Name and type of organisation: St. Thomas Mar Thoma Church (registered charity no 1122211)
Fundraising method: Face-to-face fundraising (private site)
Code themes examined: Pressured fundraising, restricted campaigns, complaints handling
Code breach? Yes
The complaint
The complainant believed that the Agape Project fundraising campaign conducted by St. Thomas Mar Thoma Church ("the charity”) failed to achieve its objectives. The goal and outcome of the campaign was the purchase of a new building, to replace an existing one, for the charity. However, the complainant explained that this was done outside of the time limit it had set itself advertised in its fundraising materials, and that it did not reach the level of donations it stated was needed in the campaign literature. The complainant also said that the building that was purchased did not fulfil the requirements as set out in the campaign and that the charity pressured donors by visiting their homes.
What happened?
The Agape Project was a campaign to raise £150,000 to buy a new building for the charity within 100 days. The building was to replace the existing vicarage used by the charity. The donation appeal was sent to members of the church by letter explaining the problems with the vicarage and providing information about the building the charity would ideally like to replace it with.
The charity was unable to reach the target amount during the 100-day period but did still make an offer on and then buy a new building shortly after.
The complainant brought their complaint to us anonymously, explaining that the building purchased did not meet the requirements of the charity and that the donors should be refunded, as the campaign had failed.
Our decision
We considered the campaign in question, its objectives and the information made available to donors. While the campaign goals in terms of the time limits and total funds raised had not been achieved, we were satisfied that the charity had achieved its overall goal of purchasing the replacement building (noting that this was done very soon after the 100 days of the campaign).
We didn’t agree that the building bought by the charity was outside of the campaign’s objectives, but we thought that the charity could have been clearer about its requirements. From the information we considered, the only conditions for the new vicarage were that it was detached, had four bedrooms and cost approximately £500,000.
We thought that the charity failed to follow the code in some respects – namely that it didn’t consider, nor inform donors, what it would do with funds if it was unable to achieve the campaign objectives. However, we didn’t think on balance that this would have swayed donors against supporting the campaign. There were issues in relation to complaint handling, although the charity did look into the matter when we asked it to.
We also considered the allegations of pressured fundraising but did not have enough information to come to a view on this.
Code sections considered
Code of Fundraising Practice, version effective 1 October 2019 (last updated 4 June 2021)
Section 1.2. Asking for support:
- Section 1.2.1: No breach identified
Section 2.4 Complaints and concerns about fundraising:
- Section 2.4.1: No breach identified
- Section 2.4.3: No breach identified
Section 2.7 Using funds:
- Section 2.7.2: No breach identified
- Section 2.7.4: No breach identified
- Section 2.7.5: Breach identified
Recommendations
From what we have seen in this complaint, it was clear that the charity did not immediately recognise the Agape Project campaign as regulated fundraising, as it had primarily directed its fundraising efforts towards its own members.
We recommended that, should the charity decide to continue with fundraising activities, it undertakes a thorough review of its policies and procedures and considers the requirements of the Code of Fundraising Practice.
Examples of the policies and procedures we would expect to see updated would include but are not limited to:
- Its fundraising policy and fundraiser training to reflect the standards within the code, with particular note to the standards of the code considered in this decision.
- Its complaints policy – specifically for its fundraising, and with mind to making this available publicly and not just to members of the church.
Outcome
The charity accepted our findings and recommendations and will be informing its members of the recommendations soon as it seeks to implement these.