Adventure holidays, to raise sponsored funds for particular charities, have grown in popularity.  And so I get a request from a friend to ’sponsor’ her on a bicycle tour – on the other side of the Atlantic – to raise funds for what I agree is a very worthy cause.

To attract her, and others, to take part, the ‘cost’ which they have to meet from their own pockets is comparatively modest. The actual cost, of course, is higher, and the difference will be met from part of the funds which she raises. That, no doubt, is why a charity specifies the minimum amount which each participant must raise.

I have no quibble with the cause, but am not happy that part of any contribution which I might make, plus Gift Aid, would go towards meeting part of the cost of my friend’s holiday.

Now, I appreciate that a charity has to spnd money to be able to make money. And it can be argued that this form of fundraising involves much less risk for the charity than, say, paid-for advertising. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it would be most unusual for me to contribute towards the cost of a friend’s holiday of their choice. That it should come from my charitable giving with tax relief is going too far!

I have no argument with somebody who pays the full cost of the holiday from their own resources. And I hope I would encourage anybody to use their holiday-time to do useful work (especially if it was not very pleasant!) for the community in their home area. That would help all round, no extra costs need be incurred, and the environment would not suffer from their trans-Atlantic flights.

If cheques to HMRC ‘go astray’ in the post (as we know that they genuinely do), how much more likely is it that coins will be a source of extra income for some unscrupulous person. Most charities try to deter donors from sending cash through the post – for good reason. Here is one encouraging such a practice.

Of course, it is not quite as simple as that! You have to look on the donation form for a small box to tick for ‘Please do not ask me for another donation’. And can one trust them? Not only may they find some excuse for writing in the future, but, more likely, they will buy in a list of potential names (for cold asking) without checking to see who, on that new list, has opted out.

Donors of a suspicious mind (such as myself) who, to date, have not responded to the barrage of requests, may not be prepared to take the chance!

Accompanying the letter is a ’survey’ on Alzheimer’s and Domestic Care. One can tick a box and not take part. But, part-way through the survey, there is a box for making one’s contribution “to help The Alzheimers [missing the apostrophe we had at the beginning] Care and Research Fund. But the cheque has to be made payable to Guideposts Trust. And the Gift Aid form comes over the page, at the end of the survey – which might well be missed if one had opted out of the survey.

How much simpler it would be to receive a letter from one organisation, explaining what it does – and for the donation to go there.

Two other points. There is no facility to make payment by debit/credit card, or on-line. I wonder what others make of this sentence: “Guideposts Trust receives 100% of your donations. The costs of fundraising come from preplanned budgets set each year in line with the immediate and long term needs of Guideposts services”

There seem to be more cheques this year – perhaps because I believe that people do not like folding a cheque more than once!

My limited practical experience over the past few days does confirm that smaller envelopes are unlikely to bring in as much as larger ones. And there is the added advantage that larger envelopes are more likely to attract attention.

I reckon that, if I have decided the WPB is the best place for their original request, I should be left in peace for a while. It might be different if I responded to all their requests, and had not done so for the one in question. As it is, they are one of many charities which has never had anything from me.

It reminds me of the discussions in charity circles, broadly along the following lines. If a donor has said they do not want to be telephoned, is it reasonable to telephone them to ask if they have changed their mind, and now would agree to being telephoned!

When the need is for £725,000 to buy 156 hectares of land, it would be easy for recipients to feel that any contribution they might make would have little effect. To counter that, one is offered the chance to buy 53 square metres for £25, 107 square metres for £50, or 161 square metres for £75. Or, of course, one can choose some other amount (and work it out for one’s self!)

All in all, I found this letter to be well thought out and presented, without the ‘fussiness’ so often found with this kind of request.

I believe that a ‘thank you’ letter is extremely important. It should outline how the money will be used, and the benefits which will accrue. Above all, it should give the donor a warm feeling that he or she has done the right thing. Even better, if it can subconsciously give the donor the thought that, perhaps, he or she should have given a bit more!

If a letter can achieve that, it will make the donor much more receptive to future requests; the ‘bond’ should strengthen as more donations are made, and thank you letters are received.

As donors, we may feel that a charity should not have to go to great trouble to thank. In practice, I  believe that it is in everybody’s interests for such letters to strike just the right note.

One should be particularly careful to put enough postage on such an envelope (prices have just gone up), because, in the case of underpayment, Royal Mail is likely to charge the charity for the underpayment plus its usual process fee in such cases of £1.

If, as I assume, the organisation is simply using names (and addresses) from which no funds have come for some time, my recommendation would be to check such names and addresses. People do not live in the same place for ever. Nor do they live for ever.