Andy Jones, a 71-year-old volunteer who dedicated over fourteen years to the National Trust, has been barred from volunteering at any of the charity’s sites after a dispute over his efforts to correct spelling and factual errors on the organisation’s website. The story, which has drawn national attention, highlights a broader debate over organisational values, volunteer management, and the evolving culture within one of Britain’s most prominent conservation charities.
Jones, who worked at the Woolbeding estate in West Sussex and later at Hindhead Commons and the Devil’s Punch Bowl in the Surrey Hills, performed a wide range of duties. According to The Telegraph, his tasks ranged from gardening and burning waste to guiding visitors and handling membership queries. By 2024, Jones had become increasingly frustrated by what he saw as a mounting number of mistakes on the National Trust’s online presence. Taking matters into his own hands, he meticulously compiled a dossier cataloguing thousands of errors—everything from simple typos like “toliets” and “permanant” to more glaring mistakes such as the misspelling of Pre-Raphaelite artist Lucy Madox Brown’s name.
In November 2024, Jones sent his findings to Hilary McGrady, the Trust’s director-general, who is originally from Northern Ireland and had just been awarded a CBE for her services to heritage in the King’s New Year Honours. In his initial email, Jones politely requested, “Would you be so kind as to forward this to whomsoever has the authority and resources to address these errors?” Hopes ran high that his volunteer work—amounting to more than 400 hours—would be acknowledged and acted upon.
But as weeks passed with no response, Jones grew increasingly disillusioned. In January 2025, he sent a follow-up email expressing, “I sincerely hope my work is helpful to the National Trust.” Once again, silence. According to Daily Mail, this lack of engagement left Jones feeling ignored and unappreciated. Eventually, his frustration boiled over. After quitting his volunteer role, he sent a strongly worded email to his manager, venting, “Still no reply, acknowledgement, let alone thanks from the Oirish [sic] Dame on over 400 hours spent on her crappy not fit for purpose webs--te.”
The response from the National Trust was swift. His manager replied, “I was really disappointed by the language contained within your email. These comments are not in line with our organisational values.” Jones was informed that his relationship with the Trust had “irreversibly broken down” and that he would not be considered for any future volunteer positions at any of the Trust’s locations.
Jones later admitted to The Telegraph that his comments had been inappropriate, explaining that he was under immense stress at the time due to a diagnosis of stage-two prostate cancer. “I think the concept of the National Trust is a brilliant one, and it has achieved an astonishing amount in the 130 or so years it has been running,” he reflected. “It’s simply that its senior management team are well past their ‘use by’ date and the organisation needs to be completely re-invented by a new, young, vibrant leadership that brings it kicking and screaming into the 21st century.”
For its part, the National Trust has pushed back against claims that Jones was banned simply for pointing out website errors. A spokesperson told The Telegraph, “We can say that no-one would be told they were no longer welcome as a volunteer simply for pointing out grammatical errors on a website and this would not lead to relationship breakdown. Relationship breakdown tends to occur after a series of incidents.” The charity also cited a legal duty of confidentiality, declining to discuss details of individual cases in the press. “We are always happy to explain our decisions to individuals when it comes to their conduct and the standards we expect but we can’t do this via a newspaper, regardless of what any individual shares or claims,” the spokesperson added, as reported by Daily Mail.
Jones’s case is not the first to raise concerns about how the National Trust manages its volunteers and enforces its values. In June 2025, 13 volunteer gardeners at Mottistone Manor on the Isle of Wight were told their work had been “paused indefinitely.” According to Daily Mail and The Telegraph, managers claimed that some of the gardeners’ language and behaviour did “not reflect the respectful and inclusive culture” the Trust strives for, though no specific examples were provided. The volunteers, many of whom had spent decades tending the grounds, insisted the claims were fabricated and called for director-general Hilary McGrady to investigate. Graham Field, 76, who acted as a spokesman for the group, lamented, “With a cold and dismissive click of a send button, over 100 years of gardening skill, site-specific knowledge and hard work were lost to the Trust.”
The controversy has attracted criticism from some corners, including the pressure group Restore Trust, which is made up of National Trust members and supporters. A spokesperson for the group argued, “The National Trust talks a great deal about being inclusive and welcoming, but many volunteers feel excluded and unwelcome. While diversity is high on the charity’s agenda, this does not appear to include diversity of point of view.”
Meanwhile, the National Trust continues to emphasise its gratitude for the “enormous contribution” made by its tens of thousands of volunteers. “Occasionally there will be disputes and even breakdowns in relationships, and we provide all the support we can through agreed processes with the individuals concerned,” a Trust spokesman told The Telegraph. The organisation has also been noted for its recent efforts to foster a more progressive and inclusive culture, including initiatives to explore its properties’ links with slavery and colonialism and encouraging staff to wear rainbow lanyards. These moves have been praised by some as overdue, while others see them as evidence of a shift in priorities that is not universally popular among long-serving volunteers.
For Andy Jones, the story ends with regret but also a clear-eyed critique. While he stands by the value of the National Trust’s mission, his experience has left him convinced that the organisation needs new leadership and a fresh approach to its volunteers. Whether his case will prompt broader changes in how the Trust manages its community remains to be seen, but it has certainly sparked a lively conversation about the balance between upholding organisational values and respecting the contributions—and sometimes the frustrations—of those who give their time freely.
