Who is disqualified from being a charity trustee, and how do we check?

England and Wales: This page sets out the position in full. Scotland: covered, and materially different — a longer list of grounds, OSCR rather than the Commission granting the waiver, and a 2025 expansion most published content has not caught up with. Northern Ireland: covered, and different again — the shortest list of the three, and its own waiver process with a published service standard. It also has one thing neither of the other two has: disqualification that reaches trustees and no one else.

Is acting while disqualified a criminal offence?

Acting as a trustee while disqualified is a criminal offence in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. So the trustee eligibility check has to happen before anyone acts. This page covers the grounds, the offence and the waiver as the Charity Commission, OSCR and CCNI apply them. It also covers the separate Companies House check for charitable companies.

If the board has not yet looked at what trustees are personally taking on, start there. This page assumes it.

This is the finding this page was rewritten for. Charities Act 2011 s.183 is headed “Criminal consequences of acting while disqualified”. We read it at source on 19 August 2026. Its exact words:

“(1) Subject to subsection (2), it is an offence for any person to act as a charity trustee or trustee for a charity or to hold an office or employment while disqualified from being such a trustee or from holding that office or employment by virtue of section 178 or an order under section 181A.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if— (a) the charity concerned is a company or a CIO, and (b) the disqualified person is disqualified by virtue only of Case B, F or G in section 178.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine, or both.”

Three things follow. People often get all three wrong.

It attaches to “any person” who acts. Not to the charity, not to the board. The individual.

Subsection (2) is a real carve-out and it covers a lot of readers. It applies when both of these are true:

• the charity is a company or a CIO
• the person is disqualified only by an insolvency route

Those routes are Case B (bankruptcy), Case F (a director disqualification order) and Case G (a debt relief order or restrictions order).

In that situation there is no offence under s.183. Company law has its own offences instead. Acting as a company director while an undischarged bankrupt is one. Acting in breach of a director disqualification order is another. Both are in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (ss.11 and 13). So “acting while disqualified is a crime”, stated flat, is wrong for the two commonest incorporated forms. It is wrong in exactly the circumstances people most often worry about.

Since 2018 it reaches offices and employments too. s.178(3) disqualifies a person from holding an office or employment in the charity with senior management functions. s.183(1) then makes acting in one an offence, in the same breath as trusteeship.

In a small charity that usually means the chief executive and whoever controls the money. Screening only the board is not enough.

The disqualification grounds in each nation

Disqualification is a bar in law on being a charity trustee. It applies when one of the listed grounds fits a person’s case. The England and Wales grounds are eleven Cases, A to K, in Charities Act 2011 s.178. They are set out in full on the founding-trustee eligibility page. This page does not repeat them.

The wider question of who can be a charity trustee, including the minimum age, has its own page too.

For a board doing a regular check, what matters is how far past the obvious they reach. These grounds are all automatic:

• sex-offender notification requirements
• terrorism sanctions designation
• contempt of court for a false statement of truth
• debt relief orders

Anyone screening against a mental list of “bankruptcy and dishonesty” will miss most of it.

Scotland’s list is longer and was rebuilt recently. Since 31 August 2025 it runs to 13 grounds, up from a list most sector content still describes in its pre-2025 form.

Four of them are new:

• contempt of court in England or Wales for a false statement
• failure to comply with a regulator’s order
• designation under counter-terrorism sanctions regulations
• Sexual Offences Act 2003 Part 2 notification requirements

One older ground was repealed outright. Content that still names it now describes law that does not exist. Scotland also reaches senior managers, under a separate provision added at the same time.

Northern Ireland is the outlier, but not in the way most people would guess. Its list is the shortest of the three: 8 grounds, (a) to (h), in Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 s.86. And it is the only one of the three that does not reach senior managers at all.

s.86(1) disqualifies a person from “being a charity trustee or trustee for a charity”. Nothing in Part 9 Chapter 2 of the 2008 Act mentions an office, an employment or a senior management function.

England and Wales extended disqualification to senior managers in 2018. Scotland followed in 2025. Northern Ireland has not. Only one NI charity statute has passed since, the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and it did not touch the subject at all.

So English or Scottish guidance on senior-manager disqualification describes law that does not apply to a Northern Irish charity.

Northern Ireland has its own offence too, s.87, closely modelled on s.183. s.87 states no mental element on its face. It has the same two tiers of penalty, summary and on indictment, each allowing imprisonment, a fine or both. Its summary prison term is written into s.87(1) itself rather than set by the England and Wales general limit. And s.87(2) carries an equivalent carve-out for insolvency-route disqualification.

The summary fine is capped at the statutory maximum. In Northern Ireland that is still a fixed figure rather than unlimited — £5,000.

s.87(2) exempts only “a company”, where the England and Wales provision says “a company or a CIO”. Today that difference has no effect. Part 11 of the 2008 Act, which provides for Northern Irish CIOs, has never come into force, so no Northern Irish CIO exists. If Part 11 is ever brought into force, s.87(2) will need reading again.

How to run the trustee eligibility check

Check each trustee against the grounds before they act. Not before the next meeting, not at the next review. Before they act. The offence is committed by acting, so the check has to come before the first act. In practice that means before appointment.

Record the check. A signed declaration from each trustee, dated and kept. This is where boards lose.

The Commission’s inquiry into Centre for Skills Enhancement shows what this looks like. The inquiry could find no minutes, appointment letters or signed eligibility declarations to show that anyone besides the sole trustee had been properly appointed. A check made out loud leaves nothing behind.

This is not a criminal record check, and it does not replace one. Whether a role also needs a DBS, PVG or AccessNI check is a separate question with separate law.

Repeat it. This is the part that makes it a governance step rather than an onboarding one. Disqualification can arrive mid-term — a bankruptcy, a conviction, a sanctions designation — and nobody will tell the charity. An annual re-declaration alongside the conflicts declaration is the usual way boards handle it.

One thing here is not on a clock. That surprises people who expect a company-law-style window. In England and Wales there is no deadline at all for updating your register entry after a trustee change. s.35(3) of the Charities Act 2011 requires trustees to tell the Commission about a change. It sets no time limit for doing so.

Scotland is stricter and does set periods. The gap in England and Wales is real law, not missing research. But it is not permission to leave the entry wrong.

Charitable companies: the Companies House identity check

Every director of a charitable company must also verify their identity with Companies House. A new director must do it before appointment. Do not blend this with anything above. It is a different statutory regime, with different consequences and a different remedy.

A charitable company’s trustees are its directors in company law. Since 18 November 2025 every director, and every person with significant control, must verify their identity with Companies House.

A new director must verify before appointment, or before incorporation if they are a founding trustee (see incorporate at Companies House). Acting as a director without verification is an offence under Companies Act 2006 s.167M, committed by the director. A company that lets an unverified director act also commits an offence. So does every officer in default, and in a charitable company the officers are the other trustees.

The director’s offence states no mental element and no defence. For the other officers, “in default” has its own meaning in s.1121 of the 2006 Act. It covers an officer who “authorises or permits, participates in, or fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent, the contravention”.

Both offences are tried only in a magistrates’ court or sheriff court. In England and Wales the fine is unlimited. In Scotland and Northern Ireland it is capped on the standard scale, with a daily default fine for continued contravention.

Companies House’s published enforcement approach starts with informing and nudging. It runs up to financial penalties, prosecution and referral to the Insolvency Service. For serious or repeat cases it reaches criminal conviction and director disqualification.

Existing directors get a transition period. They verify through the company’s own next confirmation statement — one of the filings covered in what a charitable company must file at Companies House.

Companies House’s current guidance gives no calendar deadline. It says only that you will need to provide your Companies House personal code as part of that statement. So the commonly quoted end-of-transition date is an upper bound, not your deadline.

Your actual deadline is your own confirmation statement date, and it is often earlier. For a company that has not filed a confirmation statement since the duty began, that date is now close. That is why it belongs in the eligibility check rather than in background reading.

CIO and unincorporated charities are unaffected by this particular duty. It is company law, not charity law.

Can a disqualified person get a waiver?

Yes: all three nations have a waiver route, so disqualification is not always the end of the conversation. In all three, the disqualified person applies, not the charity.

England and Wales. Charities Act 2011 s.181 gives the Commission power to waive. It can waive generally, or for a particular charity or class of charities. A waiver can be limited to the senior-management leg alone.

Two features are worth knowing. The Commission must notify any waiver in writing to the person who applied (s.181(4)). And in defined circumstances the Commission’s discretion turns into a duty.

s.181(3) covers a person disqualified under Case D, E or I. It applies when that person makes their application, verbatim, “5 years or more after the date on which the disqualification took effect”. In that case the Commission “must grant the application unless satisfied that, because of any special circumstances, it should be refused”. No waiver may be granted for a charitable company or CIO while a Company Directors Disqualification Act prohibition subsists without leave.

The Commission’s own guidance sets out the process. Applications go through its waiver web form, or by email if the form cannot be used. The guidance asks for four things:

• the reason for the disqualification, when it happened, the events around it and the applicant’s conduct since
• the particular charity and post the application relates to
• the views of that charity’s trustees
• which kind of waiver is being sought

The Commission decides “based only on what is in the best interests of the charity or charities covered by the waiver application”. It then checks one more thing: that the waiver “is not likely to damage public trust and confidence in a charity or charities”.

How long a decision takes is not published. Neither the general guidance nor the applicant guidance states a timescale or a service standard. That absence was checked, not assumed. So do not rely on any turnaround time quoted elsewhere, and do not plan an appointment around one.

Scotland. OSCR waives under s.69(4) for the general disqualification. It waives separately under s.69B(3) for senior-manager disqualification. Either waiver can be general or for a particular charity or type. OSCR must refuse where a waiver would undermine the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

Northern Ireland. CCNI has the best-documented process of the three. Only the disqualified person may apply, in writing to the Commission. The charity cannot apply, though the trustees’ views may be sought.

Where the disqualification came from a removal ground and five or more years have passed, a grant is mandatory unless special circumstances justify refusal. CCNI may attach conditions. For example, it may bar the person from being chair or treasurer, from signing cheques or from handling charity property. And unlike the Commission, CCNI publishes a service standard.

Its guidance says: “we aim to issue a decision within three months of receiving all necessary information”. That is a Commission commitment, not a statutory deadline. s.86 sets no time limit on the decision at all. Its guidance also says a refused applicant should wait at least six months before applying again. That is Commission policy, not law.

Common mistake: checking eligibility once at appointment and never again

It feels like an onboarding task, so it gets done once. But disqualification can arise later — a bankruptcy, a conviction, a sanctions designation — and nothing will alert the charity. A trustee can become disqualified mid-term and carry on acting. That is the situation the offence is written for.

Common mistake: not keeping the signed declarations

The check gets done in conversation and never written down. Take the Commission’s inquiry into Centre for Skills Enhancement. The inquiry could find no minutes, appointment letters or signed eligibility declarations to show that anyone besides the sole trustee had been properly appointed. A check you cannot prove is, in practice, a check you did not do.

Common mistake: stating that acting while disqualified is always a crime

s.183(1) reads as absolute, but the carve-out sits one subsection below it. s.183(2) removes the offence where both of these are true:

• the charity is a company or a CIO
• the person is disqualified only by Case B, F or G

For the two commonest incorporated forms, insolvency-route disqualification is not an offence under s.183. Company law still has its own offences for acting as a director while bankrupt or disqualified.

Worked example

Saltmarsh Trust, a charitable company, wants to appoint a finance director. The candidate is subject to a company director disqualification order made five years ago that is still running. They are not being appointed as a trustee.

In England and Wales that does not settle it. The post controls the charity’s money and reports to nobody with money control above it. So it is a senior management function under s.178(4). The candidate’s director disqualification is Case F. So s.178 disqualifies them from the post as well as from trusteeship.

The s.183(2) carve-out does not rescue the appointment either. That subsection removes the offence, not the disqualification. The statutory route is a waiver application by the candidate under s.181, which may be limited to the senior-management leg.

But s.181(5) bars any waiver for a charitable company while the candidate is prohibited under the 1986 Act without a court’s leave. For Saltmarsh, leave comes first.

Had Saltmarsh been a Northern Irish charity, the answer would be different. This is the jurisdiction trap the research flagged. Northern Ireland’s s.86 reaches trusteeship only. There, charity law does not bar a disqualified person from a senior post at all. Company law may still bar them from being a director of a charitable company.

Once every trustee’s eligibility is checked and the declarations are kept, the next step is to run a trustee induction.