Committee publication · Correspondence · 30 April 2026

Letter from Karl Banister, Deputy PHSO Ombudsman on the Special Reports laid by the PHSO in relation to Miss A and Mr U, dated 9.4.26

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Inquiry: The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's investigations into the Charity Commission

Summary

Karl Banister, Deputy PHSO Ombudsman, responds to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee regarding special reports on cases Miss A and Mr U involving the Charity Commission's handling of safeguarding complaints. The PHSO defends its jurisdiction, investigative findings, and decision to lay reports before Parliament after the Commission failed to remedy identified injustice. A court judgment in March 2026 upheld the PHSO's statutory remit and confirmed it was entitled to assess whether the Commission's remedial reviews adequately addressed the maladministration identified.

Key findings

PHSO issued investigation reports on 28 March 2024 finding maladministration by the Charity Commission; the Commission's November 2024 internal reviews were found non-compliant with PHSO recommendations as injustice remained unremedied.
Court judgment (6 March 2026) refused the Charity Commission's judicial review claim, confirming PHSO had statutory authority to assess whether reviews genuinely addressed injustice, not merely whether they took place.
Court confirmed PHSO did not need a new finding of maladministration to decide whether to lay reports before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
In Miss A's case, PHSO found the Charity Commission failed to explain or evidence its conclusion that there was no misconduct regarding her vulnerable status as a trafficking victim in a relationship with the charity Chair.
In Mr U's case, PHSO noted the reviewer acknowledged the Commission's earlier decision reasoning was erroneous and criticised failures to investigate the charity's conduct regarding historic sexual abuse, but the outcome did not demonstrate these failings were adequately grappled with.
PHSO lays special reports only as a rare measure (approximately a dozen times in the last decade) when organisations fail to comply with recommendations; post-litigation the Charity Commission has agreed to appoint an independent reviewer.

Tone

Factual

Topics

ombudsmanpublic-accountabilitycharity-regulationsafeguardingadministrative-law

Key actors

Karl Banister, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), Charity Commission, Simon Hoare MP, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Miss A, Mr U, Speaker of the House of Commons

Notable line

“It is for the Ombudsman — not the courts and not the public body concerned — to decide whether injustice remains unremedied.”

Key Quotes

“By scrutinising instances where our recommendations have not been acted on, the Committee is able to uphold the principle that failures in public administration and service delivery cannot be overlooked.”
— Karl Banister · Explaining the value of parliamentary scrutiny of PHSO recommendations

“It is for the Ombudsman — not the courts and not the public body concerned — to decide whether injustice remains unremedied.”
— Court judgment (6 March 2026) · Confirming PHSO's statutory authority in the judicial review decision

“PHSO was entitled to assess whether the Charity Commission's reviews genuinely addressed the injustice, not just whether they had been carried out.”
— Court judgment (6 March 2026) · Rejecting the Charity Commission's argument that PHSO could only consider whether reviews took place, not their adequacy

“… it is plainly not open to the Commission to contest the findings of maladministration in these cases ." The Charity Commission …”
— Court judgment (6 March 2026) · Addressing the Charity Commission's late attempt to challenge the March 2024 findings

“It would be an unlawful fetter on our discretion, and unfair to the complainants, if we entered into an agreement which purported to pre- determine the question of whether there was an unremedied injustice.”
— Karl Banister · Explaining PHSO's obligation to assess compliance reviews substantively under section 10(3) of the PCA 1967

“In my judgment, it is plain that the Ombudsman was looking for a review which explained how and why the Assessments of Risk in a safeguarding context, which the Charity Commission was supposed to have carried out having regard to relevant considerations had properly been carried out; or a straightforward acknowledgment that they had not.”
— Court judgment (6 March 2026) · Explaining why the Charity Commission's internal reviews failed to remedy the identified injustice

“The reason for this is the exceptionally high level of compliance we achieve with our recommendations. We attribute the high levels of compliance to the care we put into the investigative process.”
— Karl Banister · Explaining why PHSO lays special reports only rarely (about a dozen times in a decade)

View original document →

Source · parliament.uk record ↗