Andy Jones vs. The National Trust: Why a 71-Year-Old Volunteer Was Blacklisted After 14 Years
For 14 years, Andy Jones was a fixture at the National Trust’s Woolbeding Estate in West Sussex. He was the kind of volunteer charities rely on, a dedicated enthusiast who spent his retirement burning waste, guiding visitors, and helping with membership queries.
Today, Andy Jones is banned from volunteering at any National Trust site in the UK.
His dismissal in early 2026 has sparked a fierce debate about how the UK’s largest conservation charity treats its unpaid workforce. Was he blacklisted for pointing out embarrassing failures on the Trust’s website, or was he a casualty of a “relationship breakdown” fueled by frustration and illness?
While the headlines focus on spelling mistakes, the reality is a complex clash between a volunteer’s old-school dedication and a modern corporation’s rigid enforcement of “organisational values.”
The “Toliets” Dossier: What Andy Jones Found on the National Trust Website
In late 2024, Jones did what many passionate volunteers do: he tried to help. After noticing errors on the National Trust’s new website, he didn’t just complain; he got to work. Spending an estimated 400 hours combing through pages, he compiled a massive “dossier” of errors that he felt undermined the charity’s reputation as a guardian of British heritage.
Thousands of Typos: From “Permanant” to “Take a Peak”
The list of errors was staggering. According to Jones, the website, the digital face of a £680m-a-year organisation, was riddled with basic literacy failures.
-
“Toliets”: A basic typo for visitor facilities.
-
“Permanant”: consistently misspelled.
-
“Take a peak”: confusing a mountain top (peak) with a look (peek).
Factual Failures: The Pre-Raphaelite Artist Error
Beyond simple typos, Jones flagged factual inaccuracies that heritage enthusiasts found particularly jarring. One notable example involved the misnaming of Lucy Madox Brown, a significant Pre-Raphaelite artist and author.
For an organisation built on historical accuracy, these weren’t just “typos”; they were failures of stewardship. Jones believed he was performing a quality control service that the Trust’s paid staff had neglected.
The Timeline of a “Relationship Breakdown”
The ban didn’t happen the moment Jones found the errors. It was the result of a slow-motion collision between a frustrated individual and a silent bureaucracy.
The November 2024 Email to Hilary McGrady
In November 2024, Jones sent his findings directly to Hilary McGrady, the Director-General of the National Trust. His initial approach was polite. He reportedly asked McGrady to “be so kind as to forward this to whomsoever has the authority and resources to address these errors.”
He expected a “thank you,” or at least an acknowledgement of the 400 hours of unpaid labour he had contributed. Instead, he received silence.
The Final Email: Frustration, Cancer, and “Inappropriate Language”
By January 2025, after a second follow-up email went unanswered, Jones’s patience snapped. At the time, he was battling stage-two prostate cancer, a condition he later cited as a major contributor to his stress and irritability.
He sent a furious email to his local manager. In it, he lashed out at the lack of response, referring to Hilary McGrady (who is from Northern Ireland) as the “Oirish Dame” and describing the website as a “crappy not fit for purpose webs–te.”
This email was the turning point.
“I was really disappointed by the language contained within your email. These comments are not in line with our organisational values.”, National Trust Manager’s response to Andy Jones
Shortly after, Jones was informed that his relationship with the Trust had “irreversibly broken down” and he would not be considered for future volunteer positions.
Why Was Andy Jones Banned? Decoding “Organisational Values”
The National Trust has firmly denied that Jones was banned for pointing out spelling mistakes. A spokesperson stated: “No-one would be told they were no longer welcome as a volunteer simply for pointing out grammatical errors… Relationship breakdown tends to occur after a series of incidents.”
Is it a “Blacklist” or Policy Enforcement?
Technically, the Trust enforced its Volunteering Charter, which requires volunteers to “treat everyone with kindness, respect and dignity.” Jones’s use of “Oirish Dame” was interpreted as a derogatory comment based on nationality, and his aggressive language towards the website breached the code of conduct.
However, critics argue that this bureaucratic response ignores the root cause: the Trust’s failure to engage with a loyal volunteer.
[Strategic Insight] The Volunteer vs. Employee Legal Gray Area
Dismissing a volunteer is legally distinct from firing an employee. Volunteers generally have no employment rights (like unfair dismissal claims). However, charities must tread carefully. Banning a long-term volunteer without a formal disciplinary hearing often looks like a “purge” to the outside world, damaging the trust of the remaining 40,000+ volunteers.
A Pattern of Purging? Mottistone Manor and Dunham Massey
The Andy Jones case is not an isolated incident. It feeds into a growing narrative, championed by groups like Restore Trust, that the charity is alienating its traditional volunteer base in favour of a more corporate, progressive image.
The 13 Gardeners of Mottistone Manor (2025)
Just months before Jones’s ban, in June 2025, 13 volunteer gardeners at Mottistone Manor on the Isle of Wight were dismissed. They were told their services were “paused indefinitely” because their behaviours did not align with an “inclusive culture.” Like Jones, these were long-serving volunteers who felt they were being pushed out for not fitting a new mould.
Dunham Massey’s “Pause”
Similarly, nearly 70 volunteers at Dunham Massey had their roles “paused” during a restructuring of conservation education. This pattern, using bureaucratic “pauses” and “values alignment” to remove legacy volunteers, suggests a systemic shift in how the Trust manages its workforce.
The Human Cost: Health, Stress, and Heritage
At the heart of this dispute is a 71-year-old man dealing with a cancer diagnosis who wanted to fix spelling mistakes.
Jones admits his final email was inappropriate. “I was suffering from stage-two prostate cancer,” he told the press, explaining his heightened stress levels. But he remains unrepentant about his critique of the leadership. He argues the Trust is led by a management team “well past their use-by date” who are more focused on corporate messaging than basic competence.
For many observers, the tragedy isn’t the ban itself, but the loss of passion. Jones cared enough to read every word on the website. Now, that energy is lost to the organisation forever.
FAQs
Who is the National Trust volunteer Andy Jones?
Andy Jones is a 71-year-old retired volunteer who served for 14 years at the Woolbeding Estate before being banned in 2026.
Why was Andy Jones banned from the National Trust?
While Jones claims it was for highlighting website errors, the National Trust states it was due to a “relationship breakdown” following an abusive email Jones sent to management.
What spelling mistakes did Andy Jones find?
He compiled a dossier of thousands of errors, including “toliets,” “permanant,” “take a peak,” and the misspelling of artist Lucy Madox Brown’s name.
Who is the Director-General of the National Trust?
Hilary McGrady has been the Director-General since 2018. She was the recipient of Jones’s ignored emails.
Can the National Trust legally ban volunteers?
Yes. Volunteers do not have employment contracts, so organisations can end the relationship at any time, usually provided they follow their own internal policies.
Summary
The banning of Andy Jones is a cautionary tale for the modern charity sector. On one side, you have a volunteer who let frustration boil over into abuse, a clear breach of conduct. On the other, you have a £680m organisation that ignored a dedicated supporter for months, only to respond with the full weight of its HR machinery when he finally snapped.
The National Trust may have protected its “values” on paper, but in losing people like Andy Jones, it risks losing the very passion that sustains it.
What do you think? Was the National Trust right to enforce its code of conduct, or should they have shown more leniency to a sick volunteer? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
About the Author
