SVR General Discussion

That can be true, and there are some charities I absolutely wouldn't donate to because I think they exist simply to perpetuate the existence of the charity rather than actually do any good work. (**cough** RSPCA **cough**). However, if you are in doubt, you can look at the financial performance of the charity: I can think of at least one £1m+ p/a railway support charity that has annual administration costs of less than 1% and returns 99% of funds raised directly to the charitable purposes.

Tom

 

The requirements for reservation aren't that clear cut, but can create a restricted fund in and of themselves. When receiving such a donation at my church, I would firstly clarify the intent in terms of our different funds and, if the gift was still then overly restrictive, would give serious thought to declining it.

Most donors are reasonable, and accept a fair answer

 

It's possible to overthink that distinction between charity and company though. After all, suppose a charity gives a grant to overhaul a locomotive at its associated railway's own workshop: it is highly likely that a significant part of that grant will go on wages of the staff carrying out the work. At which point, the distinction that a charity "can't fund running costs" is all rather academic. A charity absolutely can't give money to its associated company and say "here, spend it on the wage bill" and expect no charitable benefit back. But it can give a grant to fund a restoration which provides a charitable benefit, but where those moneys support wages, and in the likely knowledge that, but for the grant, the people being paid may not have a job.

In that scenario, there is very little distinction between charity and company - after all, I wouldn't expect a company to blindly pay wages either, you would assume they would always be doing it in the expectation of a tangible outcome from those being paid.

Tom

 

But therin lies the challenge!
Support charities are ideal for funding nice to have projects like locomotive overhauls ( as long as those are within the scope of its charitable objectives) including labour costs where those enable achievement of those objectives. The financial requirements of the supported company may well be broader than that. If it needs cash urgently to pay the wage bill, or for anything else outside the scope of the support charity's objects, that charity may be unable to help even though it has sufficient funds .

 

This above is the clearest explanation you should need to understand the railway's position and request.

And anyone who thinks that 80k will cover it and there might be change I'm afraid are living in cloud cuckoo land. Major holes swallow vast amounts of cash. However, that 80k will fund surveys, consultants and perhaps drawing up some specifications for the repair - which is what is needed now.

The donation page clearly shows the cost of a day rover. If everyone who is planning on attending the spring gala buys an additional ticket for their imaginary friend, the fund might just start to get closer to covering the actual bill.

Or for those of us who live a bit further away, next time we watch a good YouTube film of the SVR, how about buying a virtual return ticket? That's what I've done as I can't get to the SVR this month.

 

The stated objectives of the SVR Charitable Trust include "restoration of infrastructure". If repair of the current landslide is deemed to amount to "restoration", then there may be a possibility of gift-aided funding through the SVRCT. That obviously depends on what view is taken by the SVRCT Trustees on the matter.

As a matter of interest, has the NYMR been able to make use of gift-aided charitable funding for any of its major infrastructure projects, such as bridge replacement or the Pickering station canopy?

 

Yes, because it's not a support charity. It owns the railway and its preservation and operation is one of its registered charitable purposes.

 

Preservation and operation of a railway can just as easily be a charitable objective whether the charity owns a railway or not.

Sent from my PGT-N19 using Tapatalk

 

Regarding restricted donations, because I don't know the answer. Lets say ten people each donate £5 to a project and five of those ten stipulate that the money must only be used for that project whilst five make no restriction. When the project is finished and only £25 has been spent can the project costs be allocated to those five people who stipulated that it should only be used for that purpose and the other five donations transferred to another project or must the project cost be apportioned across the ten people and the five donors who stipulated a restriction each receive £2.50 back?

 

In that case you’d spend the restricted fund first, and only use the unrestricted if there was a shortfall.

So you’d pay the £25 project costs from the five donors who restricted; and the other £25 would be put into the general (unrestricted) fund.

Tom

 

That's what i would do but I was questioning the validity of doing so.

 

I'd have no problem doing that as a trustee. The only time it starts to get a bit murky is if that restricted donation comes in at some point after you commit funds to being spent.

 

It’s valid - both groups (those who specified what they wanted their donation for, and those who didn’t) donated openly knowing what they were doing. If those who didn’t specify any restriction had wished to do so, then they could have done.

Tom

 

Indeed. The art is writing charitable purposes that are sufficeintly broad but still compliant with charity legislation. The pressure for restriction can come from the members of the charity who want to see its funds spent only on those things that appeal to the members such as restricting possible funding to locomotives, rolling stock and infrastructure so as to avoid the possibility of it being used for things like the wage bill.

 

Can you give any examples where members have voted down a widening of charitable objectives? I'm not sold, you can have fantastically wide ranging charitable objectives and still have restricted funds/accept restricted donations for particular projects to keep members happy who quite understandably want the additional reassurance that a charity provides that their money won't be frittered away.

 

A limited range of chartitable purposes tends to be inherent in the constitutions of the charities as originally formed. It's not just donations which could be restricted as you suggest, but membership fees and the general unrestricted funds of the charity. Where those can be "frittered away" on the broad purposes of the railway operating company the charity may be less attractive to prospective members. Charitable purposes can be changed or extended with the approval of the members but only subject to Charity Commission approval

 

I'm not sure that really answered the question! I just don't see a problem where you say there is one I'm afraid. I think you've acknowledged in the past that GWRT has quite a broad set of objectives, which makes it easier to support our railway. Yet our main source of 'non-donation campaign' income for what of a better description, is legacies, which still come in at a fairly frequent rate with no strings attached. I'll be honest, it does surprise me we never get someone leaving tens of thousands to us but only to be spent on an extension to Honeybourne or whatever. I suspect that donors go much more on a gut feeling of whether they trust 'the railway' with their donation far more than considering the legal implications of a specific set of objectives. Much more important to be seen to be spending donors' money wisely, than try and pander to some imaginary desire through keeping narrow objectives that no one other than the trustees actually read.

 

I would question how meaningful the admin percentage really is. I can recall defending Oxfam against some such quote, which including the running of their shops in the costs, but the shops were course a major source of income!

 

That sentence could be tempting fate.

 

The RSPCA is an odd one in that it's not one charity - a large proportion of the work is done by the local branches, which are each their own charity. Our local one (and three other smaller ones in the area) appears to be entirely run by one lady who must work about 30 hours a day, 9 days a week, given how much she seems to do...