Charity Commission finds failings in the Air Ambulance Service
A loss-making fundraising event the Air Ambulance Charity after it lost £111,000
£27,000 loan to its deputy chief executive involved serious failures by the trustees,
says the regulator Alexandra Pope, director of people and organisational management and deputy chief executive at the charity, received the loan to "secure her continuing employment".
This report does not surprise me although it saddens me that a lot of local people
work very hard for this worthy charity.
When you consider a ex Oakham Town Councillor and Master Mason is amongst those
running this charity the same man who persuaded Leicestershire Police to believe his wife was solely to blame when they attempted to rip of the Oakham Taxpayers by submitting
a dodgy grant application for another charity they were involved in.
The Air Ambulance appears to be run in the same way as the town council.
Charity Commission
Case Report
The Air Ambulance Service (1098874)
The Air Ambulance Service Published: 12 August 2015
About the charity
The charity’s objects are to relieve sickness and injury, to preserve health and to save
lives, principally by providing an Air Ambulance Service.
Why the commission got involved
We received several complaints about the charity, which made detailed allegations of:
1. Significant losses incurred by the charity as a result of a failed fundraising event held in 2012.
2. A large loan made to one of the charity’s senior employees without appropriate board oversight.
3. A lack of oversight by the charity’s trustees, with the charity’s chief executive and chairman making important decisions without seeking input of the full board.
The issues raised pointed to potentially serious regulatory concerns, so it was important for us to get
involved and assess the facts, so as to determine the most appropriate regulatory response.
The action we took We carried out a regulatory compliance meeting with the trustees and subsequently issued the charity with an action plan which included the following key points:
1. The charity must ensure it adheres to its charity’s governing document and ensure trustees are
involved appropriately in key decisions of the charity.
2. The trustees must satisfy themselves as to the exact legal basis for agreeing to the loan.
3. The trustees must provide us with a full report detailing the events that led to the failed
fundraising event. The trustees must learn the relevant lessons to ensure that any future events
are properly managed, events undergo appropriate feasibility scoping, and that proper
methodology and skills are in place before the project commences.
What we found
1. The fundraising event
By examining the charity’s own internal documents and our own assessment of relevant records, we
established that a London fundraising event held in 2012 resulted in losses to the charity of around
£111,000. We found that the event was poorly planned and failed to apply proper project management methodology. We also found that the charity failed to make adequate risk or due diligence assessments.
The trustees accept that the management of the event was poor, but maintain that, at the time, they felt they were appropriately overseeing the organisation of the event by the charity’s staff; they stress that none of the information they were provided at the time by the charity’s senior executives indicated that it would cause such large losses. The trustees also maintain that while the original purpose of the event was not successful in raising funds for the charity, it did help raise the charity’s profile and identify future donors.
Nevertheless, we concluded that the processes in place for managing the event were significantly inadequate and that this amounted to a serious failure on the part of trustees.
2. Loan made by the charity to an employee
We established that a loan totalling £27,000 was made to a senior employee at the charity. It was not clear on what legal basis the loan was made. Charities may only apply funds in a way that helps them further their purposes for the public benefit and in the best interests of their beneficiaries.
As part of our case, we asked the trustees to provide us with a copy of any legal advice they had received on whether they could proceed with the loan - the trustees were unable to provide evidence of specific advice received on this point.
We established that the loan was put in place by the CEO and the chair, and that the wider trustee board was only informed after the event.
The charity told us it had telephoned the commission’s helpline to discuss the loan
However, we have made clear that our helpline provides generic advice; if a charity is seeking our formal view on an important decision it proposes to undertake, the charity should write to us, setting out the specific circumstances and specifying exactly what power it considers it can rely on.
The trustees insist that the loan was in the charity’s best interest, as it helped the charity retain a high
performing member of staff. However, they remain unable to demonstrate that trustees made the decision properly and collectively at the time. The staff member in question is repaying the loan and payments are up-to-date.
3. Trustee oversight - relationship with CEO
We found that the trustees did not exercise sufficient controls over the CEO in relation to the two incidents of concern explained above, that there were unclear reporting procedures and that the trustees appeared over-reliant on the CEO and their chair and did not appear fully aware of their responsibilities to act as a collective body.
This led to the serious incidents, including the failed fundraising event.
1 We do not keep records of all ad-hoc telephone calls.
We also established that the relationship between the CEO and chair was such that they did not sufficiently involve the trustee board as a whole, instead making a strategic decision - namely concerning the loan to a staff member - that should have been for the board to make, between themselves. This amounted to a serious governance failure.
Impact of our involvement
The trustees have agreed to complete the action plan. They have confirmed that they are:
• reviewing the charity’s trustee recruitment and selection process
• continuing to ensure that new trustees are provided with induction training with regard to their legal
duties and responsibilities and conflicts of interest (etc) and reviewing whether refresher training on
these issues should be provided to the board
• undertaking a wholesale review of these policies and accompanying procedures; the trustees will
continue to ensure these, and other policies and procedures, are regularly reviewed by the board of
trustees and updated as appropriate
• reviewing its existing risk management strategies and identifying risks at all board meetings
• reviewing written role descriptions for the chief executive, chair and trustees which clearly set out the distinction between the trustees ultimate and collective responsibility for the administration and management of the charity and the CEOs parameters as an employee
• reviewing the role descriptions for other senior managers
• regularly reviewing the approval limits and control measures and procedures to ensure the efficient and appropriate running of the charity
• updating processes for future fundraising to ensure opportunities/initiatives are scoped appropriately, managed properly, budgeted for accordingly, project debriefs and ‘lessons learned’ carried out and a follow up action plan put in place post event
Further action by the commission
Since the action plan was issued we have met with the trustees to review their progress. The trustees
are keen to ensure that improvements to their governance of the charity are made. The trustees have
made good progress in improving the governance of the charity and are finding the action plan useful.
The trustees pointed out, that although losses were made on the failed fundraising event, publicity for the subsidiary charity, Children’s Air Ambulance may have attributed to a recent, substantial grant being made to that charity.
We will continue to work with the charity while they continue to make governance improvements.
Past Issues
In 2010, volunteers for The Air Ambulance Service announced they intended to 'resign in protest', and leave their roles, after the salaries of senior staff at the charity were disclosed.
This happened again in 2013 when it was revealed that senior staff were paid up to £55,000, senior managers were paid up to £120,000 and the Chief Executive, Andy Williamson, was paid over £110,000. The volunteers felt these salaries were too high. The charity responded saying that the large salaries attracted the best staff, and therefore accounted for the charity's improved track record in fundraising and successful missions, and that Williamson was 'one of the most successful charity bosses in the UK.'
In October 2012 the Police Aviation News magazine reported on the controversy surrounding the takeover by TAAS of TCAA. Criticisms include questioning whether a Children's Air Ambulance covering England and Wales is needed in the first place.
In 2013, the head of the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance criticised the choice of name and fundraising tactics of TAA. Claiming that their name caused misunderstanding, with potential donors thinking that the Air Ambulance Service represents all UK air ambulance charities when it actually only represents three of them.
In 2013, the BBC published an insight into the charity, with previous employees of the charity as sources. The article stated that several thousands of pounds were spent on hiring Anton du Beke and Erin Boag to give dance classes to staff as a reward. The source, a former fundraising manager, also said that funds raised were largely spent on 'the upkeep of the charity: salaries, cars, the recruitment of more and more senior personnel.' And in some cases performance related bonuses.
In 2013, complaints were made from residents on the Isle of Wight after they felt mislead donating textiles to TAA, mistakenly thinking they were for the local air ambulance. TAAS issued a statement saying that all its bags are always clearly marked with the destination for the donation.
A loss-making fundraising event the Air Ambulance Charity after it lost £111,000
£27,000 loan to its deputy chief executive involved serious failures by the trustees,
says the regulator Alexandra Pope, director of people and organisational management and deputy chief executive at the charity, received the loan to "secure her continuing employment".
This report does not surprise me although it saddens me that a lot of local people
work very hard for this worthy charity.
When you consider a ex Oakham Town Councillor and Master Mason is amongst those
running this charity the same man who persuaded Leicestershire Police to believe his wife was solely to blame when they attempted to rip of the Oakham Taxpayers by submitting
a dodgy grant application for another charity they were involved in.
The Air Ambulance appears to be run in the same way as the town council.
Charity Commission
Case Report
The Air Ambulance Service (1098874)
The Air Ambulance Service Published: 12 August 2015
About the charity
The charity’s objects are to relieve sickness and injury, to preserve health and to save
lives, principally by providing an Air Ambulance Service.
Why the commission got involved
We received several complaints about the charity, which made detailed allegations of:
1. Significant losses incurred by the charity as a result of a failed fundraising event held in 2012.
2. A large loan made to one of the charity’s senior employees without appropriate board oversight.
3. A lack of oversight by the charity’s trustees, with the charity’s chief executive and chairman making important decisions without seeking input of the full board.
The issues raised pointed to potentially serious regulatory concerns, so it was important for us to get
involved and assess the facts, so as to determine the most appropriate regulatory response.
The action we took We carried out a regulatory compliance meeting with the trustees and subsequently issued the charity with an action plan which included the following key points:
1. The charity must ensure it adheres to its charity’s governing document and ensure trustees are
involved appropriately in key decisions of the charity.
2. The trustees must satisfy themselves as to the exact legal basis for agreeing to the loan.
3. The trustees must provide us with a full report detailing the events that led to the failed
fundraising event. The trustees must learn the relevant lessons to ensure that any future events
are properly managed, events undergo appropriate feasibility scoping, and that proper
methodology and skills are in place before the project commences.
What we found
1. The fundraising event
By examining the charity’s own internal documents and our own assessment of relevant records, we
established that a London fundraising event held in 2012 resulted in losses to the charity of around
£111,000. We found that the event was poorly planned and failed to apply proper project management methodology. We also found that the charity failed to make adequate risk or due diligence assessments.
The trustees accept that the management of the event was poor, but maintain that, at the time, they felt they were appropriately overseeing the organisation of the event by the charity’s staff; they stress that none of the information they were provided at the time by the charity’s senior executives indicated that it would cause such large losses. The trustees also maintain that while the original purpose of the event was not successful in raising funds for the charity, it did help raise the charity’s profile and identify future donors.
Nevertheless, we concluded that the processes in place for managing the event were significantly inadequate and that this amounted to a serious failure on the part of trustees.
2. Loan made by the charity to an employee
We established that a loan totalling £27,000 was made to a senior employee at the charity. It was not clear on what legal basis the loan was made. Charities may only apply funds in a way that helps them further their purposes for the public benefit and in the best interests of their beneficiaries.
As part of our case, we asked the trustees to provide us with a copy of any legal advice they had received on whether they could proceed with the loan - the trustees were unable to provide evidence of specific advice received on this point.
We established that the loan was put in place by the CEO and the chair, and that the wider trustee board was only informed after the event.
The charity told us it had telephoned the commission’s helpline to discuss the loan
However, we have made clear that our helpline provides generic advice; if a charity is seeking our formal view on an important decision it proposes to undertake, the charity should write to us, setting out the specific circumstances and specifying exactly what power it considers it can rely on.
The trustees insist that the loan was in the charity’s best interest, as it helped the charity retain a high
performing member of staff. However, they remain unable to demonstrate that trustees made the decision properly and collectively at the time. The staff member in question is repaying the loan and payments are up-to-date.
3. Trustee oversight - relationship with CEO
We found that the trustees did not exercise sufficient controls over the CEO in relation to the two incidents of concern explained above, that there were unclear reporting procedures and that the trustees appeared over-reliant on the CEO and their chair and did not appear fully aware of their responsibilities to act as a collective body.
This led to the serious incidents, including the failed fundraising event.
1 We do not keep records of all ad-hoc telephone calls.
We also established that the relationship between the CEO and chair was such that they did not sufficiently involve the trustee board as a whole, instead making a strategic decision - namely concerning the loan to a staff member - that should have been for the board to make, between themselves. This amounted to a serious governance failure.
Impact of our involvement
The trustees have agreed to complete the action plan. They have confirmed that they are:
• reviewing the charity’s trustee recruitment and selection process
• continuing to ensure that new trustees are provided with induction training with regard to their legal
duties and responsibilities and conflicts of interest (etc) and reviewing whether refresher training on
these issues should be provided to the board
• undertaking a wholesale review of these policies and accompanying procedures; the trustees will
continue to ensure these, and other policies and procedures, are regularly reviewed by the board of
trustees and updated as appropriate
• reviewing its existing risk management strategies and identifying risks at all board meetings
• reviewing written role descriptions for the chief executive, chair and trustees which clearly set out the distinction between the trustees ultimate and collective responsibility for the administration and management of the charity and the CEOs parameters as an employee
• reviewing the role descriptions for other senior managers
• regularly reviewing the approval limits and control measures and procedures to ensure the efficient and appropriate running of the charity
• updating processes for future fundraising to ensure opportunities/initiatives are scoped appropriately, managed properly, budgeted for accordingly, project debriefs and ‘lessons learned’ carried out and a follow up action plan put in place post event
Further action by the commission
Since the action plan was issued we have met with the trustees to review their progress. The trustees
are keen to ensure that improvements to their governance of the charity are made. The trustees have
made good progress in improving the governance of the charity and are finding the action plan useful.
The trustees pointed out, that although losses were made on the failed fundraising event, publicity for the subsidiary charity, Children’s Air Ambulance may have attributed to a recent, substantial grant being made to that charity.
We will continue to work with the charity while they continue to make governance improvements.
Past Issues
In 2010, volunteers for The Air Ambulance Service announced they intended to 'resign in protest', and leave their roles, after the salaries of senior staff at the charity were disclosed.
This happened again in 2013 when it was revealed that senior staff were paid up to £55,000, senior managers were paid up to £120,000 and the Chief Executive, Andy Williamson, was paid over £110,000. The volunteers felt these salaries were too high. The charity responded saying that the large salaries attracted the best staff, and therefore accounted for the charity's improved track record in fundraising and successful missions, and that Williamson was 'one of the most successful charity bosses in the UK.'
In October 2012 the Police Aviation News magazine reported on the controversy surrounding the takeover by TAAS of TCAA. Criticisms include questioning whether a Children's Air Ambulance covering England and Wales is needed in the first place.
In 2013, the head of the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance criticised the choice of name and fundraising tactics of TAA. Claiming that their name caused misunderstanding, with potential donors thinking that the Air Ambulance Service represents all UK air ambulance charities when it actually only represents three of them.
In 2013, the BBC published an insight into the charity, with previous employees of the charity as sources. The article stated that several thousands of pounds were spent on hiring Anton du Beke and Erin Boag to give dance classes to staff as a reward. The source, a former fundraising manager, also said that funds raised were largely spent on 'the upkeep of the charity: salaries, cars, the recruitment of more and more senior personnel.' And in some cases performance related bonuses.
In 2013, complaints were made from residents on the Isle of Wight after they felt mislead donating textiles to TAA, mistakenly thinking they were for the local air ambulance. TAAS issued a statement saying that all its bags are always clearly marked with the destination for the donation.
