To be feel that some of the public have been mislead and a charity have lost out?

[JoanHickson]

I just had a look at Dax's tale of New York on facebook. I now see the £13k they promised of the publics money to Ronald Mcdonald House isn't going there now. They raised the money by advising the public, funds were to cover medical bills, then they were going to give to the charity.

FayK that would apply for registered charities, which this appeal wasn't.

How sad. I had hoped that they would stick to their word and donate a vast sum of money to the charity or even another charity for premature babies. I hope that they haven't spent it all on new furniture etc.

They were renting I believe as said needed to cover rent while they were away even though the insurance covered this.

Obtaining by money by deception is an interesting proposition, as suggested by pp.

Who would one report that to Line?

I worked for a charity. We had what was restricted and unrestricted funds. Restricted funds are funds that are raised for a specific purpose and must be spent on that project. We were regularly audited by the charity commission and this was one of the things that was looked at.
It may be worth contacting the CC to see if they have broken any laes

I suppose someone who had donated money and now feels they were misled could report it to a police force - but I don't know whether that would be their own or the one local to the 'appeal'.

But yours would have been a registered charity bruffin? This Dax business was never registered - it was just a grabbit and run situation. Now surely if it's illegal to go collecting for unspecified charities with a tin then this must be questionable? I just can't believe that it's that easy to scam the public of upwards of £20k.

report it to the Charity Commission if you are concerned.

If the original purpose of the charity/appeal (not sure if this is a registered charity?) no longer exists, then the charity either has to return the money to everyone who donated, or ask them if they'd consent to it being given to another charity. they can't keep it. But it depends what the original charity's purposes were.

They should have registered because they raised over £5000

Report to charity commission as i believe they ave to show accounts over certain amount.

forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/contact-us/general-enquiries/report-a-concern-about-a-charity/raising-concerns-about-a-charity/

Probably more than a moral obligation, possibly a legal one. Money is donated and held in trust for objects of the trust. If it is used otherwise then it is voidable and if it was always intended to be used otherwise then it is certainly fraud. Years ago when a fund was set up by a colleague to send a friend's child to New York for life saving treatment, it was subsequently held in trust for another child in a similar position to benefit, after the first child sadly died. Nobody had a problem with that.

Surely they will have to foot a tax bill if they are planning to keep it themselves?
Not that I don't think that keeping it is vile.

His page is full of adverts for his business. Great excuse for publicity! Scam the public, get free advertising

The thread was quite rightly pulled for turning into a bit of a free for all I think.

In any case the whole thing started suss and continued in the same vein.

No Pimpleminds it is not income in the taxable sense.
It could well be the case they are a bit naïve and think that it was given to them, and may not realise that it should be returned. I don't know enough about the story to know that.
Anyway it is now on their 'Social Website CV' so may come back to bite.

Yeah I think anyone with a bit of sense could see this one coming a mile off- tbh I don't think they ever intended for it to go to charity, it was just to get critics off their backs so people would keep donating. I really hope the Ronald McDonald House kick up a stink but I bet they won't

fay they aren't a charity. All the money has gone into private accounts, never to he heard of again.

Surely if the insurance paid for medical expenses, it would have paid for day to day living costs too? (Obviously accommodation was already provided by the charity)

People do get prosecuted for this sort of behaviour.
www.essex.police.uk/news_features/homepage_latest_news/colchester_woman_pleads_guilty.aspx?lang=en-gb

None of us were victims of the fraud, so can't report it, for police to build a case.

How is it fraud?

They raised money for the couple and some fools donated. The money has gone to the couple afaik.

The lesson here is don't give strangers money. A lesson that MN themselves frequently have to preach on here!

climbing the reasons people are arguing it is fraud is because the money was initially raised for medical expenses, which have been covered by insurance. Later on, they said they would use the money for living expenses, and donate any excess to Ronald MacDonald house. So far there has been no evidence that this has happened.

I think it was pretty clear that they "weren't sure" whether the medical expenses were covered. Of course they turned out to be covered but I don't think they ever said they werent covered iyswim.

I don't think it would be cut and dried, but I don't know what the specific rules are relating to donation collection.

No thank you to RMH or the public [[http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/baby-dax-born-in-the-usa-three-months-early here]] all you hear is Dad talking about his contractions and labour.