The Charity watchdog has concluded its investigation into The Captain Tom Foundation. The official findings, published on Thursday 21 November, reports of repeated instances of misconduct and misleading statements by the family of Sir Tom Moore, who set up the charity in his name.

During the early weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, Captain Tom Moore completed the amazing feat of walking 100 laps of his garden, raising £38 million for NHS charities. He inspired a generous public response and received a knighthood for his contribution. Sir Tom passed away in February 2021, at the age of 100. His heroic efforts will go down in history as a reminder of what service to others can achieve in the most challenging of times.

The Captain Tom Moore Foundation was set up by his family in June 2020 to make grants to worthy causes important to Sir Tom. Less than a year later, the regulator opened a case into the foundation after becoming concerned about potential mismanagement and misconduct by the charity trustees. We previously reported on this.

There is no denying that the Charity Commission’s official report is highly critical of the conduct and actions of the charity’s former trustee and CEO, Captain Tom’s daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband, Colin Ingram-Moore, who was also a charity trustee.

The report finds that Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore, who are now disqualified from serving as charity trustees, are responsible for a “pattern of behaviour” which saw them repeatedly benefitting personally from their involvement in the charity. The failure to manage conflicts of interest arising from Mr and Mrs Ingram Moore’s connection to each other and the charity’s connection to their private companies happened repeatedly and led to direct and indirect private benefits for the family.

The Commission is also critical of the charity’s unconflicted trustees, who failed to have sufficient oversight and control of the administration of the charity and to hold the Ingram-Moores to account. However, the Regulator also notes that their ability to manage conflicts of interest was, to some extent, limited by the failure of the Ingram-Moores to inform them of conflicts of interest as these arose. Whilst the non-conflicted trustees are responsible for mismanagement, this does not warrant any further regulatory action.

“Public misled” and “repeated pattern of behaviour”

The inquiry examined several issues and considered the extent to which trustees properly complied with their charity trustee duties. The Regulator is critical of a number of areas including:

• The Ingram-Moores’ public communications about publishing deals for books written by the late Captain Sir Tom. It found that the public “would understandably feel misled” to learn that sales of his autobiography have not benefited the charity, given that statements were made that clearly implied that donations from sales would be made to the Foundation. In this regard, Sir Tom’s own prologue to one of the books stated:

“Astonishingly at my age, with the offer to write this memoir I have also been given the chance to raise even more money for the charitable foundation now established in my name…”

• Public statements made by Mrs Ingram-Moore regarding her involvement in setting her salary for the role. The Commission concludes that these statements were disingenuous and misleading. Whilst it might have been technically accurate for her to state that she was “not offered” a “six-figure salary” (as the Commission blocked the initial salary request), the Commission has seen written evidence that she stated that her expectations were for a £150k remuneration package.
• Mrs Ingram-Moore retained an £18,000 fee for judging and presenting an award named after Captain Tom. She claimed that she undertook the engagement in a personal capacity but the inquiry found no evidence to support this position.
• The handling of intellectual property rights registered in the name of the Ingram-Moore family but offered to the charity for its use without appropriate agreements in place, which led to confusion and possible financial losses to the charity.
• The Ingram-Moores’ use of the charity’s name in an original planning application for a building constructed on their private land, which also implied the building would be used by the charity. The building was subsequently demolished by order of the local authority but there is no doubt that they set out to use the Captain Tom Foundation name and brand inappropriately for private benefit.

The Commission has already disqualified Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore from serving as charity trustees and from holding senior management positions at any charity for a period of 10 and 8 years respectively.

Impact on public trust

Wider concerns for the sector include the potential impact that these findings will have on public trust and confidence in the sector. However, there is no doubt that the circumstances of this case are unique and do not reflect the hard work of thousands of charities and their trustees, staff and volunteers who act lawfully, ethically and with integrity.

In these ever-challenging times, charities need public support more than ever.

David Holdsworth, CEO of the Charity Commission, has said:

“Captain Sir Tom inspired a nation and reminded us what service to others can achieve even in the most challenging of times. We should remember his achievements and how grateful NHS Charities Together is for the £39m he raised for the causes they support.”

If you would like advice about any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Bethan Walsh, Head of Charities.