Volunteer ‘co-workers’ and families of people with learning difficulties have been given permission by the Charity Commission to bring action at the High Court over changes to communities run by the Camphill Village Trust, a disability charity.

A group of 23 litigants are seeking to reverse changes taking place in three different communities, which they say will replace full-time live-in volunteers with paid shift workers.

They argue that the decision by the trust is contrary to its guiding principles, set down 60 years ago by the Austrian academic Rudolf Steiner.

In cases brought against charities which argue they are going against their objects, the Charity Commission is required to make an order under the Charities Act 2011 before the case can be brought, and the Charity Commission has now given that permission.

The Commission has said it is not considering regulatory action, but has allowed the case to go before the court because it has been "properly pleaded".

The villages affected are Botton in North Yorkshire, Delrow in Hertfordshire and the Grange in Gloucestershire. In each of these villages, people who have learning disabilities live in homes with non-disabled volunteers, known as co-workers, and, in many cases, their families. Co-workers are not paid for the care they provide but are housed and fed and have some expenses met by the charity.

However villagers argue that the trust is now attempting to replace live-in co-workers with shift workers. The claimants say that the charity has made changes to communities in which disabled people live which are “destroying a unique model of care” based on Steiner’s principles, which allows learning disabled individuals “to live fulfilling lives by living and working as equals with those who care for them”.

According to the charity, HM Revenue & Customs has said that from April 2015, all co-workers would be treated as employees for tax purposes. In February the charity gave notice to all co-workers who had refused to accept employee status that they must vacate their homes by May or July, and told them their financial support from the charity would cease by the end of March.

Campaigners argue that it is CVT's choice treat co-workers as employees.  

The case brought is separate to an attempt to seek a judicial review of the decision, which the High Court last week refused.

Alex Rook, a specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell representing some of those affected, said: “This represents the next steps in the group’s legal battle to safeguard the rights of the vulnerable adults who call these communities home.  They believe the changes would bring about a massive upheaval for vulnerable people in Botton, Delrow and the Grange. We argue that what they are proposing goes directly against the terms of their governing charity agreement.

“There are serious concerns about changing the way of life that has existed for many decades, and how this would impact on the village communities, and we hope that the court will ultimately order that the trustees have acted in a way that is beyond their powers.”

Huw John, chief executive of the Camphill Village Trust, said it was “only right” that the matter should be tested by the court, but that the decision to give permission was not a victory for the campaigners.

“We recognise and respect the Charity Commission’s decision to allow the beliefs of those campaigning against the charity to be tested in court,” he said. “If the administrative tests set by the Commission are met it is only right that the matter should pass to the court to adjudicate over - if this is what claimants wish.

“Although some may present it as so, this does not represent a legal decision or a victory. It is merely an acknowledgement that, as the Charity Commission puts it, the case ‘appears to meet the threshold of being properly pleaded.’

“In essence, the campaigners want to revert the charity to a time when the Care Quality Commission, local authorities and the Charity Commission were all forced to intervene due to serious concerns about poor management and governance.

“The charity does not believe that such a retrograde step is in the best interests of the people we support. It would also put us in conflict with requirements of HM Revenue and Customs, local authorities and other regulatory bodies. We hope the case will be dismissed by the court, as has been the case with other court action brought by the campaigners.”

This article is closed for comments