Why charity watchdog is taking so long to investigate Captain Tom Foundation

(GETTY / PA)

A charity watchdog’s investigation into a foundation set up in honour of Captain Sir Tom Moore is still going two years after it was launched.

The Captain Tom Foundation was registered in 2020 to continue raising cash for good causes in the Second World War veteran’s name.

Captain Tom raised £39.3m for the NHS when a mission to walk 100 lengths of his garden gained worldwide exposure.

His story touched the heart of the nation during the darkest days of the pandemic - but his legacy threatens to be tarnished.

In June 2022, the Charity Commission launched a statutory inquiry amid concerns Captain’s Tom’s family may have profited from using his name.

Who was Captain Tom?

Captain Tom gained international fame when he did a fundraising walk at his home in the village of Marston Moretain, Bedfordshire, during the first Covid lockdown.

He set the goal of raising £1,000 by his 100th birthday but, thanks to worldwide exposure, his fundraising reached £39m for the NHS and its charities.

In 2021, he died after contracting Covid while in hospital being treated for pneumonia.

What is the foundation and how much did it raise?

A month after the fundraising walk, The Captain Tom Foundation was established to continue his legacy.

Its aim was to raise money and promote causes that were “close to Captain Tom’s heart”, including those addressing loneliness and mental health.

In its first 13 months, the foundation had an income of £1.1m, followed by £403k in the 18-month period from June 2021 to November 2022.

Captain Moore’s daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore, and her husband, Colin, became trustees of the charity in February 2021.

Ms Ingram-Moore stepped down as a trustee in March 2021 to become its interim CEO.

Just over a year after the Charity Commission launched its investigation, in July 2023, it stopped accepting donations.

Why is it being investigated?

The Charity Commission launched an investigation into the foundation over concerns about the charity’s management and about independence from Captain Tom’s family.

Accounts submitted to the commission showed in the first year more than £54,000 was paid to two companies controlled by the Ingram-Moores, called Club Nook Limited and Maytrix Group Limited.

It also emerged that Ms Ingram-Moore was paid £18,000 via Maytrix Group Limited for an appearance for the Virgin Media O2 Captain Tom Foundation Connector Awards, out of which the foundation received a £2,000 donation.

And proceeds from a series of books written by Captain Tom also went to Club Nook, Ms Ingram-Moore admitted in an interview with Piers Morgan.

The Charity Commission said it was concerned that a failure to consider intellectual property and trademark issues when the foundation was established may have provided Club Nook the opportunity to use the name to generate significant profit for the company.

Why is it taking so long?

Charity law expert Liz Brownsell, of Birketts LLP, told The Independent it was “very normal” for investigations to take more than two years, especially when they are so high profile and have a number of aspects.

She said a team of investigators would be examining whether decisions were taken appropriately and were “objectively reasonable”. For this purpose, they will be looking at minutes of meetings, records of advice received, financial and other internal records and even bank accounts, Ms Brownsell said.

In this case, she believed they would be checking whether the trustees acted within their powers and managed conflicts of interests appropriately, in particular in relation to matters involving both the Foundation and the family’s business ventures that used Captain Tom branding.

The investigation, she said, could take a while longer, comparing it with other probes including the seven-and-a-half year investigation into Kids Company.

She said: “They [Charity Commission] will be very aware of the public profile, and it is important to remember that the Charity Commission has a statutory objective to increase public trust and confidence in charities.

“As such, they will take care to consider everything in detail and undertake a thorough, fair and balanced investigation that takes into account both the public interest and the facts and circumstances surrounding the issues under investigation.”

What could happen next?

If mismanagement is identified during the inquiry, the starting point is usually for the commission to provide support and guidance to charity trustees to help them to rectify the identified issues, Ms Brownsell said.

In some cases, charity trustees can face sanctions, such as disqualification, repaying money or an action plan to “turn things around”.

Asked whether the charity, effectively closed in July last year, could return to being fully functional, Ms Brownsell said: “I think it might be difficult for the trustees to rebuild public trust in the charity, but I do think it is possible. We have seen charities go through difficult times and recover.

“It would also depend on the appetite of the trustees – it has been reported that they plan to close the charity. If that is the case, it might be that they simply do not wish to continue.”

This looks unlikely with Scott Stemp, barrister for the Ingram-Moore family, saying in October 2023: “It’s not news to anybody that the (Captain Tom) foundation, it seems, is to be closed down following an investigation by the Charity Commission.”

What have the family of Captain Tom said?

The Independent approached Ms Ingram-Moore for comment, but has not received a response.

In March, she posted an Instagram video in which she expressed her “sincere thanks” to everyone who had supported her family “during these incredibly tough times”.

A month later, Ms Ingram-Moore put up the family home in Bedfordshire for sale, listed at £2.25m. It remains up for sale today.

The property, which boasts four bathrooms and four reception rooms, no longer comes with an outdoor building built after planning permission was acquired in Captain Tom’s name with the stated aim of it serving the community. It was demolished after the family was refused permission for it to be used as a spa.