Captain Tom Foundation's 'repeated failures' from spa building row to missing £10k

A 30-page report into misconduct acknowledges that the foundation, set up in the war veteran’s name, was created during the Covid-19 pandemic – “a period of global turmoil”

Captain Sir Tom Moore’s daughter and her husband are accused of “repeated” misconduct in a report by the Charity Commission about the running of the Captain Tom Foundation.

The 30-page document acknowledges that the foundation, set up in the war veteran’s name, was created during the Covid-19 pandemic – “a period of global turmoil”. It added: “However, the Commission has concluded that Mr (Colin) and Mrs (Hannah) Ingram-Moore’s misconduct and/or mismanagement was not an isolated incident but a repeated pattern of behaviour which continued past the worst of the pandemic.”.

In response to the report a spokesperson for the Captain Tom Foundation said: "The Captain Tom Foundation is pleased with the Charity Commission's unequivocal findings regarding the Ingram-Moores' misconduct. "We join the Charity Commission in imploring the Ingram-Moores to rectify matters by returning the funds due to the Foundation, so that they can be donated to well-deserving charities as intended by the late Captain Sir Tom Moore. We hope they do so immediately and without the need for further action."

The Ingram-Moores said they felt "unfairly and unjustly" treated and accused the commission of "selective storytelling". They said: "A credible regulatory body would provide the full truth, rather than misrepresenting, and conflating facts and timelines that align with a predetermined agenda.

"True accountability demands transparency, not selective storytelling." They said the inquiry had taken a "serious toll on our family's mental and physical health, unfairly tarnishing our name and affecting our ability to carry on Captain Sir Tom's legacy".

April 2020: Captain Tom books

The Ingram-Moores’ company, Club Nook, was to be paid an advance totalling £1.5 million in a book publishing deal, according to a redacted document provided to the Charity Commission by Penguin Books. This was reduced to £1,466,667 after the cancellation of a planned fourth book.

However, the Commission said that “to date the charity has not received any money from the first publishing agreement”. The report said that the private limited company Club Nook Limited was incorporated in April 2020, with Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore as company directors who, in addition to their two children, hold shares in the company.

Literary agent Bev James, who represented Captain Tom , told the inquiry that her “understanding” was that the Ingram-Moores “were very clear that they did not want the money from the books to go to charity, but they would make a donation when the CaptainTom Foundation was set up”.

The report said it “appears that Captain Tom himself believed or intended that (his book) Tomorrow Will Be A Good Day would in some way financially support the charity”. It references the book’s prologue, which is attributed to Captain Tom , and reads: “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.”

The report’s authors say: “The inquiry cannot see how the first sentence in the above quote from CaptainTom can be interpreted as anything other than funds provided to Captain Tom for writing his memoir would flow to the charity to continue his charitable work.”

They continued: “The inquiry formally wrote to Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore on 4 October 2022 and 23 November 2022 setting out the information it had gathered, to provide them with an opportunity to rectify matters by making a donation to the charity in line with their original intentions as understood by those involved. On both occasions they declined to do so.”

The Charity Commission “concluded that the public had a reasonable expectation that the CaptainTom books they purchased, in particular Captain Tom’s autobiography Tomorrow Will Be A Good Day, would have financially benefited the charity and the public would understandably feel misled given no donation has been made to the charity.”

“The Ingram-Moores’ failure to honour the donation to the charity following the first publishing agreement, and the misconduct and/or mismanagement as evidenced in this report, has seriously damaged the reputation of the charity,” it continued.

2021: Payment for Virgin Media awards

Captain Tom acted as a judge for the Virgin Media Local Legends Awards between 2020 and 2021, for which he was personally paid £10,000. Mrs Ingram-Moore acted as his substitute during this campaign, and this arrangement was agreed in advance of Mrs Ingram-Moore being a trustee or taking up her employment at the charity.

At about the time the Local Legends Awards concluded, Mrs Ingram-Moore was approached to become a judge for the following year’s awards, according to the report. It said that in September 2021, while employed by the charity as its interim chief executive, she entered into an ambassador services agreement with Virgin Media for the judging and presenting of the Virgin Media CaptainTom Foundation Connector Awards.

As a result of the ambassador agreement, Mrs Ingram-Moore was personally paid £18,000, and in addition Virgin Media donated £2,000 to the charity, the report said. The report added that “the inquiry does not agree with Mrs Ingram-Moore’s assertion that this was something that she undertook in her personal capacity – there is no evidence to suggest that this work was done outside her contracted work hours, or that annual leave was booked to undertake the role”.

It noted that in Mrs Ingram-Moore’s signed employment contract, dated August 31, 2021, “there is no clause relating to conflicts of interest”.

“In the covering email of the same date to (charity trustee) Mr (Stephen) Jones with the signed contract attached, Mrs Ingram-Moore states: ‘I have signed the contract but removed the conflicts of interest clause as this is not a legal requirement and given my responsibilities is too restrictive. It is a given that I will not be doing anything to conflict with all my roles but I cannot be in a position that I have to request authority at every turn, my life would grind to a halt, I am sure you understand.’”

The report continues: “One month after signing her employment contract and having purposely taken out the conflicts of interest clause, Mrs Ingram-Moore signed the ambassador agreement from which she benefited significantly.”

February 2022 - February 2024: Spa building row

The Ingram-Moores used the name of the charity in an initial planning application for a Captain Tom Foundation building in the grounds of their home. The Charity Commission said local council documents show decision-makers gave “significant weight… to the fact that the charity was to use the proposed building for its charitable purposes”.

A revised planning application, which added a spa pool facility, did not feature the word “charity” or “foundation”, was refused permission and a demolition notice was issued. The building was levelled in February this year. Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore said the inclusion of the charity’s name in the original planning application was an “error, though they did have the intention to use the building for charitable purposes”, according to the report.

“The inquiry was told that this oversight was as a result of the fact that they were both busy undertaking ‘global media work’ which meant that their attention was on the substance of the application ‘rather than minor errors in the design and access statement prepared by a planning consultant acting on their behalf’,” it continued. “It is the view of the inquiry that Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore’s actions in using the charity’s name in a planning application on their own property would have increased the prospects of that application being successful.

“A failure to consult the full board of trustees and seek their authorisation also suggests that Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore were using the charity and its name inappropriately for their private benefit.”

It said that press coverage of the demolition “negatively affected the charity” and this “could have been mitigated if the decision to link the charity to this planning application had been properly considered and authorised by the unconflicted trustees”.