EVERY HOME FOR CHRIST
Supporting humanitarian and disaster relief, as well as child sponsorship programmes and support of other Every Home for Christ activities around the world
Latest income
£48k
Latest spending
£69k
Registered
1983
Accounts read
FY2024
Financial health, per its FY2024 accounts
The accounts state that the charity reported a net expenditure for the year, resulting in a negative total net asset position of £751. The trustees acknowledge financial difficulties due to the pandemic and cost of living crisis, noting that outgoing costs have exceeded incoming income. However, the going concern status is supported by financial underwriting from EHC Australia.
What the accounts disclose
Highest-paid employee band: Under £60,000
“No employee received remuneration amounting to more than £60,000 in either year.” — page 15
Per its FY2024 accounts as filed with the Charity Commission.
Reserves policy: £12,000 (held: £23k)
“consider that the ideal level of reserves would be £12,000 for 2024.” — page 6
Per its FY2024 accounts as filed with the Charity Commission.
Going concern: noted by the trustees or auditor
“Every Home For Christ Australia (Every Home Global Concern Ltd) continues to support EHC UK financially and with resources and undertakes to underwrite and financial shortfall in the operations of EHC UK.”
Per its FY2024 accounts as filed with the Charity Commission.
Payments to trustees: Note 8 discloses remuneration of £18,570 paid to Mrs L Stone, who is connected to a trustee. However, Note 16 explicitly states 'There were no related party transactions during the year'. Note 8 states 'The remuneration is agreed on commercial terms and the trustee has no input in remuneration discussions.' Rule 6b says present=true ONLY where one or more trustees received REMUNERATION or payment for services (or payments flowed to a trustee-connected business). Mrs Stone is connected to a trustee. The payment flowed to her. Note 16's denial of 'related party transactions' contradicts the fact of payment to a connected person, but Note 8 explicitly describes the payment. The rule for trustee_payments focuses on the *payment* itself. The payment to a connected person is disclosed. Therefore, present=true.
“The charity employs Mrs L Stone on a part time basis to deal with administration matters. Mrs Stone is connected to a trustee of the charity. The remuneration is agreed on commercial terms and the trustee has no input in remuneration discussions. Costs of employing Mrs Stone for the 2024 year amounted to £18,570” — page 15
Per its FY2024 accounts as filed with the Charity Commission.
Related-party transaction: Note 8 states Mrs Stone is connected to a trustee. Note 16 states 'There were no related party transactions during the year'. This is a contradiction in the source text. Note 8 details remuneration paid to a connected person. Note 16 explicitly denies related party transactions. Per rule 1 (NEVER guess), if Note 16 explicitly states 'no related party transactions', we must follow the explicit statement for the 'related_party_flags' field which usually tracks disclosures under that specific heading. However, Note 8 is a disclosure of a payment to a connected person. Rule 6 says 'disclosed related-party transactions'. Note 8 discloses a payment to a connected person. Note 16 says 'no related party transactions'. This is a direct conflict. Usually, Note 16 is the summary. But Note 8 is detailed. Let's look at the quote for Note 16: 'There were no related party transactions during the year (2023 - £2,900)'. This explicitly denies the existence of related party transactions in 2024. Note 8 describes Mrs Stone as 'connected to a trustee' and pays her. This IS a related party transaction. The document contains a contradiction. Rule 1 says 'NEVER guess'. If I include it, I ignore Note 16. If I exclude it, I ignore Note 8. Note 16 is titled 'Related Party Transactions'. It explicitly says 'no... transactions'. Note 8 is titled 'Trustees' and discusses an employee. It does not explicitly label the payment as a 'related party transaction' in the text, though it notes the connection. Given the explicit statement in Note 16, the safest interpretation of 'what the document explicitly states' regarding the *category* of related party transactions is that the charity stated there were none. However, Note 8 is a disclosure of a payment to a connected person. I will exclude it from `related_party_flags` because Note 16 explicitly negates the existence of such transactions for the year, and `related_party_flags` typically captures disclosures under that specific heading. The payment is disclosed under 'Trustees'/'Employees', not 'Related Party Transactions'.
“There were no related party transactions during the year (2023 - £2,900)” — page 17
Per its FY2024 accounts as filed with the Charity Commission.
Trustees
- ADRIAN GEORGE STONEchair
- Gregory Albert BONDAR
- MR DEAN LLEWELLYN
Income and spending
| Financial year end | Income | Spending |
|---|---|---|
| 31/12/2024 | £48k | £69k |
| 31/12/2023 | £100k | £71k |
| 31/12/2022 | £56k | £84k |
| 31/12/2021 | £73k | £84k |
| 31/12/2020 | £56k | £146k |
Common questions
Is EVERY HOME FOR CHRIST financially healthy?
Per its FY2024 accounts: The accounts state that the charity reported a net expenditure for the year, resulting in a negative total net asset position of £751. The trustees acknowledge financial difficulties due to the pandemic and cost of living crisis, noting that outgoing costs have exceeded incoming income. However, the going concern status is supported by financial underwriting from EHC Australia. Its FY2024 accounts were independently examined.
What does the highest-paid employee of EVERY HOME FOR CHRIST earn?
Per its FY2024 accounts, the highest-paid employee was in the Under £60,000 band.