The charity tribunal has rejected a bid by an academic body to press the Charity Commission to investigate a membership charity amid claims of “harmful and discriminatory practices”.
The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Charity ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal by the City Doctoral Researchers’ Association.
The CDRA said it would appeal against the decision.
The judgment, handed down last week, says the CDRA, which is part of City St George’s, University of London, filed an appeal on 6 January about the regulator’s handling of a complaint about the European Academy of Optometry and Optics charity.
The CDRA had asked the tribunal to review the commission’s decision not to investigate the CDRA’s concerns about the EAOO.
The judgment shows that in an email in November, the commission told the CDRA: “You have repeatedly stated that you want a decision review to be completed about the commission’s decision not to take forward your concerns about the charity.
“Only certain decisions can be challenged through the commission’s decision review process and ultimately the tribunal.
“Our assessment on whether to take forward your concerns about a charity does not fall within that remit.”
The judgment says the CDRA alleged that the regulator’s “failure to act” on the complaint “disregarded evidence of harmful and discriminatory practices” at the charity.
The regulator’s handling of the complaint also had broader impacts on the EAOO, its members, beneficiaries and the public, the CDRA claimed.
In a further email, on 10 December, the regulator said it had not made a “decision” in the case and reiterated that its assessment regarding concerns about a charity was not subject to its decision review process or the tribunal.
In February, the tribunal told the CDRA to set out the provisions of the Charities Act 2011 it believed the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the matter.
The appellant argued the regulator’s “persistent failure to exercise its statutory powers constitutes a reviewable and appealable matter” under several statutory provisions.
The CDRA requested a review under section 321 of the Charities Act 2011 and its appeal was struck out by Registrar Bamawo on 22 April.
The judge found that the 25 November email did not constitute a “decision, direction or order”.
The CDRA appealed the ruling on 5 May and argued that the tribunal “erred in law” by concluding that the email was not a reviewable decision.
But the latest ruling upholds the earlier decision and agreed that the email did not constitute a decision, direction or order, particularly because the regulator said it had made no decision.
“I have decided that there is no jurisdiction for this tribunal to consider this appeal and I confirm that this appeal remains struck out,” the ruling says.
“Even if I am wrong on this, in order for it to have been such a decision, direction or order giving rise to an appeal to the tribunal, it must be set out in schedule six of the Act,” the judgment says.
“The provisions on which the respondent stated it wishes to rely in schedule six were all decisions or orders which do not apply in the circumstances of this case.”
A spokesperson for the City Doctoral Researchers’ Association said the organisation would appeal the tribunal’s decision to “ensure systemic and structural inaction is properly examined and remedied”.
The European Academy of Optometry and Optics has been contacted for comment.
The Charity Commission declined to comment.