The charity watchdog is embroiled in a row with ex-employees of the Alzheimer’s Society after clearing it of wrongdoing, following claims in a Guardian investigation over payouts to workers who signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).
The Charity Commission said it found no evidence that confidentiality clauses used by the country’s biggest dementia charity were designed to prevent, or had the effect of preventing, staff blowing the whistle about bullying, harassment or discrimination.
But the findings prompted an angry response from former employees of the Alzheimer’s Society, with one labelling it a “whitewash” and questioning how the watchdog came to its conclusion without, they say, examining individual cases. Another ex-employee said the findings were “superficial in the extreme” and looking like “incompetence or cover-up”.
The Charity Commission said that it did not interview any current or former staff members at the Alzheimer’s Society as part of its case. It contacted the original whistleblower but did not get a response, it said.
The decision comes after the Guardian investigation in February revealed that an 11-page leaked whistleblower complaint had been submitted to the Charity Commission, raising concerns about the use of settlement agreements with non-disclosure provisions and the sums paid to settle claims at the Alzheimer’s Society.
The commission failed initially to investigate the February 2018 complaint or contact the whistleblower.
Separately, a former senior employee claimed the charity’s long-serving chief executive, Jeremy Hughes, displayed bullying behaviour to staff and presided over a toxic culture. Hughes, who was due to take over as CEO of Samaritans, was dropped by the suicide charity after mounting pressure, including from two other ex-Alzheimer’s Society staff who broke their NDAs to speak out against his appointment.
The Charity Commission subsequently looked into the February 2018 complaint – although not as a formal statutory inquiry – after admitting it should have done so initially. On Monday it submitted its findings, saying it was satisfied that there were processes in place to ensure settlement payments were properly scrutinised and that trustees had acted in line with their legal duties.
It also stated that the reported £750,000 figure for settlements included in the whistleblower complaint was “not substantiated by the evidence the Commission saw”, although neither the watchdog or charity has provided an alternative figure.
The commission noted that an updated policy at the Alzheimer’s Society included new explicit provisions stating that settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses cannot be used to hide improper behaviour or prevent lawful disclosures.
However, the ex-staff member at the Alzheimer’s Society who submitted the whistleblower complaint told the Guardian: “The Charity Commission’s findings are a complete whitewash. The regulator says it found no evidence that confidentiality clauses were used by the Alzheimer’s Society to prevent reporting of whistleblowing, bullying, harassment or discrimination. Why then would you ask someone who has submitted a complaint and received a payout to sign an NDA if not to stop them speaking about the treatment they suffered?
“And how can the Charity Commission come to this conclusion when it admits it failed to investigate individual cases of bullying or harassment?
“The truth is that the Charity Commission was caught out when it failed to investigate when it should have done more than two years ago when it received this complaint and now they have conducted a superficial two-month inquiry that says ‘nothing to see here’. ”
A former senior employee at the charity added: “The Commission has taken little more than two months when many of their investigations into such complex matters rightly take much much longer. Have they rushed a superficial investigation because they didn’t respond properly in the first instance?
“If the Charity Commission doesn’t properly investigate, how can they assure the public that as a regulator they are doing all they should for the public to have trust and confidence in charities? This looks like incompetence or cover-up.”
Tracy Howarth, assistant director of casework at the Charity Commission, said: “Our case did not find evidence of wrongdoing at the Alzheimer’s Society, or that its use of settlement agreements would stop people from whistleblowing. This is crucial – the Alzheimer’s Society has an important role in ensuring the wellbeing of so many, and so it is important that its working culture allows staff to raise concerns.”
A Charity Commission spokeswoman said: “As our case statement makes clear, we would carefully consider any new evidence, and continue to encourage anyone who has concerns about the charity’s management of these issues to come to us. As part of our case, we reached out to the 2018 complainant, but received no response. Nor has anyone else come forward to us.
“And so our case focused properly on assessing the allegations and evidence put to us about the charity’s use of settlement agreements. That evidence did not point to wrongdoing on the part of the trustees. We have made clear that, like all charities, the Society must continue to ensure staff settlements are only made where appropriate, and where that supports the charity’s purpose. Donors expect charities to be different from other organisations and to spend their money carefully.”
The whistleblower told the Guardian they declined to engage further with the Charity Commission as they considered they had provided sufficient detail already in the 11-page complaint.
The Alzheimer’s Society has always denied the accuracy of the £750,000 settlement figure claim, but declined to give its own sum. It said it only used settlements for “legitimate reasons” and that it has “zero tolerance” of bullying and discrimination.
On Monday, it welcomed the Charity Commission’s findings about what it described as its “rare use of settlement agreements over the last five years”, adding: “This has, however, been an opportunity for some reflection for us. We have updated our policy on settlement agreements … and we have instigated an independent review of our procedures for raising concerns to ensure it is absolutely best practice.”
