Dispute over control of society’s funds best dealt with elsewhere

Home Guides & cases Case notes Bank accounts - 91993

Dispute over control of society’s funds best dealt with elsewhere

Categories:

Account mandates,

Summary:

In 2024, Gifford, the president of an incorporated society, learned that the bank had failed to consult him before adding a new signatory to the society’s account mandate, and that, by contrast, the bank told him he would need the agreement of three signatories to add himself as a mandatory signatory. The bank then froze the society’s accounts because of a dispute between factions within the society about who had authority over its funds. Some committee members claimed to have removed Gifford from his position as president, while Gifford claimed to have removed other committee members in an opposing faction. The dispute was taken to the Charities Services, and in the meantime Gifford complained to us about the bank’s actions, which he said were inconsistent and unfair.

Published:

April 2025

Our investigation

We told Gifford that our terms of reference required a representative of an entity, such as an incorporated society, to have authority to act on an entity’s behalf. He would have to provide evidence of authority to act on behalf of the society regarding what was a dispute over control of its bank accounts. In our view, he had not provided this evidence, and the question of who had the authority to act on the society’s behalf was far from clear, as demonstrated by the fact the dispute had gone to the Charities Services. We also told him our terms of reference gave us discretion to decline to consider a complaint if we thought it more appropriate for the matter to go to a court, tribunal, arbitrator, complaints body or regulatory body. We said this was the case here and declined to investigate his complaint.