Shaming of the charity vultures
RSPCA and British Heart Foundation fined for snooping on donors’ wealth after Mail exposé
WATCHDOGS fined the RSPCA last night for paying investigators to pry into donors’ wealth.
The humiliation for one of the country’s most trusted charities is thought to be the first of a number of fundraisers caught breaking data laws.
The Daily Mail revealed last year that details of RSPCA donors were being used to assess how much they might leave in their wills.
The benefactors had no idea the charity was snooping on them – or that their gifts, intended for suffering animals, were being used to fund the process.
The Information Commissioner’s Office launched a full investigation into the RSPCA and other charities.
The watchdog subsequently found that the British Heart Foundation was secretly carrying out wealth profiling too. It is to be fined £18,000 and the RSPCA £25,000.
Both charities were also found to have used unscrupulous firms to find out more information about donors and to have been sharing personal data with other organisations – putting them at risk of fraud. The penalties could open the floodgates for thousands of donors to sue the charities for misuse of their private information.
Chris Rae, whose 89-year- old father Samuel had his will snooped on by the RSPCA, said it should make a public apology. ‘What they did to my dad was underhand,’ he said. ‘He donated to these charities in good faith, he put his trust in them and he was let down.’
Mr Rae’s father – a former Army colonel who has severe dementia – lost tens of thousands of pounds to scammers who were able to prey on him because charities had sold his personal data. His details were shared 200 times.
The Mail Investigations Unit found that charities were using cold-calling firms to hassle vulnerable supporters for donations and were misusing their private information.
The use of ‘ wealth profiling’ emerged after the Mail investi- gated how the personal details of Col Rae, from Cornwall, had been traded. The RSPCA obtained his information when he took out pet insurance in 2005. Two years later it began sending his and other donors’ data to a firm specialising in legacy prediction.
The company’s job was to work out how much Col Rae was worth and how much he might leave to the RSPCA. The charity passed on information about him at least four times.
The data was used to establish a score estimating his wealth and donor potential. At no point is he thought to have been told this was going on, let alone asked for his consent. The British Heart Foundation obtained Col Rae’s details from a data firm. They also bought a list he was on from another charity. They contacted him 32 times by post between 2008 and 2015 and phoned him twice even though he had not consented to being contacted.
RSPCA chief executive Jeremy Cooper said last night: ‘We are disappointed at the ruling and disagree with the conclusions drawn by the ICO.
‘There is no suggestion that we lost or sold any personal data, but rather the ICO considered the information we gave to supporters on how their personal data would be used was inadequate. There has been one acknowledged contravention, through an inadvertent error, which we ourselves brought to the ICO’s attention.
‘We always strive to ensure that our practices fully comply with all relevant legislation and are carried out to a high standard. We are listening to the public and are changing the way we ask people to support our vital work which meets their needs and expectations, whilst safeguarding potentially vulnerable people.’
Simon Gillespie, chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, said: ‘We are extremely disappointed in the action the ICO has taken. The British Heart Foundation has endeavoured to ensure our practices follow ICO and Institute of Fundraising guidelines and we are committed to constantly evolving and improving our approach.
‘We have actively taken the decision never to share our supporters’ data with other fundraisers and we have made it clear to our supporters that this is the case.
‘We believe that key aspects of the ICO’s decision and findings are wrong, disproportionate and inconsistent. Our trustees will therefore consider whether it’s in
‘What they did was underhand’
the interests of our supporters and beneficiaries to challenge this decision.’
The revelations about how Col Rae’s data had been used caused an outcry. The Information Commissioner warned that charities risked becoming a dirty word.
Esther Rantzen accused the RSPCA of seeing its supporters as ‘walking wallets’. Tory MP Nigel Evans said charities had begun to view supporters as ‘commodities which they have seen fit to trade and use as they please’.
Tory MP Peter Bone described the RSPCA’s behaviour as staggering, saying: ‘If it was a commercial organisation doing this, they would be closed down for these kinds of practices.
‘It is extraordinary, well done to the Mail for exposing it.’
On its website, the RSPCA offers supporters a free document called ‘wording for your will’. It suggests donors ‘might find it helpful to take this guide with you to your appointment with your professional adviser’.
OF all the abuses by major charities uncovered by the Mail, the RSPCA’s were among the hardest to swallow.
With staggering cynicism, it hired investigators to run secret wealth checks on supporters, to assess how much they might be prepared to leave in their wills.
It was paying for these intrusive background checks with money that donors believed would be used to help animals. And it was sharing their personal details without their consent.
We therefore welcome the Information Commissioner’s decision to fine both the RSPCA and the British Heart Foundation, which used similar disgraceful methods. What a damning indictment of these once-revered household names.