The regulator’s report concludes that the trustees failed fully to recognise or address risks to the reputation of the charity - and its purpose of raising money for good causes – arising from holding an all-male event staffed by female-only event staff, who were subject to instructions on their appearance, including that they wear ‘smart, sexy shoes’.

The regulator also found that the trustees’ failure to put in place clear or adequate procedures and policies to deal with harassment or improper behaviour at the event was in stark contrast to the measures they took to protect the privacy of the guests.

The Commission’s case was opened in January 2018 after reports in the media alleging that women employed to work as hostesses at the 2018 event were subjected to harassment and inappropriate behaviour by male guests.

Following the media reports, the trustees of the charity announced that they were in the process of winding up the charity.

The report details several breaches of trustees’ charity law duties. As a result of the lack of written contracts with suppliers, absence of oversight and a lack of awareness of the relevant regulatory guidance, the Commission finds that the trustees did not act with reasonable care and skill.

The trustees failed to comply with their legal duty to manage charity resources responsibly, specifically avoiding exposing the charity’s assets, beneficiaries or reputation to undue risk.

The Commission has agreed a regulatory action plan with the trustees to gather as much of the money raised at the event as possible. Thereafter, the trustees, working with the Commission, will ensure that the charity is wound up in an orderly manner and that remaining funds reach the causes for which they were intended. Further events will no longer take place upon the winding up of the charity.

Helen Stephenson, chief executive of the Charity Commission, said: ‘Our report should serve as a warning to others that raising funds for charity does not absolve trustees of their legal duties or moral responsibilities. Quite the reverse, the manner in which they are raised is just as important.

‘The trustees thought insufficiently about the welfare of the women hired to work at their charity’s event while taking careful steps to protect the privacy of the male guests attending the dinner.

‘It is not the Commission’s role to determine whether any of the women working on the night were subjected to harassment or abuse. What we can say is that the trustees’ attitude towards their welfare in the name of charity fell short of what would be expected in the 21st century.’

Charity case report: Presidents Club Charitable Trust is here.

Report by Pat Sweet