CharityControl.org

Resources / What happens when trustees get it wrong? Charity Commission inquiries and trustee liability

What happens when trustees get it wrong? Charity Commission inquiries and trustee liability

guide · For: Trustees worried about a mistake, and boards that want to know what the regulator actually does · Sources checked 2026-08-06 · England & Wales

Honest mistakes, handled honestly, rarely end badly. The Charity Commission acts on serious mismanagement, and its strongest powers follow a statutory inquiry. Trustees who acted honestly and reasonably are protected. What decides the outcome, in inquiry after inquiry, is what the trustees do once the problem is found.

What counts as getting it wrong?

The law separates three things, and the difference matters.

The Commission's inquiry guidance (CC46) turns on those last two words. The standard you are measured against is the six duties in The Essential Trustee (CC3). If those are new to you, start with what a charity trustee does.

What does the Charity Commission actually do?

The Charity Commission for England and Wales works up a ladder, and most concerns never get past the first rung.

An open inquiry gives the Commission its strongest powers. It can:

Interim managers are paid from the charity's own funds. In one published inquiry that cost the charity over £1 million. The reports also note the costs were higher because the trustees withheld information. Cooperation is cheaper.

When are trustees personally liable?

Rarely. A trustee who acted honestly and reasonably is well protected, even when a decision goes wrong. Incorporated charities (CIOs and charitable companies) limit personal liability further. Where published inquiries have made trustees repay money, it was money spent without authority in the first place: unauthorised payments to trustees, or charity funds used for private benefit. The worst cases end in disqualification for ten years or more. Those are the cases with dishonesty or defiance in them, and they are a small minority.

What patterns actually appear in inquiries?

We read 45 of the Commission's published inquiry reports, spanning six years. Not one was caused by a clever or unusual risk. Every one was ordinary governance that stopped happening. The same findings repeat:

What should we do when we discover a serious problem?

The clearest signal in the whole set of inquiry reports is this: what you do after the mistake decides the outcome.

Charities with serious findings that cooperated and completed the Commission's action plan came away with advice, and survived. Charities that obstructed or delayed lost their trustees, and sometimes their registration. The Commission is explicit that obstruction or a lack of frank disclosure "may in itself be evidence of mismanagement".

Could this happen to a small charity like ours?

Most of these inquiries are about small charities, and the failures are ordinary. A treasurer left and nobody took over the filings. Trustees drifted away until one person held everything. None of it needs sophistication to fix. It needs the basics done on time: meet, minute, file, and keep every pound of charity money in the charity's own account. A board doing those four things sits outside almost every pattern in the published reports.

Sources

Use this in CharityControl

CharityControl's assurance view and red lines keep the failure patterns from published inquiries visible to the whole board, so they get fixed at a meeting rather than in an inquiry.

Check my charity

Free to use and adapt for your charity's own governance. Not legal advice; check the cited sources for the current rules.