Chuggers incur first penalty points under new fining system

News

Chuggers incur first penalty points under new fining system6

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 28 Aug 2012

Some face-to-face fundraising charities have already incurred penalty points under the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association’s new fining system, within its first week of operation.

However, the self-regulatory body won’t yet disclose which charities or agencies have incurred points or which rules they broke, until it has devised a fair way of making the information public.

The new penalty system was introduced last Monday, and will see PFRA members incurring points for various breaches of the new rulebook. Breaches include standing within three metres of a shop doorway, failing to make solicitation statements, and leaving bags on public highways.

The first points were issued after a town-centre warden in Westminster reported a fundraiser breaking one of the rules, and further penalties were incurred as a result of the PFRA’s compliance officer making spot-checks.

Ian MacQuillin, the PFRA’s communications chief, said details of the penalties would be made public soon but not before a proper disclosure system is established.

“We are looking at the moment at how best to publish them and only then will we say how many points have been awarded or who they have gone to,” said MacQuillin. “A paper is going to the board with recommendations about the best way to publicise them.

“We can’t just have a league table because the charities who do more fundraising will get more points; it’s got to be related in some way to volume of activity or the level of checks or something like that.

“But we will make it transparent and informative.”

PFRA CEO: New rules will drive up standards

Sally de la Bedoyere, the PFRA’s new CEO, said she was sure the new rules would go a long way towards improving standards in face-to-face.

“It’s going to take time to bed in and people have to get used to it,” she said. “There are already various processes going on within private fundraising organisaitons and charities in terms of training and their own mystery shopping programmes, but we’ve increased the mystery shopping so the compliance side, we hope, will improve.

“Personally I think they are very good rules, they can’t work in isolation but they do give more specific explanations for street and general face-to-face fundraising. I think they will be a huge part of improving the standards.”

Directory: Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA)

Place a comment

Mike Smith
28 Aug 2012

This is by no mean a disproportionate moral panic or a 'wee issue' as chuggers are having a significant negative affect on the economy and smaller charities as people avoid shopping areas in order to avoid being harassed.

In time of economic hardship for business its vital that this regulation works. Personally I don't think it will as its not hard hitting enough and considering the PFRA are in the hands of their members, I don't think the PFRA can or will uphold these rules adequately. If they don't and it doesn't work, then they know that the government will take the self rugulation out of their hands and introduce laws and allow councils to enforce local by-laws to make it work. The Hodgeson Report has already stressed this will happen and the sector knows this.

[Reply]

Alan Dodd
28 Aug 2012

I entirely agree with Edward. yes, it is an inconvenience for those of us that live and work in town and city centres where street and face-to-face fund raising takes place. However, it's a lot less inconvenient than being homeless, destitute, starving, disabled or abused in a hundred and one other ways - the problems that all these charities are helping to solve. I have a choice as to whether I stop and listen, engage, donate or walk away. What's so wrong with a polite "no thank you" ? Oh, and as a complete aside, whoever coined the phrase "chugger" should be encouraged to do several hours community service with all charities that use face-to-face fund raising methods.

[Reply]

Martin Liddament
28 Aug 2012
Response to [Alan Dodd]

You make it sound like it is the only way that charities can raise money. I don't think it has increased by an iota the degree of choice that already exists when people think about giving to charity; quite the opposite. The argument many people have is with the methods used, not with the principle of giving money, and those methods - including manipulative selling techniques and not taking a polite "no" for an answer - are what gave rise to the phrase "chugger". As such, it's a rough, but perceptive name that cuts through the clowning and false friendliness and shows that under it lies iron-hard sales methods and a determination to get the money. Yes, face-to-face fundraising is a relatively minor irritation set against the wider coarsening of society and the falsification of relationships, but how does being forced to accept that help build a lasting, caring and trusting relationship between a giver and charity?

[Reply]

Emma Quinn
Grant Manager
East London Business Alliance
28 Aug 2012

I agree with Edward Harkins.

It feels like it's a sledge hammer to crack a nut. I personally have never had an issue with the people trying to raise money for a good cause. If people have an issue they can raise it with the charity concerned directly.

I can't see why this fining system is necessary or worth the time and effort (and cost?) going into implementing it.

[Reply]

Edward Harkins
28 Aug 2012

Quite a disproportionate moral panic has been worked up on this relatively wee issue has it not?
Our politicians and regulators cannot do anything much about taxpayer-rescued bank executives carrying on earning disproportionate and unjustified bonus-related earnings; nor can they do anything much about the milking of the public purse through PFI, PFI etc; nor (unless it’s exposed by journalists) was anything to be done about private individual millionaires making more millions out of the likes of the Work Programme…
But all is going to be well, because our politicians and regulators are gonna come down tough on annoying chuggers. Well, that’s OK then and that will resolve the UK’s current economic and social travails and ills, won’t it?

[Reply]

Richard Polson
Director of Corporate Governance
The Stroke Association
28 Aug 2012
Response to [Edward Harkins]

I think the point is that charities have found that these people are hindering the process of fundraising and have therefore decieded to act on the problem themselves. Nothing to do with the politicians let alone bankers etc.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.