The Charity Commission recently concluded its regulatory compliance case on HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust (formerly known as Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust). The case serves as a useful reminder of the commission’s expectations, particularly for charities working with connected parties and non-charitable organisations.
HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust is a registered charity which, according to its website, “work[s] for a world without hate” by raising and granting funds to community-led initiatives which challenge far-right hate, and build hopeful alternatives – all with the aim of building strong community relationships and an inclusive society.
Hope Not Hate Limited is a non-charitable organisation which states that it works to create a collective movement to “build HOPE” by countering hate, particularly far-right extremism, to ultimately form more united communities. Its website says that it does this through research, producing resources, campaigning, organising networks and delivering workshops and events.
Initial concerns
The two organisations have overlapping missions and activities. Notably, however, the non-charitable organisation carries out political and campaigning activities to an extent which is prohibited for charities. The Charity Commission received “repeated complaints across several years” in respect of the uncertainty as to whether the non-charitable organisation’s activities were “connected to and/or endorsed by the charity”. This led to the commission providing regulatory advice and guidance to the charity, which in particular required greater clarity on the relationship and connected activities.
Calls for further scrutiny
Irrespective of the action it had already taken, the Charity Commission received further complaints surrounding the relationship, which caused it to open a new case in June 2025. This later included a public letter written by Jack Rankin MP to the commission. The letter urged it to carry out further regulatory scrutiny of the charity, alleging that it had failed to comply with regulations on political activity, and “funnels” the vast majority of its funds to the non-charitable organisation, as evidenced by the charity’s accounts and lack of employees to carry out its own activities.
A cause for change
As a result of the regulatory engagement, the charity implemented a number of changes which led to the case being closed.
The most visible change was to the charity’s name, moving away from the shared “Hope Not Hate” tagline, to create a clear distinction between the entities. This was carried through into the charity’s branding, as well as its website, which also removed references that could inaccurately imply operational overlap between the organisations.
Those changes were then followed by an organisational update. The board appointed three new independent trustees, which would strengthen conflict-of-interest management, as well as a new charity secretary. The board also separately committed to hiring a paid grants manager and administrator, independent from the non-charitable organisation.
These steps were intended to further reinforce independent decision-making and operational separation, with the grants manager presumably proposing grant projects to the board, for it to consider in the charity’s best interests, to avoid any construction of the charity acting as a pure conduit of funds to the non-charitable organisation. While these actions eventually satisfied the Charity Commission, it expressed its dissatisfaction with the pace of the charity’s response to the first case.
Despite its earlier regulatory advice and guidance, it found that limited progress had in fact been made by the time the second case had been opened. The commission’s criticism serves as a reminder that trustees must act promptly when concerns are raised as delay can itself amount to a governance failure and attract its own regulatory scrutiny.
Key takeaways
The case highlights how essential it is for charities to present a distinct identity when they operate alongside non-charitable organisations, particularly those involved in campaigning or political work. Where names, branding or messaging overlap, the public may struggle to understand which organisation is responsible for which activities.
That uncertainty alone can prompt regulatory concern. Charities should ensure that their communications, visual identity and public statements leave no room for confusion about their role or the limits of their work.
A recurring theme in the Charity Commission’s engagement was the need for trustees to demonstrate genuine independence in their decision-making. When a charity works closely with a connected organisation, trustees must be able to show that they are acting solely in the charity’s interests, free from undue influence.
Strengthening the board with independent trustees, ensuring that conflict situations are provided for in the charity’s governing document and conflict of interest policies, ensuring proper compliance with the procedures in place, and properly documenting decisions all help to reinforce true independence.
Where a charity grants funds, the Charity Commission expects the grant award to be justified and monitored. The charity must have carried out its own due diligence prior to making the grant, to ensure that the grant will in fact be in the charity’s best interests, by furthering its own purposes and safeguarding its reputation.The perception that a charity is simply transferring funds without scrutiny can rapidly undermine public confidence in a particular organisation, as well as the wider sector.
Trustees should be able to explain why a grant advances the charity’s purposes, what due diligence was carried out and whether further information was requested, how risks have been managed and what mechanisms and reporting requirements are in place to ensure that the grant is being used for its agreed purpose. If grantmaking is a regular activity for the charity, it is recommended that a grantmaking policy is in place for trustees to adhere to, and if the grants are considered high-value or high-risk for the particular charity, that a grant agreement is entered into, setting out the terms upon which the grant is conditional.
The case reinforces how important it is for charities to manage their political activity with precision. Where political issues intersect with a charity’s purposes, it can indeed take part in campaigning and political activity; however, trustees must ensure that their work remains clearly within the boundaries of what is permitted and cannot be seen to side with, or indeed against, any particular political party.
The case serves as a reminder that transparency is central to good governance but also to public confidence in the sector. Charities must be able to explain their relationships, their decision-making processes and their operational structures in a way that withstands external scrutiny. Clear, accurate and consistent communication helps prevent misunderstandings and maintain public trust.
Public complaints can be damaging to a charity’s reputation but, as seen in this case, can also prompt regulatory engagement. Trustees should therefore recognise the importance of public perception and ensure that complaints are monitored and promptly and appropriately addressed, and that all associated decisions have been accurately recorded. Charities operating in high-profile, high-risk or culturally contested areas may face greater public scrutiny, which could make them more vulnerable to regulatory engagement.
Ciara Maybey is an associate at Russell Cooke
