Welcome To Simplydocs

Category : Author / Iain Mackintosh

Brexit Notes: What will a No-Deal Brexit Mean for the Property and Real Estate Sector?

In answering this question, this post – the latest in our series of ‘no-deal’ Brexit Notes – will consider the impact of a no-deal departure from the EU on the legislative framework governing property ownership and transactions, as well as taking a brief look at the commercial impact on the property market.

Impact on the Legislative Framework

There has been minimal intervention from the European Union on the laws which govern how property is held in England and Wales. In short, leaving the EU will have little impact upon the legislation governing property ownership and transactions in England and Wales.

Some EU law does impact upon the way in which property is held in England and Wales, most notably the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010 and the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (EPB regulations), which implemented the EU Directive on the energy performance of buildings.

There will be a review of legislation which implements EU directives following our departure from the EU. It is unclear to what extent the UK government will depart from the EPB regulations and it is arguable whether indeed any change will be made to these regulations after Brexit. If any change is made it is unlikely to be made for some time whilst the UK Government addresses other more complex issues following Brexit.

Feeling Frustrated?

One other aspect that sellers or landlords need to be aware of, is whether Brexit is a ground upon which a buyer or tenant can argue frustration of a contract. If a contract is frustrated, it is incapable of being performed due to unforeseen events and consequently becomes void. A party to that contract would have to argue that at the time the lease or contract was signed, they had no idea that the UK would leave the EU and that the whole basis of their business and the contract was based upon the UK being an EU Member State.

There may be several reasons why a contract and/or lease cannot be performed as a result of Brexit.  This could be for regulatory, staffing, and/or financial reasons.

Individuals may also seek to get out of assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) on the grounds of Brexit if, for example, their jobs cease to exist.

Commercial Impact on the Property Market

It is hard to predict what the impact will be on the real estate market due to the ongoing uncertainty of what Brexit will look like and the terms of our departure, which are to be agreed with Europe. There is likely to be some volatility. There is also a risk that a potential relocation of businesses from the UK to other countries is likely to affect supply and demand, which will impact upon pricing, and the property market will surely be affected by how the wider economy fares following our departure from the EU.

In summary, until there is some certainty as to the what the terms of Brexit will actually be, the impact upon the property market remains to be seen. There will be little impact upon the legislation governing property ownership and transactions in England and Wales, save for any regulations implementing EU directives, such as the EPB Regulations. What, if any, changes will be made to these regulations remains to be seen.

Are you a landlord or estate agent? Perhaps you are concerned about the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on your commercial property? How are you preparing for Brexit? Your comments are, as ever, welcome!

Brexit Notes: No-Deal & Company Law

The UK is scheduled to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 by virtue of having served a formal notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to terminate its membership of the EU.

At the time of writing, it is still not clear whether this departure will be delayed, accompanied by a ‘deal’ smoothing the exit through a transition period or whether the UK will leave the EU in a ‘no-deal’ scenario.

This note focuses on the potential company law impact to UK private limited companies of exiting the EU in a no-deal scenario. It is important to remember that this is a fluid situation with events changing rapidly; however, the good news for UK incorporated private limited companies is that whilst many other legal areas may be subject to quite significant change, UK company law is not expected to be immediately affected even in the event of a no-deal exit.

The Companies Act 2006

The key legislation governing and regulating English and Welsh companies is the Companies Act 2006. This includes the types of companies that can be incorporated, their liability, the role of Companies House, directors’ duties, and the rules on accounts and audit. Whilst some parts of the Companies Act 2006 are derived from EU Directives such as shareholder rights, the majority of English company law is not derived from EU legislation. The Companies Act 2006 will, therefore, continue in force as at present and no-deal will not of itself change the legal status of UK incorporated companies. However, the company law form of a European Company (‘Societas Europaea’) will no longer be available in the UK.

Third Country Companies

Notwithstanding the expected limited effect on private limited companies, it is worth noting that following Brexit, UK incorporated companies will become ‘third country’ entities as far as European law is concerned. The significance of this is that Member States will not be obliged to recognise the legal personality and limited liability of companies which are incorporated in the UK but have their central administration or principal place of business in another EU Member State. There may be recognition by individual Member State’s national laws or under international law, but this is a point of uncertainty.

UK companies being considered third country entities will also affect a UK company’s ability to undertake a cross-border merger within the EU and rely on group company account exemptions if it has an EU parent. Similarly, UK incorporated companies with branches in other EU Member States will no longer benefit from favourable rules applicable to branches of third country companies. These are, however, issues that will most likely affect large companies or listed PLCs, rather than SMEs operating solely within the UK.

Trading and Commercial Impact

As the legal impact (at least initially) is expected to be limited, probably the biggest issue that UK private limited companies face is the commercial uncertainty that Brexit and particularly a no-deal Brexit may bring.

As yet, no one knows the trading terms that will take effect post-Brexit, and this could lead to both broader economic uncertainty within the UK as well as specifically impacting certain companies whose business model and strategy is more vulnerable to certain goods and exchange rate fluctuations. This is of course not something that anyone can yet predict with any certainty.

UK companies can therefore only adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach whilst trying to be aware of the vulnerabilities that their companies may face in the light of a potential no-deal Brexit.

Changes to SDLT Filing and Payment Time Limits

Stamp Duty Land Tax (“SDLT”) is a tax on land transactions payable on the purchase of land or property (including leases) over a certain price in England.

The time limit for filing an SDLT return with HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) and paying any tax due to HMRC is being reduced from 30 days to 14 days for those property transactions in England with an ‘effective date’ on or after 01 March 2019.

The ‘effective date’ is the date of completion; however, it may be brought forward where a contract has been substantially performed, for example, when a tenant takes early occupation of a tenanted property.

Improvements will also be made to the information to be provided in the SDLT return, and these will be in place when the new time limit begins (01 March 2019).

The Welsh Land Transaction Tax (“LTT”) replaced SDLT in Wales in April 2018. Under the LTT, the time limit for filing the return and submitting a payment to the Welsh Revenue Authority is 30 days from the effective date of the transaction.

The SDLT rules and LTT rules are complex, with many exceptions, exemptions, and reliefs. If your transaction is not straightforward you should take specialist tax advice to ensure that you pay the correct amount of SDLT or LTT (whichever applies).

Key Points on the Government’s Good Work Plan

At the end of 2018, the Government published details of its Good Work Plan, setting out its plans to introduce a number of reforms designed to improve protection for agency workers, zero hours workers, and others with atypical working arrangements.

The Good Work Plan is the Government’s considered response to Matthew Taylor’s report:  Good Work: the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices, published in July 2017.

The main proposals included in the Good Work Plan are:

  • • Employment status clarification. The Government says it will bring forward “detailed proposals” as to how the employment status frameworks for the purposes of employment rights and tax will be aligned. There will also be legislation to “improve the clarity of the employment status test, reflecting the reality of modern working relationships”. This is a problematic area for employers and employees alike and has the potential to be a significant development, but the Good Work Plan is light on detail as to what this will involve.
  • • Extending the right to a statement of particulars to all employees and workers from day one. This right currently only applies to employees, and the statement can be provided up to two months after employment starts.
  • • Extending the relevant break in service for the calculation of the continuous service qualifying period from one week to four weeks. This is intended to help workers who work intermittently for the same employer and find it difficult to build up employment rights.
  • • Removal of the ‘Swedish derogation’ in the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and banning this sort of contract from being used to withhold agency workers equal pay rights.
  • • A ban on employers making deductions from staff tips.

The Good Work Plan also includes proposals to improve the enforcement of employee rights, including:

  • • Introducing a ‘name and shame’ scheme for employers who fail to pay Employment Tribunal Awards.
  • • Implementing stronger sanctions for employers who have previously lost similar cases.

The Government has not given a timetable for introducing this legislation and, with the ongoing Brexit negotiations, may have other things on its mind for the foreseeable future. It is, however, useful to be aware in a general sense of what is likely to happen.

Brexit Notes: No-Deal & Consumer Rights

As 2019 dawned, there was hope in some quarters that a renewed commitment to common sense might have dawned with it and that our intrepid politicians might return to work determined to agree upon a way forward for Brexit. It is quite clear, not least in light of the House of Commons’ rejection of the Government’s Brexit deal on 15 January, that this is not to be.

Talk of ‘no-deal’ is far from new; however, for a long time, it has been reasonably easy to dismiss a no-deal scenario as unrealistic. Now, however, with less than three months before the UK leaves the EU, a no-deal Brexit is starting to look like a realistic possibility after all.

Opinions on a no-deal Brexit are wide-ranging and, of course, it is still entirely possible that the scenario will play out in some other way. Nevertheless, the Government has been making preparations for a no-deal Brexit, including the publication of a range of Technical Notices and an even broader range of draft secondary legislation.

In this post, we look at the impact of a no-deal Brexit on consumer rights in the UK and offer some comments on what this will mean for consumers and businesses in real terms.

No-Deal Brexit: The Basics

Before we get into the detail, it is as well to briefly outline exactly what ‘no-deal’ means. The UK is scheduled to leave the EU at 11 pm local time on 29 March 2019. If there is no deal in place at this point, EU law ceases to apply in the UK unless the UK has expressly adopted it. Unlike the alternative ‘deal’ scenario, there is no transition period within which EU law and the ‘four freedoms’ would continue to apply.

No-Deal Preparations for Consumer Rights

The Government has published a Technical Notice entitled ‘Consumer rights if there’s no Brexit deal’ and two draft statutory instruments: the Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, and the Consumer Protection (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

In addition to the general changes outlined in this post, the Technical Notice also sets out some specific changes relating to package travel, timeshares, textile labelling, and footwear labelling.

The first set of regulations deal with cross-border enforcement while the second would implement the following changes:

  • • Limit the applicability of responsibilities set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (currently applying to importers into the EEA) to importers into the UK;
  • • Put choice of law clauses referring to the laws of an EEA state on the same footing as those referring to non-EEA countries;
  • • Limit consumers’ rights to redress from importers engaging in practices prohibited by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to importers into the UK (as opposed to importers into the EEA);
  • • Put users of EEA-based payment service providers on the same (less-protected) footing as users of payment service providers based in non-EEA countries; and
  • • Remove the current obligations on UK ADR providers to deal with disputes involving consumers resident in EU Member States. This would also end the operation in the UK of the European Commission’s Online Dispute Resolution Regulation for consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Current UK consumer law is derived from EU law and, in the form of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in fact provides better standards of protection than the ‘basic’ EU provisions. At least initially, therefore, UK consumer law and EU consumer law will be essentially the same. Cross-border enforcement would become more difficult in the event of a no-deal Brexit, however.

Put more simply, life for UK consumers would continue largely as normal, at least where their consumer rights within the UK are concerned. What would change is the ease of enforcing those rights if a trader is not based in the UK.

Cross-Border Enforcement and Dispute Resolution

At present, as an EU Member State, the UK’s consumer protection regime is supported by a reciprocal cross-border enforcement framework. A no-deal Brexit would mean the UK’s immediate departure from that framework.

Moreover, UK consumers would no longer be able to use the UK courts to take action against traders based in the EU effectively. Even if a UK court were to rule in a consumer’s favour in such a case, enforcing that ruling would be more difficult. By the same token, consumers based in the EU buying from UK-based traders could find enforcing their rights similarly difficult if we leave without a deal.

Access to alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) stands to be reduced. The European Commission provides an Online Dispute Resolution Platform for use in disputes between traders and consumers; however, a no-deal Brexit would mean UK-based traders and consumers no longer having access to it. Nevertheless, within the UK, the Government has said that it is taking steps to ensure that consumers and traders will still be able to use ADR for UK disputes. ADR obligations for businesses will not change; however, if your website makes any reference to the EU Online Dispute Resolution Platform, such references should be removed in the event of no-deal.

Final Thoughts

It goes without saying that regardless of how our departure from the EU proceeds, consumer rights will be affected in some way, but the impact of a no-deal Brexit could be more significant and would, of course, happen much sooner.

That being said, UK-based consumers and UK-based traders doing business within the UK should not need to be overly concerned and should expect the same rules that apply now to apply even if there is a no-deal Brexit. Those engaged in cross-border trading, however, should expect things to become less straightforward and prepare accordingly.

For consumers with questions about cross-border transactions in the event of no-deal, the UK’s European Consumer Centre will be available to help, and the Government has committed to funding the Centre for at least one year from April 2019.

From a business perspective, those selling only within the UK should not expect a great deal (no pun intended) to change. Those selling to consumers in EU Member States, however, must remember that, once the UK has left the EU (especially in a no-deal scenario), changes to EU consumer law will no longer necessarily be reflected in UK consumer law in the same way that they are now. In such cases, it will be important to keep up-to-date with EU law and the laws of any Member States sold into.

Do you trade with consumers in other EU Member States? If so, how are you preparing for Brexit, no-deal or otherwise? Are you expecting business to become more difficult or have you got it covered? As always, your comments are welcome!

 

[This post was edited on 16 January to reflect the outcome of the Meaningful Vote in the House of Commons on 15 January]

Fire Safety – Changes to Statutory Guidance – Approved Document B of the Building Regulations

Approved Documents are statutory guidance published by the Government on how to meet the Building Regulations for building work carried out in England only.

The Government has published changes to Approved Document B (Volumes 1 and 2) of the Building Regulations, which deals with fire safety. These changes come into force on 21 January 2019.

Approved Document B Volume 1 deals with dwellinghouses.

Approved Document B Volume 2 deals with buildings other than dwellinghouses.

The changes to Approved Document B seek to clarify the role of desktop fire safety assessments.

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, a consultation took place in 2018 to consider whether the use of desktop assessments (in the absence of full fire safety tests) to assess fire safety regulatory compliance should be restricted or indeed banned entirely.

The amendments state that desktop assessments in lieu of tests are only to be used where necessary and are to be carried out in an appropriate way. Desktop assessments should not be used instead of tests where a test is necessary. Tests and assessments should be carried out by organisations with the requisite expertise and qualifications.

The Government has launched a Call for Evidence for a broader technical review on the guidance of fire safety (Approved Document B). Landlords, builders, developers, residents, and property managers are all invited to respond. The consultation closes on 1 March 2019.

Call for Evidence on Improving Building Safety

The Government has published a Call for Evidence – ‘Good practice on how residents and landlords/ building managers work together to keep their home and building safe’. Landlords, building managers, and residents are all encouraged to respond.

This Call for Evidence invites views on how residents and landlords/building managers work together to keep their buildings safe and ensure that all parties comply with their respective responsibilities.

The purpose of the Call for Evidence is to gather evidence to assess and examine the development of policy relating to resident and landlord/building manager engagement and collaboration in relation to fire and structural safety issues in the aftermath of the tragic event at Grenfell Tower. The aim is to ensure that there is a robust regulatory system for the future and to ensure that residential buildings are safe and remain so; however, it remains to be seen to what extent the Government will change the existing regime.

The questions are split into two sections, the first directed to residents, the second to organisations (landlords, building managers, and estate agencies, for example). Those who are both residents and landlords or managing agents should complete both parts of the questionnaire. Respondents are encouraged to respond through the online survey.

Responses must be given by 12 February 2019.

As a landlord or agent, do you find the existing regulations and arrangements allow you to manage fire safety risks in buildings effectively? Would greater collaboration between all parties involved make it easier to manage and ensure the safety of residential buildings?

Have your say in the Call for Evidence and share your thoughts with us below.

Elective and Cosmetic Surgery and Your Employment Policies

In November, we updated our Sickness and Absence Policy to include a section on elective and cosmetic surgery.

For these purposes, cosmetic surgery may be defined as surgery which is intended to improve a person’s appearance rather than their health. Elective surgery, on the other hand, refers to any surgery that is scheduled in advance, doesn’t involve a medical emergency, and does not have to be performed within 24 hours. Elective surgery can include cosmetic surgery.

Employers must be careful to observe strict confidentiality in respect of elective and cosmetic surgery. Clearly, employers cannot disclose information about any medical procedure without the employee’s consent. Communication is key here and, in some sensitive situations, it is advisable to agree in advance with the employee what will be communicated to colleagues.

All employees, including those who are undergoing elective and cosmetic surgery, are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) when they are unfit to work provided that they follow the proper procedures and supply the appropriate certification. If employees are indeed unfit to work, and have provided the employer with the correct notice, SSP should be paid.

Contractual Sick Pay is, however, in the control of the employer and it is advisable to be clear about what the company policy is. Some employers may treat elective and cosmetic surgery in the same way as ‘ordinary’ sick leave but, if different arrangements apply, the company policy should be clear and applied consistently.

Employed vs. Self-Employed – Can You Spot the Difference?

A self-employed/independent contractor working arrangement has considerable attractions for both the employer and the self-employed worker, but it can be difficult definitively to identify the difference between employed and self-employed status.

HMRC provides helpful guidance that employers and workers can use to determine if an individual is an employee or self-employed and the key factors that determine whether a worker is an independent contractor depend on the tests of control, substitution and mutuality of obligation.

Control

If the client/employer specifically tells a contractor how to perform a task, what task to perform, when to perform it and where the task should be performed – known as ‘how, what, when and where’ tests – then the worker is probably controlled by the client and therefore an employee.

Substitution

If a contractor is required to perform the services himself/herself without being allowed to provide a substitute, then this, too, is an indication of employment.

Mutuality of Obligation

This is where an employer is obliged to provide work and the employee is obliged to perform the work. If a worker has to perform any task allocated by the client or employer then there is a mutuality of obligation and the worker is probably not an independent contractor.

In the case of a dispute, a range of factors are taken into account but these are the main ones.

With the rise of the gig economy worker, the situation has become even more complicated.

A Gig as a Plumber

Earlier this year, a gig economy worker status question came before the Supreme Court for the first time in the case of Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith.   Its decision – that Mr Smith was indeed a worker and not a self-employed contractor as stated in his contract – follows the direction of travel set by other cases which have considered whether staff in the gig economy are workers, and so entitled to paid holiday and limited other rights, or genuinely self-employed and out of employment protection altogether.

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith concerned Mr Smith, a plumber working for Pimlico Plumbers, who claimed that the company had deprived him of a number of employment rights, such as paid holidays and sick pay, because it wrongly classified him as a self-employed contractor.  The background of the case was that Mr Smith had worked for Pimlico Plumbers Ltd for over five years and had a contract with the company which described him as an independent contractor.  Mr Smith was registered for VAT, submitted invoices, and filed tax returns on the basis that he was self-employed.  Mr Smith’s contract was terminated four months after he suffered a heart attack. He subsequently brought various claims in the Employment Tribunal and his employment status was considered as a preliminary issue. The Supreme Court has now upheld the rulings of the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and Court of Appeal that Mr Smith was a worker, not an independent contractor. This decision is a significant one and means that Mr Smith can now proceed with his claims for unlawful deductions from wages, paid holiday, and disability discrimination.

In reaching a decision, the Supreme Court noted that Mr Smith took on a significant proportion of the commercial risk (i.e. he would not be paid in the event a customer failed to settle an invoice), provided his own tools and materials, was personally liable for his work, and was not supervised by the company. However, the facts considered by the court showed that Pimlico Plumbers had tight control over Mr Smith’s working life, which pointed away from Mr Smith being a truly independent contractor.

The following factors were particularly relevant to the Court’s decision:

  • • Mr Smith was required to carry a company identity card, wear a branded uniform, and use a Pimlico Plumbers-branded, tracked van leased from the company;
  • • Pimlico Plumbers had tight control over payment terms and the administrative aspect of all jobs;
  • • Mr Smith’s contract referred to ‘wages’, ‘gross misconduct’, and ‘dismissal’;
  • • Mr Smith was subject to post-termination restrictive covenants, including a three-month non-competition covenant;
  • • The terms of Mr Smith’s contract clearly pointed to an obligation of personal performance. Although he could appoint another Pimlico operative to do a job he had quoted for, but no longer wished to perform, this was more like swapping a shift than providing a substitute; and
  • • Mr Smith’s contract stated that the company was not obliged to offer him work and he was not required to accept work, but Mr Smith’s contract also stated he must work at least 40 hours per week for Pimlico. The working hours indicated a level of commitment to the company on Mr Smith’s part which was inconsistent with his self-employed status.

Although this is an interesting and significant case, the question of employment status is always tied closely to the facts of any given case, and it does not automatically follow, therefore, that other gig economy workers have employment rights.

More cases are due to be heard by courts and tribunals in the coming months and this should hopefully provide more clarity.  In the meantime, employers should ensure that they have written contracts in place that reflect the reality of the working relationship.  Here at Simply-Docs, we have a variety of documents covering a wide range of employer/employee and freelance working relationships accompanied by explanations of when the document should be used.  If in doubt, always seek professional advice.

Charities and Safeguarding

Recent High-Profile Safeguarding Incidents

This month we consider the important and sensitive issue for charities of safeguarding. There have been a number of fairly recent high-profile failures by charities to ensure adequate safeguarding. In early 2018, the Department for International Development called for assurances from aid charities in the light of the Oxfam scandal relating to its work in Haiti. In response, charities reported over 80 serious safeguarding incidents to the Charity Commission. Overall, in the weeks after the Oxfam scandal broke, more than 500 reports of serious incidents involving safeguarding were received by the Commission.

What is Safeguarding?

“Safeguarding” means taking a range of measures to protect people in a charity, or those it comes into contact with, from abuse, maltreatment or other harm of any kind. (This includes physical, sexual, emotional, discriminatory, institutional or organisational, financial or material abuse, neglect, or impairment of the health or development.) For a full definition of safeguarding, see The Care and Support Statutory Guidance issued under the Care Act 2014.

Charity Trustees’ Legal Duty

All charity trustees have a legal duty (“safeguarding duty”) to take reasonable steps to protect their charity’s beneficiaries, staff, volunteers, and those connected with the activities of the charity from harm. The Charity Commission has stated that safeguarding should be a key governance priority for all charities, regardless of size, type, or income, not just those charities working with children or vulnerable adults.

Adopting a Safeguarding Policy and Other Steps

The Commission has also stated that it is essential for charity trustees to have and implement a safeguarding policy and procedure.  Adopting and implementing a safeguarding policy and procedure assists charity trustees in discharging their safeguarding duty. With this in mind, we maintain a template Safeguarding Policy in our Charity & Non-Profit Group. In any event it is good practice to have such a policy.

Adopting such a policy is one of ten action points which the Commission recommends to ensure good safeguarding governance. The other action points include identifying possible risks, improvement of safety culture, communicating within a charity how to follow up any safeguarding concern, keeping safeguarding training current and relevant, and carrying out risk assessments. The Commission sets out these action points in more detail here, and we urge you to implement them if you are a charity trustee.

Safeguarding also entails other actions, including ensuring that trustees and others recruited to the charity are not disqualified from being appointed to the role in question, and that DBS checks (and enhanced checks) are carried out as appropriate.

More generally, trustees must make sure that their charity’s assets are used only to support or carry out the charity’s purposes. Trustees must not expose the charity’s assets, beneficiaries or reputation to undue risk.

Children and Vulnerable People

Safeguarding is a particularly important and sensitive issue for you as a charity trustee if your charity works with children or vulnerable people. People may use your charity to get to children, vulnerable people, or their records for inappropriate or illegal purposes. You must be alert to this and actively manage the risk that your charity may be deliberately targeted, that its culture may allow poor behaviour to take place, or that people in a position of trust may abuse this. It is also important to carry out checks on any organisation, including an overseas organisation, that has contact with children or adults at risk before your charity gives them funding.

What is Your Risk as a Trustee?

You can be held responsible for any consequences or loss that your charity incurs if you do not discharge your safeguarding duty. When the Charity Commission looks into whether there has been a breach of trust or duty, or other misconduct or mismanagement by trustees, it can take into account whether they followed safeguarding practice.

Prevention, Not Cure

Safeguarding failures can adversely affect a charity’s reputation but there is a built-in conflict of interest for charities in that they are bound to properly report serious incidents to the Charity Commission. However, if they do so and the full nature of the incident only becomes public knowledge because of that reporting, their reputation may be sullied and they can lose grant, donor, and other funding as a result.

Our message, therefore, is that prevention is better than damage limitation: if robust policies and procedures are implemented, the occurrence of such incidents is more likely to be deterred. This should produce, in terms of morality, the most important consequence, i.e. improvement in the behaviour of all connected with the charity. As a by-product, a charity’s reputation is preserved and its funding is not adversely affected.

Top