FundRaising Standards Board

Advice & Regulation

• The Standards
  • The Codes of Fundraising Practice
  • The Fundraising Promise
  • Self-regulation
  • Influencing the Standards
• Complaints
  • Identifying a Complaint
  • Our Process
  • Adjudications
  • Annual Return
• Supporter Care
• The FRSB Tick
  • Public Confidence
  • Using the Tick
  • Download the Tick
  • Promoting Your Membership
• Your Membership
  • What It Means
  • Getting Started
  • Communicating your membership
  • The Advisory Forum

Adjudications

WaterAid - Not Upheld

Complainant's Summary

The complainant made a total ot 11 complaints about WaterAid's Corbett Challenge event. For the sake of clarification, a "Corbett" is a Scottish term for a hill that is between 2,500 and 3,000 feet high. The WaterAid Corbett Challenge plans to use a total of 312 Corbetts.

Summary of the complainant's complaints

The complainant believes that WaterAid has only considered land managers for the summit of each Corbett and believes that they ought to have communicated with EVERY land manager on each of the Corbetts.

The complainant believes that his local summit, Bishop Wilton Wold, has three land managers and that Ben Nevis has four; therefore, the complainant believes that there are an average of three land managers per Corbett in Britain.

Based on this calculation, the complainant believes that WaterAid should have communicated with at least 936 (3 x 312) land managers in order to make the Corbett Challenge fully compliant with the UK Outdoor Challenge Events Code of Fundraising Practice.

The complainant feels that WaterAid has not provided him with sufficient evidence that it has contacted all 936 land managers. This has led him to draw the following conclusions:

1. WaterAid has not liaised with, and actively involved, every land manager in the process of planning the event.
2. WaterAid has not worked closely with land managers and other interested parties to ensure that the impact of the event is minimal.
3. WaterAid has failed to check whether the areas proposed for the Corbett Challenge are protected or not and has failed to find out whether the event may have a negative impact on breeding birds or rare plants.
4. WaterAid has not contacted charities carrying out similar types of fundraising activity nor local community groups to check if its Corbett Challenge will impact on other possible events scheduled for the same date, locations and times.
5. WaterAid has not briefed participants about the environmental and land management issues on the route, the impact of over crowding and shortcuts and the need to keep to designated paths while walking.
6. WaterAid has not made itself aware of the environmental sensitivities of the Corbetts.
7. WaterAid will not be able to report any damage caused on the day of the event to the appropriate people.
8. WaterAid has not properly briefed participants on event procedures, environmental impact, amenities, safety, equipment, training, vehicles and road safety.
9. WaterAid is in breach of Section 2 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The right permits the public use, on foot, for open air recreation. But the right is subject to restrictions set out in Section 2 of the Act. The right does not extend to anyone who "engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken for any commercial purpose". The complainant feels that the Corbett Challenge is for a commercial purpose, therefore it is in breach of the Act.

WaterAid's Response

1. The complainant first raised his concerns with WaterAid on the 14th February 2011.
2. WaterAid's Event Fundraising Manager provided the complainant with several email responses which attempted to reassure him that it had done everything possible to communicate with all of the appropriate land managers. WaterAid also sought to address the concerns he raised with them, which at the time, totaled 3 complaints.
3. The complainant felt that the Event Fundraising Manager's responses did not adequately address his concerns and requested details on how he could make a formal complaint to the charity. The complainant made a formal complaint to WaterAid by email on the 20th February 2011.
4. WaterAid's Head of National Fundraising, sent a response to the complainant on the 7th March 2011. In this response, WaterAid's Head of National Fundraising reiterated the points made in earlier correspondence and provided specific examples of where WaterAid had worked with land managers to ensure that the Corbett Challenge did not cause any negative impact. In light of the previous correspondence that the complainant had received from WaterAid's Event Fundraising manager, the Head of National Fundraising's response was the final point of escalation in WaterAid's complaints procedure.
5. The complainant made it clear that WaterAid's Head of National Fundraising's response did not adequately address his concerns. Both the complainant and WaterAid then contacted the FRSB seperately for further assistance.

Stage TWO Assessment

The FRSB’s Compliance Manager received an invite from WaterAid’s Event Fundraising Manager to attend a face to face meeting with WaterAid’s event staff at the charity’s head office. Representatives of the FRSB met with them on the 15^th of March 2011.

During this meeting, the FRSB reviewed evidence that supported WaterAid’s assertion that it had done everything possible to contact the relevant land managers for its Corbett Challenge event. The FRSB also discussed the complainant’s concerns in detail and, based on the information WaterAid provided, it was felt that the charity was not in breach of the Outdoor UK Challenge Events Code.

Assessment Notes:

• WaterAid had written to, or was in the process of writing to ALL land managers at the time the FRSB met with the charity. All land managers had been given the opportunity to respond within a specific time frame. The FRSB has seen a copy of the template letter sent to land managers as well as WaterAid’s database listing the total number of land managers it has contacted or are in the process of trying to contact. Based on this evidence, the FRSB is confident that WaterAid has done everything possible to contact the necessary land managers and that where there was more than one land manager, WaterAid has made concerted attempts to contact each one.

• For Scottish Corbetts, WaterAid has asked local Access Officers for the contact details of the Land Managers responsible for each peak. To clarify, since the implementation of the Land Reform Act in February 2005, all Scottish local authorities have dedicated Access officers whose remit includes addressing and resolving access disputes and issues in their areas. Land Access Officers have been WaterAid’s first point of contact in Scotland for land manager details. The FRSB has seen evidence supporting the fact that the charity has kept in regular contact with the Land Access Officers throughout the planning of the Corbett Challenge event.

• In cases where WaterAid has not been able to obtain contact details of land managers, it has asked the appropriate Local Access Officer to contact them on the charity’s behalf. These land managers have then been given the opportunity to contact WaterAid if they have concerns about the event.

• It is the FRSB’s view that WaterAid cannot control who does and who does not respond to notification letters; in cases where land managers have not responded, WaterAid has gone ahead with the climb; the FRSB believed this approach to be both reasonable and code compliant (considering the pragmatism that is implicit throughout the code).

• The FRSB felt that WaterAid had struck a good balance between following the code and making its events administratively viable. From the evidence shown during the meeting, the FRSB representatives were confident that WaterAid had complied with land managers’ wishes if and when required to do so.

• Based on the evidence presented at the meeting, FRSB representatives were confident that where concerns were expressed about the impact of the event, the charity was working closely with the relevant land managers to come to an agreement.

• From what the FRSB has seen, WaterAid has been careful to take into account the potential negative environmental impact of the Corbett Challenge.  For example, the charity had already decided that it would limit the number of people in each team walking up the 312 Corbetts in Britain to a maximum of 7.

• Having spoken to WaterAid in detail about the Corbett Challenge event, FRSB representatives were satisfied that it has spoken to other charities that carry out similar events in order to ascertain whether their schedules clash. For example, WaterAid has liaised with Macmillan Cancer Support, a regular coordinator of similar challenge-style events.

• Having seen a copy of WaterAid’s safety guidelines during the meeting, FRSB representatives were satisfied that every event participant would be provided with comprehensive information that would safeguard both them and the local environment prior to their climb. WaterAid also recommended routes for participants to follow which were based on information given to the charity by a walking expert who had carried out a full assessment of the sites.

• In terms of the 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act, there is no clear statement which clarifies whether or not charity events are subject to the restrictions outlined in Section 2 of the Act; as such, it is the FRSB’s view that WaterAid cannot be held accountable to this legislation.

Resolution Attempted

• The FRSB met with WaterAid in order to discuss the complainant’s complaint face to face and learn more about how the Corbett Challenge event was being organised.
• This meeting formed the basis of the Stage 2 assessment which the FRSB’s Compliance Manager sent to the complainant by email on the 18^th of March 2011.
• The complainant then responded with additional questions which the FRSB comprehensively addressed on the 22^nd of March.

• The complainant came back to the FRSB with further additional questions on the 22^nd of March. The FRSB felt that these questions were not material to his original complaints and, as such, did not feel it was appropriate to answer them.

• The FRSB then made several attempts to move the complaint forward to the benefit of all concerned which resulted in the complainant requesting on the 7^th of May that his complaints be considered by the FRSB Board for adjudication at Stage 3.

Board Assessment

The FRSB board assessed the complainant’s complaints against the Institute of Fundraising’s Outdoor UK Challenge Events Code of Fundraising Practice.

OUTCOME - NOT UPHELD

The FRSB board unanimously agreed that WaterAid’s 2011 Corbett Challenge was not in breach of the Outdoor UK Challenge Events Code.

Firstly, it agreed that there was no evidence to support the complainant’s calculations that WaterAid would need to contact 936 land managers in order to be compliant with the code.

The FRSB board considered Section 3.0 of the code which stipulates that those charities who use public rights of way for fundraising challenge events OUGHT to “liaise with land managers”. Based on the evidence provided by WaterAid, the board felt that the charity had made every reasonable attempt to contact the appropriate land managers.

The board considered that WaterAid is only using public rights of way for the Corbett Challenge and, as such, it was unanimously agreed that WaterAid had met and exceeded what had been expected of it to be compliant as it had made every possible attempt to contact the land managers for each and every Corbett.

Although the complainant’s complaints were not upheld, the FRSB board wished to make it clear that it was extremely grateful to him for bringing his concerns to its attention. The board also commended WaterAid for the sensitive, transparent and considered manner in which it had managed the complainant’s complaints.

Adjudication Recommendation

The board recommended that charities who wish to carry out large scale challenge events should follow WaterAid’s example by making every effort to comply with the UK Outdoor Challenge Events code.

It was quite clear that it took a considerable amount of work for WaterAid to plan and co-ordinate its 2011 Corbett Challenge event. The board felt that charities should consider the substantial amount of work that is needed to organise responsible and compliant challenge events and, in so doing, should manage their resources accordingly.

Return