However they arise and regardless of their outcome, a Charity Commission investigation can be a challenging experience for a charity. With the number of investigations opened by the Commission rising year on year, it is useful for trustees and anyone working within a charity to understand how the Commission identifies and investigates concerns.

In our webinar hosted on 16 October 2025, Lucy Rhodes and Philip Kirkpatrick guided attendees through common triggers and themes for Charity Commission investigations, the different types of investigation and the Commission’s inquiry powers.

In this round-up, we have summarised the key takeaways.

Common triggers for investigations

Some triggers for investigations cannot be avoided. For example, if a high-profile issue has been picked up by the press, or if your charity operates internationally in an area which is deemed high-risk, then the Commission may feel the need to investigate regardless of your charity’s conduct.

There are, however, some common causes of investigations which can either be avoided or managed. For example, many investigations are opened because of a ‘double default’ where a charity fails to comply with its annual reporting and filing obligations in two out five years. Other triggers include complaints made to the Commission, press reporting, reports from auditors and independent examiners, and serious incident reports made by the charity. While you must report serious incidents, it is important to do so, where possible, in such a way as to pre-empt the Commission’s concerns and demonstrate that the issue is being handled properly by the charity.

It is important to note that what triggers an investigation may not be the same as the ultimate focus of the investigation itself.

Types of investigations

The Charity Commission’s investigations work falls into two categories: regulatory compliance cases and statutory inquiries (which it sometimes refers to as ‘formal investigations’). Over 90% of Charity Commission investigations last year were regulatory compliance cases.

The Commission typically sees a statutory inquiry as being suitable when the issues under investigation are more serious, so that the Commission can use its specific inquiry powers to establish facts, collect evidence and remedy the situation, or when there is a need to provide public assurance. The conduct of the trustees in responding to any initial enquiries from the Charity Commission can contribute to a decision to open an inquiry and so cooperation is key.

In an inquiry it’s the Commission’s standard practice to publicise the opening and outcome of the inquiry whereas it will only publicise a regulatory compliance case in exceptional circumstances, with a notable recent example being the regulatory compliance case relating to St Giles Trust. In either case, it is advisable to have a communications plan in place, particularly in the event that the matter enters the public domain through other channels.

Charity Commission’s inquiry powers

If the Charity Commission opens a statutory inquiry, it has additional legal powers to gather information and protect charity property while it investigates. 

Information gathering powers: these include powers to direct a person to give the Commission accounts, written statements and documents and to require them to attend an interview. A direction or an order may be addressed to trustees, employees, accountants and solicitors amongst others.

Knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information and destroying or concealing documents is a criminal offence under section 60 Charities Act 2011. Following the Commission’s inquiry into funds held by Sikh Youth UK last year, two individuals were convicted of section 60 offences and one received a sentence of four months in prison (suspended for 18 months) and 80 hours of unpaid work.

Temporary protective powers: these powers are used to protect a charity while the Charity Commission investigates and include powers to suspend and appoint trustees, vest charity property in the Official Custodian for Charities, make a ‘freezing order’ and (generally at the cost of the charity) appoint an interim manager to manage the affairs of the charity either instead of or alongside the trustees.

In order to use a temporary protective power the Commission must be satisfied that there is or has been misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of a charity or that it’s necessary or desirable for it to act to protect the property of the charity. 

Common themes in recent investigations

A review of the Charity Commission’s recently published inquiry reports highlights certain common areas of concern:

  • Governance: Recurring criticisms of trustees include non-compliance with the charity’s governing document or policy documents, a lack of a properly constituted board of trustees, inadequate supervision and control over CEOs or individual trustees, and inadequate minute taking.
  • Safeguarding: Some of the most significant inquiries over the past five years have related to safeguarding concerns and the Commission has highlighted safeguarding as a particular risk area for charities in its Risk Assessment 2025, noting particular risks relating to evolving technology and online safety.
  • Conflicts of interest and private benefit: Failure to manage conflicts of interest and the receipt of unauthorised benefit by trustees are common themes in Charity Commission investigations, particularly in charities where there are relationships between trustees or the charity or a trustee has a close connection with a commercial organisation. Recent high-profile inquiries in which these issues arise – Fashion for Relief and The Captain Tom Foundation – resulted in trustee disqualifications.
  • Acting outside charitable purposes: One of a trustee’s key duties is to act within the purposes or objects of a charity and inquiries often highlight non-compliance in this area. There have also been some notable cases in recent years where the Charity Commission has investigated and concluded that trustees have been acting within their objects – the National Trust and The Runnymede Trust, for example.
  • Accounts and record keeping: The Commission has an ongoing statutory class inquiry into charities that have failed to file their annual documents for two or more years in the last five years. This often uncovers wider administration and governance issues, prompting further investigation.
  • Financial irregularities/ failure to manage funds: Internal financial controls are essential for helping trustees to protect their charity’s assets, make informed decisions and meet their legal duties. In the Charity Commission’s inquiry into Mountain of Fire and Miracle Ministries, the Commission found that trustees did not have adequate oversight and control of over 100 bank accounts operated by more than 90 branches, placing significant funds at risk. The Commission recommends that charities review their financial controls at least once a year and has published a checklist which charities can use as part of this exercise.

Possible outcomes of an investigation

The outcome of some investigations will be that the Commission is satisfied the trustees are acting properly in accordance with their powers and duties. However, where the Commission finds fault, it may issue a report (and almost certainly will in the case of a formal inquiry) and that report might conclude that there has been mismanagement and / or misconduct. If it finds that, the Commission might issue and official warning and may require actions to be taken or not taken, as set out in an action plan, order, direction or regulatory advice. The Commission will also have powers to remove and disqualify trustees and others and even to wind up the charity.

Challenging the Charity Commission

When to challenge:

There are various stages at which a charity may wish to challenge the Charity Commission during or at the end of an investigation or inquiry. Such challenges might relate to the opening of an inquiry, the content of a report, the issue of an official warning, or the disqualification of a trustee. Few such challenges are successful because the Commission has a wide discretion in carrying out its regulatory functions, but successful challenge is not impossible. Of course, it is always better to engage with the Commission early in a bid to dissuade it from taking damaging regulatory action.

How to challenge:

Some actions taken by the Commission (including suspension and removal of trustees or the issue of an official warning) require them to give notice of their intention and reasons for their proposed actions. Strong, reasoned argument in response to such notices can often be successful in dissuading the Commission from taking some actions. It is notable that there have been many more notices of intention to issue official warnings than there have been official warnings themselves.

If you are unsuccessful in challenging the Commission through correspondence, the other options are decision review (using the Commission’s own internal review process), appeal to the First Tier Tribunal or even judicial review.

Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal is not available for official warnings, so these must be dealt with via informal correspondence with the Commission or a response to their notice of intention. Judicial review would be highly improbable mechanism for challenge.

A request for a decision review must be made within 3 months of the Commission’s decision and an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal must be made within 42 days. Therefore, if you want to keep both options open, the best option is to make both applications simultaneously and ask the tribunal to stay proceedings while the decision review proceeds.

Judicial review is a possible option but is rarely a successful route of challenge.

Useful Resources:

From the Commission:

From Bates Wells: