{ Comments on this entry are closed }
I am grateful to the people who made comments following my blog piece on the Institute of Fundraising and Remember a Charity campaign on Sunday.
I would especially like to thank Louise Richards who took the trouble to explain that the article in Third Sector magazine on which the piece was based was, in fact, factually incorrect. It gave the impression that the RaC was asking Government to match legacy donations to their members, when what they were asking was for the Government to match their members’ contributions to the RaC campaign, in order to increase their effectiveness. The poor reporting by the Third Sector journalist did not make this clear.
As a result I have deleted the blog posting, as it was not fair to have a rant about something that was factually incorrect.
I offer my apologies to the IoF and members of Remember a Charity.
{ 0 comments }
The past couple of weeks have been a nightmare for the RSPCA. As previously reported in this blog, they lost a very high profile court case over a disputed legacy worth £2m and had the added embarrassment of being told they have to pay £1m in legal costs for the case.
Now they have lost a second court case, where they tried to argue that the construction of the Will meant that it was trying to avoid any of the recipients of legacies paying Inheritance Tax (IHT).
The High Court judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith, however, agreed with the family’s argument and in his ruling the judge said: “The claim was extremely weak and should not have been brought.” He then ordered the RSPCA to cover the cost of the IHT, a massive £112,000 leaving it with just £370,153, a lot less than the £651,820 they were originally hoping to get.
As if to rub salt into the reeling charity’s open wounds, Mr Justice Smith then refused them leave to appeal, as he felt it would be too distressing for the elderly relatives of the deceased.
Part of my argument about the RSPCA’s previous legacy debacle was that they shot themselves in the foot by not showing any degree of compassion, making themselves look plain greedy. This second major blow does seem to reinforce the impression that they are not interested in being compassionate or compromising when it comes to dealing with others involved in disputed Wills.
After two total legal disasters in two weeks, if I was a Trustee of the RSPCA, I’d be calling for heads to roll. They seem to be getting lousy legal advice and one also has to question who, at the top of the charity, was giving the go ahead to fight these dodgy cases?
Sadly, as I said previously, they have only done the whole charity world a disservice when it comes to legacy fundraising, as the negative public attention they brought about will take a long long time to dissipate.
{ 0 comments }
