On the Charity Commission’s public register for Pumpkin and Friends Charity, under the heading “Activities – how the charity spends its money”, the charity describes its activities as including: “Rescue, rebilhation [sic] and rehoming of disabled animals.”
This is a very specific statement about the activities of a registered charity and one which should be capable of straightforward clarification.
THREE YEARS OF CHARITY ACCOUNTS — BUT WHERE IS THE RESCUE
An examination of its trustees’ annual reports for the years ending 2nd April 2023, 2nd April 2024 and 2nd April 2025 raises serious questions about its reported rescue and rehoming activities.
Across all three annual reports, there is no specific account of animals being rescued and subsequently rehomed, no identified rehoming programme, and no figures detailing rescue intakes or successful adoptions.
Instead, the charity’s reported achievements concentrate on providing wheelchairs and mobility equipment, veterinary assistance, fundraising events, education and public appearances.
Three consecutive annual reports. Not one clearly documented rescue-to-rehoming programme.
RESCUE – REHABILITATION – REHOMING
We would like Pumpkin and Friends Charity and its Trustees to clarify what activities they undertake that support the description ‘rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming‘.
In particular, since the charity was established in June 2022, we are asking:
• How many disabled dogs or other disabled animals has Pumpkin and Friends Charity itself rescued?
• How many disabled dogs or other disabled animals has the charity rehabilitated?
• How many disabled dogs or other disabled animals has the charity itself rehomed?
We want to understand how many animals Pumpkin and Friends Charity itself took responsibility for rescuing and/or rehoming.
We are not including dogs or other animals belonging to, or under the responsibility of, another rescue or organisation that Pumpkin and Friends Charity simply advertised, shared or helped to find a home. From the material we have reviewed so far, we have found very little evidence that the charity itself has rescued and rehomed disabled animals.
WHY ARE WE ASKING?
Information appearing on the Charity Commission’s public register should be transparent to the public. We want to establish what this particular statement means and what evidence supports it. There is also an important legal reason why information provided to the Charity Commission should be accurate.
There is also a wider issue of public trust. Members of the public donate their hard-earned money, while businesses provide financial support, sponsorship and other resources, often relying on the information a charity publishes about its activities and achievements. They are entitled to expect that information to be accurate, transparent and supported by evidence. The distinction between directly rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming animals and supporting other organisations that undertake those activities is important. Both forms of charitable work can be valuable, but they are not necessarily the same — and donors and supporters deserve to understand precisely what their contributions are helping to achieve.
Section 60 of the Charities Act 2011 provides that, in the circumstances specified by that section, it is an offence knowingly or recklessly to provide the Charity Commission with information that is false or misleading in a material particular. The Charity Commission itself also warns that providing false or misleading information to it, including through an annual return, can constitute an offence under section 60.
Equally, if the wording on the Charity Commission register does not accurately describe the charity’s present or historical activities, we would welcome clarification of that too.
WHEN THE CHARITY SAYS IT CANNOT TAKE ANIMALS IN
On 11th January 2026, Pumpkin and Friends Charity stated on its official Facebook page that, just eleven days into the year, it had already been asked to save, rehome or take in 15 dogs and one cat. The charity admitted: “Every time we have to say no, our hearts shatter.” “Right now, we simply don’t have the space.”
Yet the charity’s official Charity Commission description includes:
“Rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming of disabled animals.”
If the charity cannot accommodate animals needing rescue, what evidence supports its registered description? We recognise that even established rescues sometimes reach capacity. But the question remains: how many animals has Pumpkin and Friends Charity itself rescued, rehabilitated and rehomed since its establishment?
Interestingly, the same Facebook post promoted plans for an Animal Retreat & Respite Centre, offering temporary stays, day care, specialist care and accommodation for owners.
But respite care is not the same as rescue.
Providing temporary accommodation for animals who already have homes is fundamentally different from rescuing, rehabilitating and permanently rehoming animals in need. Both services may be valuable, but they should not be confused.
So where is the evidence of the rescue work described on the Charity Commission’s register? And are donors being given a clear understanding of what the charity actually does, as opposed to what it hopes to provide in the future? A proposed respite centre does not demonstrate a history of rescuing and rehoming animals.
NOT A RESCUE? THEN WHY DOES THE CHARITY COMMISSION SAY OTHERWISE?
3rd November 2026, an extraordinary admission that raises serious questions.
During a Facebook Live, Pumpkin and Friends Charity Trustee Richard Blogg stated: “We are not a rescue”, appearing to laugh immediately before making the statement.
We fail to see what is amusing about that.
The charity’s description on the Charity Commission register includes “Rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming of disabled animals.” If the charity does not consider itself a rescue, why does rescue feature in its official description?
A charity’s registered description does not necessarily mean it must undertake every listed activity at all times. Nevertheless, a trustee publicly stating that the organisation is not a rescue raises legitimate questions about how its activities are represented to supporters.
Richard Blogg goes on to say that they have rescued four dogs, including Pumpkin. Taking animals into one’s own home as family pets, is not, in itself, evidence of operating a wider rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming service for the benefit of the public.
There is nothing funny about public trust, charitable donations or the welfare of vulnerable animals. The public deserves clarity — not contradictions.