Propose a change

Charities Act 2011

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

218 Third parties

(1) Subject to subsection (3), the validity of an act done (or purportedly done) by a CIO is not to be called into question on the ground that the CIO lacked constitutional capacity. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the power of the charity trustees of a CIO to act so as to bind the CIO (or authorise others to do so) is not to be called into question on the ground of any constitutional limitations on their powers. (3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply only in favour of a person who gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question, and does not know— (a) in a subsection (1) case, that the act is beyond the CIO's constitutional capacity, or (b) in a subsection (2) case, that the act is beyond the constitutional powers of its charity trustees, and (in addition) subsection (2) applies only if the person dealt with the CIO in good faith (which the person is presumed to have done unless the contrary is proved). (4) A party to an arrangement or transaction with a CIO is not bound to inquire— (a) whether it is within the CIO's constitutional capacity, or (b) as to any constitutional limitations on the powers of its charity trustees to bind the CIO or authorise others to do so. (5) If a CIO purports to transfer or grant an interest in property, the fact— (a) that the act was beyond its constitutional capacity, or (b) that its charity trustees in connection with the act exceeded their constitutional powers, does not affect the title of a person who subsequently acquires the property or any interest in it for full consideration without actual notice of any such circumstances affecting the validity of the CIO's act. (6) In any proceedings arising out of subsections (1) to (3), the burden of proving that a person knew that an act— (a) was beyond the CIO's constitutional capacity, or (b) was beyond the constitutional powers of its charity trustees, lies on the person making that allegation. (7) In this section and section 219— (a) references to a CIO's lack of constitutional capacity are to lack of capacity because of anything in its constitution, and (b) references to constitutional limitations on the powers of a CIO's charity trustees are to limitations on their powers under its constitution, including limitations deriving from a resolution of the CIO in general meeting, or from an agreement between the CIO's members, and the references to constitutional powers are to be read accordingly.

Your change, as a redline

218 Third parties

(1) Subject to subsection (3), the validity of an act done (or purportedly done) by a CIO is not to be called into question on the ground that the CIO lacked constitutional capacity. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the power of the charity trustees of a CIO to act so as to bind the CIO (or authorise others to do so) is not to be called into question on the ground of any constitutional limitations on their powers. (3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply only in favour of a person who gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question, and does not know— (a) in a subsection (1) case, that the act is beyond the CIO's constitutional capacity, or (b) in a subsection (2) case, that the act is beyond the constitutional powers of its charity trustees, and (in addition) subsection (2) applies only if the person dealt with the CIO in good faith (which the person is presumed to have done unless the contrary is proved). (4) A party to an arrangement or transaction with a CIO is not bound to inquire— (a) whether it is within the CIO's constitutional capacity, or (b) as to any constitutional limitations on the powers of its charity trustees to bind the CIO or authorise others to do so. (5) If a CIO purports to transfer or grant an interest in property, the fact— (a) that the act was beyond its constitutional capacity, or (b) that its charity trustees in connection with the act exceeded their constitutional powers, does not affect the title of a person who subsequently acquires the property or any interest in it for full consideration without actual notice of any such circumstances affecting the validity of the CIO's act. (6) In any proceedings arising out of subsections (1) to (3), the burden of proving that a person knew that an act— (a) was beyond the CIO's constitutional capacity, or (b) was beyond the constitutional powers of its charity trustees, lies on the person making that allegation. (7) In this section and section 219— (a) references to a CIO's lack of constitutional capacity are to lack of capacity because of anything in its constitution, and (b) references to constitutional limitations on the powers of a CIO's charity trustees are to limitations on their powers under its constitution, including limitations deriving from a resolution of the CIO in general meeting, or from an agreement between the CIO's members, and the references to constitutional powers are to be read accordingly.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds