Charity Probed Over Trustees' Land Dispute Failure

UK Gov

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into Darul-Uloom School London.

Darul-Uloom School London was registered with the Commission in 1995 and operates a school providing Islamic and national curriculum education to children and young people.

The regulator previously opened a separate statutory inquiry into the charity in 2018 after an altercation on the charity's premises. That inquiry concluded in May 2022 and found serious mismanagement and misconduct in the administration of the charity. Two former trustees were disqualified.

During the course of that inquiry, the Commission became aware that one of the disqualified former trustees had made representations to the charity's trustees asserting ownership of the land on which the school is based.

Following its enquiries, the Commission's view is that there is evidence which shows that the land is held on trust by the charity, rather than being the personal property of any individual and has shared this view with both the charity's trustees and the disqualified trustee.

However, despite the repeated deadlines given by the Commission for the trustees to resolve the issue, the trustees have failed to bring the matter of the land dispute to a conclusion. The regulator is concerned that these failures place the charity's property at serious risk.

As a result, the Commission has escalated its engagement to a statutory inquiry.

The inquiry will evaluate the trustees' administration, management, and governance of the charity. In particular, it will consider the conduct of the trustees and their compliance with legal duties and responsibilities as it relates to the land dispute.

The Commission may extend the scope of the inquiry if additional regulatory issues emerge.

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.