U.K., Oct. 27 -- UK Parliament issued the following news:
The Charity Commission’s decision to take legal action against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), which resulted in the Ombudsman essentially being blocked from laying her reports before MPs, was wrong and must be learned from, according to a new report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Read the report [HTML]
The Charity Commission's Board must take responsibility for the staggering decision to undertake legal action rather than blame it on advice from the organisation's lawyers, MPs conclude. The court proceedings ultimately led to a number of negative consequences including cost to the taxpayer, the Commission being found in contempt of Parliament and, most importantly, significant stress and upset to the individuals who lodged the complaints.
On 9 September 2025, the Ombudsman laid two reports before the House of Commons related to investigations into the Charity Commission for England and Wales. These involved serious safeguarding issues at two different charities.
The House of Commons stepped in to make sure that the reports were laid, as the Charity Commission had responded to the initial decision to lay the reports by beginning proceedings for a judicial review. This was perceived by many to be an attempt to prevent the information being shared with MPs.
The Committee welcomes the decision of the High Court to dismiss this action and the Charity Commission's acceptance of the decision. It is hard to believe, however, that the Commission ever got itself into a position where it believed its best course of action was to pursue legal action against another publicly funded organisation, PACAC concludes.
In its report, the Committee rejects a number of the characterisations put forward by the Charity Commission about the PHSO. These include allegations that the Ombudsman was operating beyond its remit and asking the Commission to undertake a criminal investigation, which the Committee describes as 'astonishing'. It is for the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman alone, to decide whether to lay a report before Parliament if they are of the view an organisation under investigation has not complied with their recommendations.
PACAC describes the government's decision to launch a consultation on the Charity Commission's powers to tackle abuse as a positive first step, but the Committee believes a wider review of the Commission’s powers and how it exercises them is long overdue. This unfortunate episode also provides an opportunity to deliver a fundamental refresh of the culture at the organisation. Any parliamentary scrutiny of this work should sit with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Chair comment
"The handling of these two highly sensitive cases by the Charity Commission Board should be exhibited as a shining example of how a public body should not conduct itself. A litany of poor decision-making has backfired horribly, leading to bad outcomes for everyone.
"We must not forget that poor handling of cases such as these has real life consequences. First, the individual complainants have been put through a further ordeal which need never have happened. Second, when cases such as these are mishandled, it shakes public trust that the system will support them if they are the victims of an injustice. The Charity Commission's legal action against the Public Service Ombudsman has done further damage to that trust and it is now the job of the Board to win that trust back."
Further information
Inquiry: The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's investigations into the Charity Commission
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
About Parliament: Select committees
Visiting Parliament: Watch committees
Image: House of Commons
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
