COUNCILLORS have expressed shock and disappointment at a Home Office decision to allow door-to-door collections which they had turned down.
The Home Office ruled in favour of Fundraising Initiatives, although Darlington Borough Council had not wanted the firm in town.
Members were concerned that people would be asked for bank details on their doorsteps, and were not convinced proper security checks would be carried out on those calling.
But, following the ruling, councillors must issue a licence.
On Wednesday, the licensing committee expressed its great disappointment at the ruling.
Coun Isobel Hartley, chairman, said: "I was shocked, shocked with the Home Office decision to allow this appeal."
Coun Bill Maybrey said: "This committee always tries to protect the people of Darlington. This committee did not make the decision to be awkward, they made it to protect vulnerable people."
The committee originally refused the application because it felt the organisation had not made criminal record checks on collectors.
This was treated as a failure to exercise due diligence, which is one of the grounds to refuse permission.
However, the Home Office felt the applicant could not have failed to exercise due diligence in circumstances where checks were not available.
On Wednesday, the committee insisted it was still not happy with people giving out personal financial information on the doorstep when the collector's background was not known.
Coun Hartley said: "We were not happy at all that people are going to be knocking on the door, asking for bank details."
The only control Fundraising Initiatives had in place was asking for references and it was unclear whether these were taken up.
Members were also concerned that employees were not offered travelling expenses, and were only paid on a commission basis when a direct debit arrangement was made.
In response to more detailed information, the Home Office still granted the appeal, saying it assumed past practice referred to by the council related to other areas.
Fundraising Initiatives said it did follow up references, one of which had to be from a former employer.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article