Parliamentary reports reveal significant failings by the Charity Commission in investigations into cases of sexual abuse within charities, prompting calls for reform amid concerns over safeguarding weaknesses and regulatory response.
Reports laid before Parliament have detailed significant failings by the Charity Commission in handling investigations into two separate cases involving sexual abuse within charities. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) found that the Commission mishandled complaints from Lara Hall, a survivor of human trafficking and sexual abuse, and Damian Murray, a victim of historic abuse at a religious order and school in northwest England. Both complainants waived their rights to anonymity, highlighting the personal impact of the Commission’s failures.
In Ms Hall’s case, the PHSO report revealed that the Charity Commission adopted an inconsistent and inadequate approach during its investigation into the British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA). Its chairman, Wilson Chowdhry, was involved in what Ms Hall described as an "abusive and inappropriate relationship." Despite safeguarding concerns raised in 2019, the Commission categorised her complaint as "low-risk" without documenting the rationale, and closed the case even though an official warning indicated the trustees had failed to act in the charity’s best interests. The Commission also declined to remove Chowdhry as a trustee, citing a perceived lack of wider risk to public trust. Ms Hall described the repeated failures as causing her "profound pain and ongoing injustice" and criticised the Commission for trying to block Parliament's scrutiny of the reports.
Meanwhile, Damian Murray’s experience involved historic abuse at a Catholic school managed by the Marist Fathers. After raising concerns about the suppression of abuse allegations to preserve fundraising efforts, the Ombudsman found the Charity Commission did not fully consider all relevant issues and failed to apply its safeguarding and risk assessment guidance appropriately. Mr Murray felt ignored and dismissed, accusing the Commission of shielding the charity and trustees from accountability over many years.
The Charity Commission has accepted that lessons need to be learnt from both cases, issuing apologies to the complainants and providing compensation. It maintains that the overall outcomes in both cases were sound following detailed reviews, noting that warnings and actions had been issued where appropriate. However, the PHSO chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath KC, has criticised the Commission for resisting the bulk of its recommendations and failing to provide full apologies or assurances that the necessary changes will be made. She emphasised the importance of full compliance to restore trust and address the complainants’ grievances.
These cases are part of broader concerns regarding deficiencies in the Charity Commission’s handling of safeguarding issues. Recent government findings have exposed trustee failures in other charities, such as the Grail Trust’s inadequate response to a child abuse allegation in India and the Bristol Community Church Trust’s deficient safeguarding procedures that exposed beneficiaries to undue risk. Such findings underscore systemic vulnerabilities within the charity regulation framework and the crucial need for rigorous oversight.
The Charity Commission’s legal challenge against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman over the scope of its remit remains unresolved. This dispute impacts the Commission’s obligation to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations fully. The Commission argues it needs clarity on whether the PHSO has the authority to make binding recommendations, highlighting tensions in accountability mechanisms.
The significance of these investigations extends beyond procedural critique; they spotlight critical issues of victim support, survivor confidence in reporting abuse, and the safeguarding responsibilities entrusted to charity regulators. Both Ms Hall and Mr Murray’s accounts demonstrate how inadequate regulatory responses can exacerbate harm to victims and undermine public trust in charitable organisations and oversight bodies alike.
The Charity Commission’s handling of these cases is now under intense parliamentary and public scrutiny, with calls for it to accept responsibility and take decisive action to prevent further failings. Until full compliance and improved safeguarding measures are implemented, concerns remain about the protection of vulnerable individuals within charities and the effectiveness of regulatory oversight.
📌 Reference Map:
- Paragraph 1 – [1], [6]
- Paragraph 2 – [1], [3], [6]
- Paragraph 3 – [1], [2], [7]
- Paragraph 4 – [1], [3], [6]
- Paragraph 5 – [1], [2], [3], [6]
- Paragraph 6 – [4], [5]
- Paragraph 7 – [1], [6]
- Paragraph 8 – [1], [6]
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative references reports laid before Parliament detailing the Charity Commission's failings in handling sexual abuse investigations. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 23 January 2025, when the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) ruled that the Charity Commission failed to properly handle safeguarding concerns related to historic child sexual abuse. ([ombudsman.org.uk](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/ombudsman-rules-charity-commission-failed-properly-handle-safeguarding-concerns-0?utm_source=openai)) The report also mentions a previous investigation published on 17 May 2024, concerning the Charity Commission's handling of sexual exploitation concerns. ([ombudsman.org.uk](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/investigation-charity-commission-miss-complaint?utm_source=openai)) The narrative appears to be based on these reports, which are official publications and typically warrant a high freshness score. However, the narrative does not provide specific dates or details from the reports, making it difficult to assess the exact freshness. Additionally, the narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The lack of specific dates and details from the reports makes it challenging to determine if the content is recycled or original. The absence of direct quotes or specific data points further complicates this assessment. Therefore, while the narrative is based on recent official reports, the lack of specific details makes it difficult to fully assess its freshness.
Quotes check
Score:
5
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from individuals such as Lara Hall and Damian Murray, as well as from Rebecca Hilsenrath KC. However, these quotes are not accompanied by specific dates or sources, making it challenging to verify their authenticity and originality. Without the ability to trace these quotes to their original sources, it's difficult to determine if they are reused or original. The lack of verifiable sources for these quotes raises concerns about their credibility. Therefore, the quotes cannot be fully verified, and their originality remains uncertain.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative references reports laid before Parliament and mentions the PHSO's findings. The PHSO is a reputable organisation responsible for investigating complaints about UK government departments and other public bodies. However, the narrative does not provide direct links or specific references to these reports, making it difficult to fully assess the reliability of the sources. The absence of direct citations or links to the original reports reduces the transparency and verifiability of the information presented. Therefore, while the narrative is based on reports from a reputable organisation, the lack of direct references or links to these reports diminishes the overall reliability of the sources.
Plausability check
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative discusses the Charity Commission's failings in handling sexual abuse investigations, referencing reports from the PHSO. The PHSO's findings are consistent with previous reports on similar issues, such as the 23 January 2025 report on the Charity Commission's handling of safeguarding concerns related to historic child sexual abuse. ([ombudsman.org.uk](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/ombudsman-rules-charity-commission-failed-properly-handle-safeguarding-concerns-0?utm_source=openai)) However, the narrative lacks specific details, dates, and direct quotes, making it difficult to fully assess the plausibility of the claims. The absence of specific factual anchors and verifiable details raises concerns about the narrative's authenticity and accuracy. Therefore, while the general claims are plausible, the lack of specific details and verifiable information diminishes the overall plausibility of the narrative.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative references recent reports from the PHSO regarding the Charity Commission's failings in handling sexual abuse investigations. However, the lack of specific details, dates, and direct quotes makes it challenging to fully assess the freshness, originality, and reliability of the content. The absence of verifiable sources and specific factual anchors raises concerns about the narrative's authenticity and accuracy. Therefore, while the general claims are plausible, the overall assessment is OPEN with a MEDIUM confidence level.
