Following their reluctance to pay a £1.4 million book deal advance to the Captain Tom Foundation, the family of beloved World War Two veteran Captain Sir Tom Moore—who raised millions for the NHS during the first COVID—19 lockdown—has been accused of erasing public confidence in charities. The Charity Commission’s critical investigation reveals several shortcomings, including personal gains made by Sir Tom’s daughter and son-in-law, which calls into doubt the moral standing of the charity they helped create.
What Did the Charity Commission Find About Mismanagement and Misconduct?
The Charity Commission’s report reveals a pattern of behavior whereby the family of Captain Sir Tom Moore profits financially from the Captain Tom Foundation. The charity monitor worries that the public would naturally feel misled by the activities of his daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore, and her spouse, Colin Ingram-Moore.
“The charity set up in his name has not lived up to that legacy of others before himself,” declared the head of the Charity Commission. “The public – and the law – rightly expect those involved in charities to make an unambiguous distinction between their interests and those of the charity and the beneficiaries they are there to serve.”
How Did the £38.9 Million Raised for NHS Charities Factor Into the Inquiry?
Two months after Captain Tom Moore started strolling up and down his driveway to collect donations for NHS Charities Together, a total of £38.9 million, the Captain Tom Foundation was founded in 2020. Not included in the Charity Commission’s investigation, this amount went straight to NHS charities. However, the investigation concentrated on the financial transactions involving the family’s interests, especially the £1.47 million advance following the release of Captain Tom’s three novels.
Assurances from Ingram-Moores suggested that the £1.47m advance was meant to assist in financing the foundation. However, the Captain Tom Foundation has not received a dime from this total. The family’s company, Club Nook, also received the book advance, but it never donated to the charity.
Why Did the Family Refuse to Donate the Book Deal Advance?
Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore declined to donate to the Captain Tom Foundation despite several requests from the Charity Commission. According to the Charity Commission, the Ingram-Moores had twice requested to donate a portion of the £1.47m book advance to the foundation, but they turned down both requests.
The report’s conclusions were unambiguous: publishing Captain Tom’s books was a “purely commercial endeavor” and had resulted in “damage to public trust” in charity. “The publications were a simple commercial endeavor and had damaged public trust,” the investigation came to find.
How Did Conflicts of Interest and Financial Gain Impact the Foundation?
The investigation revealed that payments Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore had received displayed conflicts of interest. Captain Tom Moore received personally £10,000 and judged the Virgin Media Local Legends Awards in 2021. Mrs Ingram-Moore signed a financial contract with Virgin Media O2 the next year while acting temporarily as CEO of the Captain Tom Foundation. As a result, she received a £18,000 payment, even though there was no evidence she told charitable trustees about her financial activity.
Mrs Ingram-Moore participated actively in conversations about her pay; allegedly, she told a trustee her expectations were “in the region of £150,000 per ann.” The investigation labeled this remark “disingenuous” and noted that she had deleted the conflicts of interest clause from her job contract in line with openness and good governance.
“The report found that her failure to avoid or manage this situation amounted to misconduct and/or mismanagement,” the Charity Commission said.
What Happened With the Captain Tom Foundation's Unauthorized Spa Complex?
The most divisive result of the investigation was the discovery that the Ingram-Moores sought permission to construct a Captain Tom Foundation structure close to their house, which later contained a spa pool and home cinema. The planning application noted the name and number of the charity “numerous times,” but council enforcement officials said the final construction was “wholly unauthorized.” Later, the family was obliged to destroy the building.
According to the Charity Commission, Ingram-Charity trustees were the charity’s trustees before starting this project, which raised questions about utilizing the foundation’s nominal gain.
The Ingram-Moores said they planned to use the facility for charitable purposes but claimed the name of the charity was entered on the first planning application, which was a mistake. Still dubious, though, the Charity Commission
What Are the Consequences for the Ingram-Moores?
In July 2023, in reaction to the results, the Ingram-Moores were barred from holding senior management or trustee roles in charities for eight and ten years. Still, they have argued that the investigation process was “unjust and excessive.”
“We have been treated unfairly and unjustly,” the Ingram-Moores declared. “This two-year investigation has unfairly tarnished our name and seriously affected our health.”
They also accused the Charity Commission of having a “predetermined agenda” and said the investigation concentrated on “selective storytelling.” Their statement that they “never took a penny” from charity funding refuted ever receiving money from public donations.
What Did the Charity Commission Say About Accountability?
The organization Commission advised Ingram-Moores to “Follow through on the commitment that was made and donate a substantial amount to the charity. ” They further underlined that real responsibility calls for openness rather than a selective narrative.
“The public and charity donors deserve clarity, and I strongly urge the Ingram-Moores to take responsibility by donating part of the £1.47m advance they received,” the Charity Commission said.
Though it is still running, the Captain Tom Foundation’s future is uncertain without Sir Tom’s family’s leadership. The Charity Commission said it would monitor the situation and be prepared to provide more guidance if necessary.
