Peter Downing v The Charity Commission for England and Wales [2025] UKFTT 849 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 00849 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/CA/2025/0007
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on the papers on 10 th July 2025Date 14 th July 2025
Charity
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE ARMSTRONG-HOLMES
Between
PETER DOWNINGAppellantTHE CHARITY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND AND WALESRespondentDecision: The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(3)(c).REASONS
[1]The Appellant submitted his appeal to this Tribunal on 20th February 2025. In his Notice of Appeal, he states that the outcome he seeks is for the Respondent to be required to conduct a proper investigation into his complaint regarding the Tuxford Mine of Information Charity.[2]This Appellant refers the Tribunal to an email from the Respondent, dated 5th February 2025, in which it was stated that its decision was as follows:
“We have carefully considered the concerns you have raised and also the information provided by the charity’s trustees, to decide whether it was necessary for the Commission to take any regulatory action. We decided that, in this case, it was not and so we have closed the case.”
[3]The preamble to that decision explained the purpose of the Charity Commission, what its purpose is, and when it intervenes in matters, explaining that this would take place in circumstances where there is a serious risk of significant harm to, or abuse of, charities, their beneficiaries or their assets.[4]In submitting this appeal, the Appellant has clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision of the Charity Commission not to pursue matters further. However, for there to be a right of appeal to this Tribunal, there must have been a decision, direction or order which falls within the first column of Schedule 6 of the Charities Act 2011 (“the Act”).[5]Whilst the Appellant points to the email as being a decision of the Respondent which he wishes to appeal, it is evident that there is no corresponding right of appeal contained within Schedule 6 of the Act.[6]On 11th April 2025, the Respondent submitted an application to strike out the appeal under Rule 8 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to the appeal, and that it should be struck out under either Rule 8(2)(a) or Rule 8(3)(c).[7]Rule 8(2)(a) provides as follows:
“The Tribunal must strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal – (a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them; and (b) does not exercise its power under Rule 5(3)(k)(i) (transfer to another court or tribunal) in relation to the proceedings or that part of them.”
[8]Rule 8(3)(c) provides as follows:
“The Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if – (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding.”
[9]On 5th May 2025, the Appellant submitted written representations to the Tribunal, in compliance with Rule 8(4), which are summarised as follows:(i) That he had submitted prima facie evidence of severe financial mismanagement and possible wrongdoing, and had raised questions about the appointment, and even existence of one of the registered trustees.(ii) That in refusing to investigate the public concerns regarding the charity concerned, the Respondent is failing in its statutory functions and public trust in the charity concerned will not be restored.(iii) That the charity’s accounts show a long history of financial mismanagement, secrecy and failure to comply with regulations especially those concerning the appointment and behaviour of trustees.[10]Whilst it is clear that the Appellant fundamentally disagrees with the Respondent’s decision, none of these written representations address the present issue, which is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to these proceedings.[11]The Tribunal is often said to be a creature of statute, in that its powers are legislated to it by Parliament. In this instance, and in the absence of any arguments which suggest that there is a right of appeal to this Tribunal, I have no hesitation in concluding that I have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.[12]The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) for want of jurisdiction. It follows that there could be no reasonable prospect of success with this appeal.