyone to think that so they get more and more money. Take the case of those ten GSDs - there is a well established GSD rescue that would have been willing to help. They may not have been able to save the dogs but I am sure they would not simply have turned up, written the dogs off and then shot them all.
As anyone in animal welfare will know you will try and help wherever you can, taking in as many animals as you physically and financially can. But, as a charity you have to also ensure you remain solvent and this means ensuring that decisions on charitable activities have to be balanced with the money coming in.
Therefore, as a rescue organisation you have to set limits, and this inevitably means lists of some kind or another. Essentially these are waiting lists, lists for dogs to come in, or people who need financial help with neutering, and so on. The point is there has to be a point at which you have to say no, or at the very least, not yet. It is difficult, can causes arguments, but ensures you can deliver an ongoing service and not simply sink under the burden of charitable activities as the funds dry up.
MRCTAL may still use the no or not yet point, but it seems that if it is destroying so many animals that it is not using no or not yet point enough. They may say in reply that to say no or not yet would undermine its position as the last place people can go to for help. Yet they are not legally bound to take in every animal that they are aware of, simply to do what they can. There are hundreds, probably thousands of small organisations that can help.
Then again, the fact that so many animals are killed every year can also be a vote winner. Such a figure may convince people to donate more and more because of course if MRCTAL had more money they wouldn't need to destroy so many animals. Or would they? Surely they would argue the destruction is necessary due to the state the animal was in? If that is the case then the number of killed would not change if they had more money? If more money would save some of those animals killed then that it is an admission that those animals have been needlessly killed.
This is increasingly not becoming a defence of MRCTAL!
That is why we have a non-destruction policy. We will of course accept veterinary advice for dogs in suffering and beyond help, but thus far, in a short and very small history we have not had to do that. Dogs Trust show that in a very very big way you can save dogs, keep them alive and not have to kill in the many thousands.
That organisation has taken a position that it is the leading animal welfare organisation in the country and spends hundreds of thousands of donated pounds reinforcing this view.
They seem to have a rather enthusiastic use of euthanasia for the animals it collects and this in part I believe is because it has allowed itself, in its own words to become the last point of help. Which of course they are not. They want everyone to think that so they get more and more money. Take the case of those ten GSDs - there is a well established GSD rescue that would have been willing to help. They may not have been able to save the dogs but I am sure they would not simply have turned up, written the dogs off and then shot them all.
As anyone in animal welfare will know you will try and help wherever you can, taking in as many animals as you physically and financially can. But, as a charity you have to also ensure you remain solvent and this means ensuring that decisions on charitable activities have to be balanced with the money coming in.
Therefore, as a rescue organisation you have to set limits, and this inevitably means lists of some kind or another. Essentially these are waiting lists, lists for dogs to come in, or people who need financial help with neutering, and so on. The point is there has to be a point at which you have to say no, or at the very least, not yet. It is difficult, can causes arguments, but ensures you can deliver an ongoing service and not simply sink under the burden of charitable activities as the funds dry up.
MRCTAL may still use the no or not yet point, but it seems that if it is destroying so many animals that it is not using no or not yet point enough. They may say in reply that to say no or not yet would undermine its position as the last place people can go to for help. Yet they are not legally bound to take in every animal that they are aware of, simply to do what they can. There are hundreds, probably thousands of small organisations that can help.
Then again, the fact that so many animals are killed every year can also be a vote winner. Such a figure may convince people to donate more and more because of course if MRCTAL had more money they wouldn't need to destroy so many animals. Or would they? Surely they would argue the destruction is necessary due to the state the animal was in? If that is the case then the number of killed would not change if they had more money? If more money would save some of those animals killed then that it is an admission that those animals have been needlessly killed.
This is increasingly not becoming a defence of MRCTAL!
That is why we have a non-destruction policy. We will of course accept veterinary advice for dogs in suffering and beyond help, but thus far, in a short and very small history we have not had to do that. Dogs Trust show that in a very very big way you can save dogs, keep them alive and not have to kill in the many thousands.
Monday, 29 March 2010
PAYE End of Year return done
Well that was easy. The HMRC CD-ROM is so easy to use - though having to install the 2010 disk over the 2009 disk just to get to the End of Year bit was a little bizarre. In fact it was so easy it made me a little uneasy - as if I had forgotten something. I think I will give it a few days then ring HMRC just to double-check everything is okay. Thankfully we only have two employees - a shop manager and assistant manager, as I think the HMRC CD-ROM is limited to a small number of employees.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Fundraising Standards Board
We are now a member of the Fundraising Standards Board. We believe this further demonstrates our commitment to adhere to the best fundraising practices.
The search for an accountant begins
Another new phase of the governance process - finding an accountant. While we hope that all our accounts have been recorded correctly in accordance with the SORP this is both an exciting and nervous time. This is after all our first accounting period. Who knows what will follow. I hope that all the bookkeeping I have been doing will pay off. Numerous e-mails will now follow to try and find the right accountant for the right price.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
We're Registered!
It's official! After months of fundraising to get to the required £5,000, and several weeks of waiting and a minor amendment to our chosen Objects we are now officially a Registered Charity. We just need to wait for our charity number now. We should appear on the Charity Commission web site very shortly.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
We're registered!!!! (sort of)
Friday saw out bid to become a registered charity pass its final hurdle!
The person at the Charity Commission tasked with ensuring we ticked all the right boxes, and had everything worded legally gave us the final pass we required to become registered. We do not have a "number" yet because now our file is passed to the registrations team who assign the number. We're told this will take up to 15 days.
Five months of solid work by a dedicated team of volunteers has paid off.
Registration is important on so many levels. For the public in gives the reassurance that we are legal. It also stops some of the sniping that I have heard from one supposedly charitable group who seem to have resented our presence. It also saves us money, because now we can get a reduction in VAT on our veterinary treatment bills and advertising. It should also mean that we can claim gift aid on our donations. It's win win all the way.
The person at the Charity Commission tasked with ensuring we ticked all the right boxes, and had everything worded legally gave us the final pass we required to become registered. We do not have a "number" yet because now our file is passed to the registrations team who assign the number. We're told this will take up to 15 days.
Five months of solid work by a dedicated team of volunteers has paid off.
Registration is important on so many levels. For the public in gives the reassurance that we are legal. It also stops some of the sniping that I have heard from one supposedly charitable group who seem to have resented our presence. It also saves us money, because now we can get a reduction in VAT on our veterinary treatment bills and advertising. It should also mean that we can claim gift aid on our donations. It's win win all the way.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
New Objects agreed
The Directors have voted unanimously to accept the proposed Objects as suggested by the Charity Commission in order to complete registration. This is good news. The amendment must not be sent to Companies House and the Commission to complete this process.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Amendment to our Memorandum
Blimey, we've probably tried too hard but the Charity Commission have recommended we amend our chosen Objects because there are elements that not charitable in law. This is a requirement for us to complete the registration. This is what happens when you do not take legal advice and believe everything in the best interests of a dog is therefore charitable. That said the areas that are a cause for concern covered such things as having a non-destruction policy. This cannot be one of our objects in law, but can be a policy. Rest assured that our non-destruction is going nowhere.
Fortunately the good chaps at the Commission have recommended a wording that is charitable in law. We now need a directors meeting to approve the amended Memorandum.
Fortunately the good chaps at the Commission have recommended a wording that is charitable in law. We now need a directors meeting to approve the amended Memorandum.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Charity Commission registration
I should have posted this earlier. We have sent our application to the Charity Commission - in fact it was sent a couple of weeks ago. Last week I received an e-mail from the person at the Commission who will be looking at our application. She introduced herself and explained the time frame she has to work in. I thought it was an excellent piece of customer service. I have had a very very mixed, ney poor experience with Government departments and agencies this summer. The worst by far has been HMRC which is unfortunate. As a Government employee myself it gives me an understanding of how unpleasant such communications can be from a customer point a view. The Commission has been mixed itself - not in the speed, or the helpfulness but in the accuracy of the information. I think it might be like my own organisaton - that phonelines are manned by people fresh or inexperienced and not properly trained to know all there is to know about the work they do.
These are exciting times for us. I know we will probably have to make changes to the Articles but will work with the Commission to ensure our application is a success while still maintaining the ethic we created.
These are exciting times for us. I know we will probably have to make changes to the Articles but will work with the Commission to ensure our application is a success while still maintaining the ethic we created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)