Latest news with #FundraisingRegulator
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Telegraph
Cycling charity misled public with ‘save the dormouse' campaign
Britain's biggest cycling charity misled the public by running an inaccurate fundraising campaign which claimed donations would save endangered wildlife, a regulator has found. Sustrans, which manages the vast National Cycle Network (NCN), launched a series of hugely successful Facebook adverts in 2022 pleading for money to help protect rare birds, bats, dormice and hedgehogs. The following year, the Fundraising Regulator received two complaints that the charity, which has received more than £100 million of taxpayers' cash to promote cycling and low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), was wrongly 'portraying' itself as a 'wildlife charity'. The watchdog launched an investigation and was sent examples of social media adverts in which Sustrans asked potential donors: 'Will you help save the dormouse?' Other adverts asked people to give money to tackle the 'environmental emergency' by preventing animals' homes from being 'razed to the ground' and paying for a nest box for a 'beautiful barn owl'. The Facebook adverts featured 'cute, fluffy' creatures, including a toad crossing a road, a Willow Tit and a young hedgehog snaffling for food. Now the regulator has ruled that Sustrans, twice breached the code of fundraising practice by giving the impression it was 'solely focused on wildlife protection activities'. The nature enthusiast who lodged the official complaint said Sustrans had to be 'dragged kicking and screaming' to the charity regulator before it eventually 'stopped misleading the public' and withdrew the adverts. The regulator's full ruling, seen by The Telegraph, will prove hugely embarrassing for the cycling charity, which after the pandemic benefited massively from controversial 'active travel' projects. 'The complainant is concerned that potential donors would not be aware their donations could fund work that has a potentially negative impact on wildlife,' the ruling says. 'We find that Sustrans positioning itself within this fundraising campaign as solely focused on wildlife protection activities on the NCN is likely to mislead potential donors.' It concludes that the 'fundraising campaign' was 'inaccurate' because 'a potential donor... could assume their donation will be used for wildlife protection' but could fund a 'different purpose'. Sustrans' 'wildlife protection work is predominantly a direct result of... increasing active travel and by expanding and developing the NCN', the ruling said. It added some sample ads were 'not clear about the charity's broad strategic aim', leaving some likely to 'conclude the charity's activities are mostly the promotion and protection of wildlife.' The complainant initially used the charity's internal complaints procedure, prompting Sustrans to pause and review the campaign, before making the adverts 'clearer'. But, the complainant, who is not named by the regulator and has maintained his right to anonymity, then contacted the regulator. The regulator found the charity 'acknowledges' its work expanding cycle networks 'could negatively impact protected wildlife species' and has a 'statutory obligation towards ecology work and biodiversity in relation to its charitable aim of expanding and improving the NCN' by installing bird, bat and dormouse boxes and managing hedgerows. Sustrans was found not to have breached the code that requires it to prove any 'direct or indirect claim' in its campaign. The dossier at the centre of the Fundraising Regulator's investigation, seen by the Telegraph, shows Sustrans' £140,000 a year chief executive, Xavier Brice, twice rejected the complainant's concerns saying: 'I have full confidence that our fundraising adverts are not misleading to the public in portraying us as a wildlife charity, only that we do spend time and money to support ecology and wildlife on the NCN.' The complainant said he was 'shocked' by the response after he raised concerns about 92 Facebook ads which he claimed attracted 'three million hits'. He said: 'It's brazenly unethical as they confirmed to me a lot of ecological work they do is to mitigate the negative effects of implementing cycling infrastructure. 'Sustrans' website only showed they sowed seeds and put up boxes for birds, bats and dormice. That's like a primary school eco-project. 'Sustrans had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop misleading the public after two years. 'I believe it's unprecedented for the regulator to censure a charity this large which is mostly funded by the taxpayer.' The campaign was so successful that in its 2022/23 accounts, Sustrans boasted that tests of 'new digital engagement' fundraising campaigns found 'the best performing adverts' included 'cash gifts to support ecology work on the National Cycle Network'. A Sustrans spokesman said: 'All the work mentioned in our fundraising campaign appropriately reflects the work our in-house team of ecology experts and volunteers have done to improve biodiversity on the National Cycle Network. The regulator agreed we were able to show evidence that we had completed this work. 'Our ecology campaign was an unrestricted appeal, helping us to raise donations for our charitable objectives and we had a statement to that effect on every landing page. We accept the regulator's recommendation that we should have included more about our core mission, to make it easier for people to walk, wheel and cycle, throughout the adverts to ensure it was clear to potential supporters that our mission is not solely ecology on the National Cycle Network. 'The last thing we would want to do is mislead our supporters, who are vital to our mission. We have been grateful to collaborate closely with the regulator and we are implementing their recommendations.'
Telegraph
26-04-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Veterans charity lookalikes misleading public, warns Mercer
CICs are legitimate organisations that are intended to provide social benefit but are also able to use the funds they raise to make a profit. They are structured like private companies but must pass a 'community interest test' demonstrating the social purpose of the business. But Mr Mercer said they 'offer little to no transparency on where the money raised goes'. He told The Telegraph: 'These organisations masquerade as charities in order to get public support. Some use the branding of recognised and trusted institutions like the Royal British Legion to mislead the public. And they offer little to no transparency on where the money raised goes.' Exploiting British instinct An MoD spokesman said: 'We advise anyone who wishes to support our veterans through charitable donations to check the legitimacy of organisations and charities claiming to raise money for veterans. We are grateful for the generosity of the public and urge supporters to seek out official Service charities. 'Any Community Interest Company must adhere to a Code of Practice and is regulated by the Fundraising Regulator.' Earlier this year one CIC which claimed to help Army veterans was banned from operating in the Morrisons supermarket chain after raising cash from shoppers. The supermarket allocates time slots for charitable groups to raise money by its tills, but withdrew permission when it was discovered the group was not a registered charity. James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said: 'People who give to veterans' charities do so because they assume the people collecting the money aren't operating a commercial mode. 'To exploit the powerful instinct of the British public to support those who have served is shocking, wrong and completely unacceptable. Charity sector in 'disrepute' Last month the Fundraising Regulator raised concerns that the behaviour of some CICs was bringing the wider charitable sector into 'disrepute'. In its annual complaints report the body said that 54 out of 455 of the complaints it handled in the year between 2023 an 2024 concerned 'a small number' of CICs. The complaints included poor behaviour by street fundraisers and misleading practices. A CIC focussed on knife crime, Inside Success Union, was reprimanded by the regulator for breaching its Code of Practice nine times in 2023/24. Breaches by Inside Success Union included placing undue pressure on members of the public to donate and causing an obstruction when fundraising, among others. The regulator raised concerns about instances of fundraisers telling members of the public that the company was a charity.
