The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has accused the Charity Commission of attempting to prevent MPs from scrutinising its handling of child sexual abuse allegations, saying the regulator brought legal action that delayed the laying of a critical report before Parliament.
PHSO chief executive Rebecca Hilsenrath KC said the ombudsman service has been trying to give its findings to MPs since March but was prevented from doing so "by bringing legal proceedings". The report, which examines how the Charity Commission investigated and responded to complaints about sexual exploitation at a British Pakistani charity and historic child sexual abuse at a religious college, was laid before Parliament on Tuesday after MPs last week passed a rare motion to compel the ombudsman to provide it.
The ombudsman urged MPs to hold the Charity Commission to account, saying the regulator had not complied with the bulk of the report's recommendations. "The Charity Commission indicated throughout our investigations that they did not agree with our findings. They have not complied with the bulk of our recommendations, despite our best efforts and our willingness to work with them to ensure compliance," Hilsenrath said.
The PHSO opened investigations after complaints from two individuals who later waived their anonymity. One complainant, Damian Murray, 66, told the ombudsman that for more than seven years the Charity Commission had refused to act on his complaint about the concealment of child sexual abuse at a religious charity that ran a college. "The Charity Commission has doggedly resisted all efforts by me, and latterly the Parliamentary Ombudsman, to encourage it properly or promptly to discharge its statutory responsibilities, choosing rather to shield the charity and its Trustees from scrutiny and accountability," he said.
The second complainant, Lara Hall, 35, who described herself as a survivor of sexual abuse and a whistleblower, said the watchdog failed to communicate sensitively and that its failures had caused her "profound pain and ongoing injustice." She added: "By trying to block Parliament from seeing the reports, the Commission attempted to avoid scrutiny — striking at the heart of accountability in our democracy. Even now, it refuses to accept responsibility or act to put things right."
The Charity Commission denied seeking to limit parliamentary scrutiny. A spokesman said the regulator had brought a judicial review of the PHSO's critical reports to clarify its authority to make recommendations and its power to implement them. "We have worked hard to seek to resolve the matter with the Ombudsman directly, but this has not proven possible. For that reason, we have brought legal action at the High Court," the spokesman said. He added that the commission "has not asked the court to block the laying of any report before Parliament. We did, though, ask the Parliamentary committee to delay considering the reports to allow the courts to give judgment on our own and the Ombudsman’s statutory remits first."
The commission said there are "genuine and important lessons for the Commission to learn from these two sensitive cases" and that it has made improvements and apologised to both complainants.
The dispute highlights tensions between statutory watchdogs and parliamentary oversight. The PHSO's attempt to place the report before MPs since March and the commission's subsequent legal challenge prompted parliamentarians to use an uncommon procedural step to compel the ombudsman to lay the document. The PHSO called on MPs to scrutinise the Charity Commission's actions and to seek assurances that recommended changes will be implemented.
With the report now formally before Parliament, MPs are expected to examine the ombudsman's findings and the Charity Commission's response, including its decision to pursue judicial review. The PHSO has called for a full apology from the commission and for reassurances that it will "put things right" for the complainants; the commission says it has already apologised and is making improvements.
The case sheds light on the handling of historic abuse allegations within charities and the mechanisms for holding regulators accountable. Parliamentary scrutiny was delayed for months amid legal dispute, and the ombudsman's report will now form the basis for further examination by MPs and for any potential action to ensure compliance with its recommendations.