Parents who raised £100K for their son before he died from cancer sue charity which refuses to hand over donations – because they want the cash to take his terminally-ill sister to Disney World
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14881361/Parents-raised-100K-son-died-cancer-sue-charity.html
Posted by pppppppppppppppppd
14 Comments
This is so tragic and terrifying that not one but both of their children got cancer before they even turned 10. It must be a faulty gene. They should study things like this so they can be prevented via IVF.
Disgusting the money was raised for their son. It does not cost 100k to go to Disney world 😵💫 the charity is just pocketing money
[deleted]
If that’s the case then surely the charity should just refund the money to all the donors. Why a re they keeping it?
As a general rule, I am very sceptical of charities
So their son had cancer and donations were started for his experimental treatment in the US through a non-cancer specific Facebook group,then that Facebook group passed on the case to a cancer specific charity to continue funding and liaise with the clinics to organise paying for treatment.
He couldn’t go to the US for any treatment because of Covid restrictions so that charity still has that money. But the money was donated for the charity to use to secure treatment for him which couldn’t happen and now they can’t release it because charities are very strict rules enforcing how those donations can be used.
So they can’t simply withdraw £100,000 and give it to this family because it is not part of the “estate” of their son and this was sent out in the contract that the family signed with that charity
This seems like a sad case of having to stick to rules for the greater good of society
You can’t just repurpose money raised for a specific charity. It’s a horrible situation to be in but they’re not entitled to that money.
I’m not fully understanding this.
Money was raised and given to a charity that would work with this family to send the poorly boy for treatment. It wasn’t a charity in the poorly boys name.
Poorly boy couldn’t travel,cause pandemic. Boy sadly passes.
Family now have another child who’s also poorly but with a different condition?
And family think the funds raised for a charity are there’s?
Please don’t come at me,I’ve read this twice since yesterday and I’m still not understanding the family’s side.
It’s a sad story but the charity is correct. Set aside a trip to Disney doesn’t require anything close to £100k, there has to be clear transpency for what donations are for. The money was raised for their son’s cancer treatment, not just to go in the family pot for general use and to take their daughter on a family holiday.
Parents have the wrong approach. Their son’s story, and presumably his image, were used to raise funds for the charity. They shouldn’t be suing for the donations; they should be suing for a fundraising consultant or publicity/modeling fee etc. Won’t be 100k, but probably enough for Disneyland.
The family should be ashamed of themselves. As if it costs that much to go to Disney. Also I’m pretty sure cancer charities are a money making scam too so more fool you
It must suck for the parents to have to go through all of this, especially since COVID meant the son couldn’t go to the US for treatment.
However, while I feel for them, I also don’t feel like the family is owed that money. There are strict rules about donating, and what the donated money is used for. I don’t think you should be able to retroactively change what the money is being used for, even if it’s for a close blood relation with a different, but just as life threatening experience. Especially since, from my understanding, while at some point part of the reason for getting donations was for family experiences (although I don’t know if that was something going on when donations were going to the cancer charity), much of that was for treatment as well for cancer. People donated to a cancer charity to help treat someone with cancer.
There are clauses, like the charity stated, about what happens if someone passes before the money can be used (because when dealing with things like cancer, it’s going to happen a lot). It’s been too long to just refund everyone’s donations.
It’s of course important for this child to get to experience as many wonders as possible, but people also didn’t donate so her and her family could go on a trip for fun. I do think strict rules about this are important to try and curb as much misuse of donations as there probably already is. It’s not a fund you can just pull from whenever you want, once you go through a charity, it’s in their hands, not your own personal pockets.
I do also feel a little bit conflicted. Like the parents have suffered enough, and maybe they thought by making this a big deal, more people would donate to their daughter? And while money is needed to go do things like Disneyland etc, you can do other things. Maybe a charity like Make a Wish etc would have helped get this trip.
On the other hand, the article made it sound like the daughter doesn’t have that long left potentially. So I don’t know, if I was in their shoes, if I would spend all this time taking this to court and fight it for months/years instead of spending that little bit more time with my daughter. Especially, from the sounds of it, it may end up being too late for the daughter by the time they get the money.
People wonder why people are reluctant to give to charity.
This is your answer. This gutter snipe charity is willing to lose at least 20k of the 100k on barrister costs (more than likely). The kid is terminally ill. Just release the funds. No one is going to complain.
Let’s have a sniff around the accounts.
[https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=%2Faccounts-resource&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_objectiveId=A16801481&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName=%2Faccounts-and-annual-returns&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_organisationNumber=5126023](https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=%2Faccounts-resource&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_objectiveId=A16801481&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName=%2Faccounts-and-annual-returns&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_organisationNumber=5126023)
From the article
“But the organisation says it cannot pay out because the donations were made for Kyle when he was a cancer patient and can now only be spent on trials or another child in a ‘similar’ situation to him.”
Look at page 5 of the accounts. Where money for trials? Where are trials? It makes absolutely no mention of trials in the work they do.
[https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/5126023/financial-history](https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/5126023/financial-history)
Over 200k in the bank and cash in hand. 20k spent on management. Why 37k on governance? It’s a charity so where do those costs come from?
Interesting. The history makes no sense. We can account for 100k from this story but where is the other 100k from? I’m not seeing any interest payments either.
This is why I don’t trust charities unless it’s a local one that offers a specific service.
The sad thing is, the CEO of the charity is likely on £500k a year before bonuses…