Is it acceptable for the McCanns to use the 'fund' to pay their mortgage?

Question

They made at least two mortgage payments from the fund, and only stopped the practice when made suspects. If they can afford to pay it now, why couldnt they before. Its a disgrace and they should be locked up for fraud and neglect whilst the police investigate their part in the dissappearance.

Answer 1

I did not donate to the fund, but I was not aware that the fund was for their personal use

Answer 2

the money was given to them to help them find their daughter, not to take an extended world tour.
There are thousands of caring parents that have lost their children and that have to continue on without a free income like the McCann's fund. why are they so different?
The thing is if they have used it to pay their mortgage, what else have they used it for? we already know about the spokesperson, the lawyers, and eventually the private investigators, we know about the McCann's world tour to the other side of the world from where their daughter actually went missing.
We also know that they sold exclusive rights for an interview instead of trying to get as much airtime as possible to generate the biggest possible response.
and of course the latest blunder of "don't say anything until the mics off" during their latest interview.

I even believe they were looking to purchase a villa to have a "presence" in PJ, I would probably bet that the fund has been paying for their hotel stays.

The McCann's should be forced to release the accounts of the limited company they set up, but then that's why it was probably set up that way instead of how it should have been as a charity.

Answer 3

It is utterly disgraceful that they should do this.
I am McCann debate weary. I admit that I too have contributed to debates in the past. But the mortgage payments are another matter. Whatever their status (innocent or otherwise), how dare they use money, donated in good faith by many people far less well off than they are, to buffer/meet their personal expenses.
I wish there were some way of having a public enquiry into this, to see exactly how the funds have been spent so far, but that is not possible.
Following a government review of GP work and pay conditions, the British Medical association (BMA) agreed a different pay system for GP's in Britain. I do think that doctors are worth what they get paid.But to give you an idea, the salary of an experienced full time GP with a certain case load and extra payments can now take home in excess of £100K per year (average salary). WORKING 2 DAYS PER WEEK, KMcC would have been on £35-40K . One of my cousins is a GP and he has confirmed these figures.
GMcC's salary is slightly different. He is not a hugely experienced consultant, but - in the field he is in - his pay will be between £70-80K, plus extras. So combined salaries before K gave up work would have brought in around £110K per annum, plus extras (eg car allowances, etc for GP's).

How many of the ordinary people who have donated money to this fund earn over one hundred thousand pounds per year?

GMcC took compassionate leave from the health authority he works for. The individual circumstances differ, but certainly he would have received full salary for at least some of the time he has been off. However tragic their individual circumstances may be, how dare they use the funds in this way? I think they stopped not because they were made suspects, but because they realised the likelihood of the public finding out they were doing it was increasing.

Didn't Philomena McC say the family would find personal funds for K & G if necessary? Didn't she mention re-mortgaging her house etc? I'm not suggesting she do this. However, any mortgage company is going to be sympathetic to the McCanns situation, and allow them to make reduced or no payments in the short term. They are both qualified doctors and any mortgage company would review the situation with this in mind, i.e. they would be able to make larger payments eventually, given their huge earning capacity.

Remortgage the house, take an extended mortgage repayments holiday, do what other people (on much lower incomes) have to do when they can't pay the mortgage.

As far as I am concerned (and this is my personal view), I think what they are doing is tantamount to stealing - although it can't be defined in that way, because of the 'flexible' criteria for funds useage.

Their arrogance and conceit in this matter appalls me. It does little for their tarnished image. UGGHHH!

I wish there was a way of holding them to publicly account for how the money has been spent so far and - of course - for the accounts to be subjected to independent scrutiny. Should we not be requesting this publicly? Or asking our local MPs to raise the questions on our behalf?
I think so.

Answer 4

If you actually gave to the fund, and you're now unhappy about the way it's being spent, then I think you have every right to voice your concerns. But if you didn't contribute to the fund, then it's really no concern of yours as the McCann’s are not actually spending “your” money.

That said, your question seems to raise legitimate concerns about the way in which the fund was set up, and the wording of its 'mission statement'.

Firstly, the fund seems to have been set up as a limited company rather than as a charity because it was concerned with the single, very specific and (rightly) narrowly-focused issue of publicising the search for Maddie and, because of this, it could not satisfy the Charity Commission's requirements for registration as a charity because there was no element of service to the wider community. Therefore, the fund was quite correctly set up as a limited company because of the Charity Commission's rules, and not because of any sinister or devious intent on the part of the McCanns (as some people are so keen to suggest).

This brings us to the more controversial and emotive issue of Kate and Gerry’s 'living expenses', and whether subbing their mortgage falls within the fund’s terms of reference. The simple fact is that the 'mission statement' is so vaguely worded that it allows practically any personal use of the fund if such expenditure can be shown to "support" Kate and Gerry during the ongoing search for their missing child, and the only control over this lies with the Directors and Trustees (whose relationship is arguably a little self-interested and somewhat incestuous).

However, ‘Team McCann’ do not seem to be doing anything illegal in their use of the fund, although many of us do find it a little distasteful to see these two professionals earning a reported 75,000 (him) and 45,000 (her) a year allegedly ‘raiding’ the fund to cover their mortgage repayments, when this should perhaps be coming from their own personal savings (and on their combined salaries, it would be reasonable to assume they have some savings to fall back on, rather than subsidising their private lives from public donations).

So I guess you’ll just have get over it Mr Bond, as once the cash is in Kate and Gerry’s coffers, the broad terms of reference allow them to do pretty much whatever they like with the money (irrespective of donors’ hopes or intentions) as it’s effectively “their” money now, and there ain’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. But then the rules of the fund were always there for everyone to see, so no-one can really whinge and whine too much about it now.

So, notwithstanding the technical/administrative reasons for setting things up as limited company rather than a registered charity and the very loose (but always transparent & up-front) wording of the 'mission statement', I would have to answer your question "Is it acceptable for the McCanns to use the 'fund' to pay their mortgage?" with a well-considered, unemotional and unequivocal 'No'.

Answer 5

It states quite clearly on the 'fund' page of Madeleine's website that the purposes of the fund INCLUDE financially supporting the family, and I believe their mortgage would fall under that category. And it would be awful for the twins to lose out on so much, first their sister, then, in a sense, their parents, who are paying so much attention to finding Madeleine and less to them, and then losing their house.

Answer 6

No it isn't right to use the money the fund was set up to find Maddie not pay their bills. They are both supposed to have good jobs i can't believe for one minute they aren't getting some kind of pay off them so why use Maddies money .If they were truly innocent of any crime that they've been accused of surely they would want to hang on to every penny to use it for searching of her. How will they feel when the fund runs dry and they still haven't found Maddie but if they are guilty then they know that any money used for the search is money down the drain so" hey lets pay the mortgage".Its wrong!

Answer 7

No, they should pay their own mortgage and use the fund to pay other people to do all the running about, organising publicity, doing interviews etc.
But when you think about it there is no real difference, so does it matter.

Answer 8

Don't know about acceptable, but not necessary as they could easily have asked for a mortgage holiday until they got back on their feet.

Answer 9

whether it was two payments of four, they should not have. where's their knight and shining armor 'richard branson' surely he should be the first in line to assist.

secondly, if a person is so hard up where they can't pay their mortgage....you would be spending money to 'play golf' as gerry is doing.....

Answer 10

Its not a question of being "acceptable"...its all a question of being "understandable"....

Do you think the McCanns love their house more than than their Madeleiene??? Certainly not...Would they be able to conduct their search for their Madeleine if they moved house? They are in the darkest phase of their lives... surely monetary hassles need to be tided over so they can focus on their search for Madeleine...