OK - so this post is in my bucket of 'more likely to cause upset and controversy', but sometimes you have to be unpopular for the sake of trying to further a debate or conversation, in trying to figure something out for yourself...
I've never hidden my confusion about CICs since they were first mooted by a drunken solicitor, as to what it is that they actually add to the social enterprise sector (there's nothing unique in them that you can't have in any other legal form, they're no more attractive or eligible to apply to grant making bodies than a 'regular' company, and don't enjoy any of the tax breaks that charities do).
But I was always encouraged by the CIC Regulator in its early days - for its being open to engage in critical debate, and willingness to hear and receive arguments that there may be parts of the CIC design which needed to be reviewed.
However, in more recent years, I can't help but start to think that the CIC Regulator is increasingly doing not just itself a disservice, but also the CICs that it oversees, and the wider social enterprise community:
In the past the CIC Regulator has:
- Publicly stated that in order to protect trust in the CIC brand, that it will never disclose or reveal any investigations it opens, or actions it takes, against any CIC (including to the persons who may have initially raised concerns about it with them). But such secrecy surely only builds mistrust, especially as its in complete opposition to the position of every other regulatory body.
- Created a governance code for CICs, to help guide and inform Directors of them as to best understanding the legal duties associated with being such, and how to effectively lead a CIC in this capacity - but never told any CIC about it (and it's not even hosted anywhere in their website pages).
- Admitted that there are parts of the CIC legislation that don't make sense, and shouldn't be as they are, but don't have any direct powers to act on this when it's brought to their attention.
And more recently:
from late 2023 to the present - I've noticed that I'm increasingly meeting more 'new' CICs (registered in last few years) who are missing core details in their registration documents which should have meant that the CIC Regulator automatically rejected their application:
- they don't have any stated social objects clauses in their Articles;
- they don't have any statements about how their profits will be used;
- there's contradictory details about the named recipient in their asset lock.
- These are part of the key features of being a CIC, which are apparently regulated and assured by the CIC Regulator (except they're obviously not).
in 2024 - the BBC exposes a the illegal, unethical, and questionable management practices of a CIC that have been taking place over several years. The feature drew national interest, response, and comment from the Fundraising Regulator, Police, safeguarding bodies, and even the Charity Commission. But there were no responses from the CIC Regulator to any requests made to it for comment (including not even an acknowledgement of the request).
in the spring of 2025 - I've just been approached by a CIC who's annual accounts were accepted by Companies House, but it's taken the CIC Regulator a further 6 weeks to spot and request that they amend the CIC34 part of their return in relation to an oversight on the CICs parts about a note in the accounts.
But the CIC has fulfilled its filing obligations with Companies House, so is surely legally compliant - its hard to understand how the CIC Regulator would then take nearly another 2 months to check what was submitted: a Regulator is surely supposed to check everything is in order before accepting them as being filed? So if Companies House have already accepted the accounts (which the CIC34 forms part of), then it's hard to see what/how the CIC Regulator can do to enforce getting any such oversights subsequently resolved, as they relate to documents that have already been legally accepted?
The only resolution I can currently think of to this contradiction is that CICs are subject to even more confusing regulation, which means that even though they've been told by one regulator that they're compliant, another could then overrule that decision - which in this instance would mean that the CIC in question is suddenly and unexpectedly facing backdated fines, prosecution, and being struck off the register by Companies House for not submitting compliant accounts when they were supposed to have (even though they were told they had at the time), because the 2 regulators that CICs are subject to, don't seem to be able to work that well together as we all think they do?
I know many people extoll CICs as a great legal form - and I've always been open to hearing their arguments, experiences, and evidences. On occasion, I've also agreed with them that this legal form really was the best choice for them. But when the regulator of a legal form that was so publicly marred in controversy as it was in the national media last year; and when so many 'advisers' seem to keep reiterating 'truth illusions' about CICs; and that their Regulator seems to be increasingly 'asleep at the wheel', surely only makes us more concerned about how far we can trust and have confidence in any enterprise adopting this status?
But as always, I'm open to people helping me spot what I've otherwise missed, and if the weight of evidence so compels me as it has in the past, to once again change my mind...
