Captain Tom’s family benefitted from charity – inquiry

The family of renowned pandemic fundraiser Captain Sir Tom Moore damaged public trust in charities by refusing to donate any of the £1.4m received from his book deal, a long-awaited report has found.

The Charity Commission said his daughter and son-in-law displayed a “pattern of behaviour” in which they benefitted personally from the Captain Tom Foundation and people “would understandably feel misled”.

The World War Two veteran became a household name during the first Covid-19 lockdown, by walking up and down his driveway in Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire.

The £38.9m raised by Capt Sir Tom for NHS Charities Together, as a result of his efforts, did not form part of the commission’s inquiry, and all of that sum went to NHS charities.

Capt Sir Tom’s family said they had been treated “unfairly and unjustly”.

“The charity set up in his name has not lived up to that legacy of others before self,” said Charity Commission chief executive David Holdsworth.

“The public – and the law – rightly expect those involved in charities to make an unambiguous distinction between their personal interests, and those of the charity and the beneficiaries they are there to serve.”

Mr Holdsworth said there were repeated instances of a “blurring of boundaries between private and charitable interests” and that Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore benefitted significantly.

“Together the failings amount to misconduct and-or mismanagement,” he said.

He added its report had found “repeated failures of governance and integrity”, and that its inquiry had been fair, balanced and independent.

In July 2023, the Captain Tom Foundation announced it was not actively seeking donations or making payments, but the foundation has not been closed down.

The Captain Tom Foundation was registered as a grant-making charity two months after the veteran’s walk began, and celebrities including Sir David Beckham and Dame Judy Dench later helped to promote its various fundraisers.

The father-of-two died aged 100 in February 2021, with coronavirus.

His son-in-law Mr Ingram-Moore became a trustee of the foundation that same month, and Sir Capt Tom’s daughter – Mrs Ingram-Moore – became interim chief executive later that year.

The couple’s roles came into question in June 2022, when the commission launched a statutory inquiry to determine if they had benefitted privately at the charity’s expense.

The regulator’s findings showed that Club Nook, a private firm set up by the Ingram-Moores in April 2020, was paid an advance of £1.47m for Sir Capt Tom’s three books, including his best-selling autobiography, Tomorrow Will be a Good Day.

The publisher Penguin, and promoter Carver PR, said the family gave repeated assurances that part of the advance would be used to set up and fund the foundation.

In addition, a press release, various marketing materials and the prologue of Sir Capt Sir Tom’s memoir, all stated that the books would be used to support or raise money for the foundation.

However, to date the charity has not received any money from the publishing agreement.

In 2022, the commission said the inquiry twice asked Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore to “rectify matters by making a donation to charity” but “on both occasions they declined”.

The publications were “a purely commercial endeavour” and “had damaged public trust” in charities, the report concluded.

Between 2020 and 2021, Capt Sir Tom acted as a judge for the Virgin Media Local Legends Awards and was personally paid £10,000.

The following year, his daughter was approached to be a judge and signed an ambassador agreement with Virgin Media O2 while chief executive of the Captain Tom Foundation, for which she was paid £18,000.

The subsequent Virgin Media O2 Captain Tom Foundation Connector Awards included the charity’s logo on its awards plaque.

She had already been made interim chief executive at the charity, on an annual salary of £85,000.

However, the report said there was no record that she informed the charity trustees when she entered into the financial arrangement with Virgin Media.

The commission said it did not agree with Mrs Ingram-Moore’s assertion the work was undertaken in a personal capacity.

It found this created a conflict of interest, and her failure to avoid or manage this situation “amounted to misconduct and-or mismanagement”, adding this also meant the payment she received was an “unauthorised benefit” to her husband, who was a trustee at the time.

In 2021, the Ingram-Moores received approval from the council to build a Captain Tom Foundation building beside their home, after referencing the charity’s name and number “numerous times” in the planning application.

However, the resulting building, which contained a spa pool and home cinema, was described by council enforcement officer Richard Proctor as “wholly unauthorised” and the family was forced to demolish it in February.

The Charity Commission found the couple failed to consult the trustees about the spa complex, which suggested “they were using the charity and its name inappropriately for their private benefit”.

The Ingram-Moores told the inquiry the inclusion of the charity’s name in the initial planning application was an error, claiming they were busy with “global media work” at the time, but they did intend to use the building for charitable purposes.

Other findings contained in the report showed:

• Mrs Ingram-Moore was “very much involved in discussions around setting her salary” and said to trustee Stephen Jones that “her expectations were in the region of £150,000 per annum”. Her claim that she was not offered a six-figure salary was described as “disingenuous” by the inquiry
• She “purposely” removed the conflicts of interest clause from her employment contract with the charity, telling Mr Jones: “This is not a legal requirement… I will not be doing anything to conflict with all my roles but I cannot be in a position to request authority at every turn, my life would grind to a halt.”
• Since the Ingram-Moores’ company, Club Nook, owned the Sir Capt Tom trademarks, trustees had to consult with them when it wanted to use his name for charity purposes, including by asking for permission to sell printed mugs

In July, Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore were disqualified from being a trustee or holding a senior management position in charities for a period of eight and 10 years respectively.

A month earlier, they had described the inquiry as a “harrowing ordeal” and a “relentless pursuit”.

Mr Holdsworth urged the Ingram-Moores to “follow through on the commitment that was made and donate a substantial amount to the charity”.

He said it was up to the remaining trustee whether to take legal action and the Commission “stood ready to provide advice as they considered that”.

In a statement, the Ingram-Moores said they were treated “unfairly and unjustly” in the report.

They said the two-year inquiry has taken a “serious toll” on the family’s health, “unfairly tarnishing” their name.

They described the process as “unjust and excessive” and that the charities watchdog had a “predetermined agenda”.

“True accountability demands transparency, not selective storytelling,” the statement said, adding that they “never took a penny” from public donations.