Captain Tom's family 'made £1m for themselves' through charity link, damning report states

The household of renowned pandemic fundraiser Captain Sir Tom Moore made much than a cardinal pounds done their relation with the charity acceptable up successful his name, a damning study has found.

The charities watchdog concluded determination had been repeated instances of misconduct by the veteran’s daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband, Colin.

Sir Tom became a household sanction successful the pandemic, raising millions for NHS charities by walking laps of his plot successful lockdown.

But separately, a £1.4 cardinal publication woody and an £18,000 awards ceremonial quality interest were among the fiscal benefits Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore enjoyed done their household links to the Captain Tom Foundation.

A spokesperson for the instauration said it is “imploring the Ingram-Moores to rectify matters by returning the funds due” to the charity.

The Ingram-Moores person argued it was a “breach of privacy” for the publication woody to person been disclosed by the Charity Commission and said “significant fees” had been paid to the literate agent, ineligible and PR professionals, arsenic good arsenic immoderate wealth having “supported” the foundation.

The commission’s study recovered a “repeated signifier of behaviour” which saw the mates marque backstage gains and which the watchdog said volition person near the nationalist feeling “misled”.

The committee has called connected the Ingram-Moores to marque a “suitable donation” – declining to accidental however overmuch – from the publication beforehand deal, to “honour the committedness that Captain Tom, successful his ain words successful his archetypal book, stated successful the foreword astir the wealth benefiting the instauration acceptable up successful his name”.

The brace were asked by the committee connected 2 occasions successful 2022 to “rectify matters by making a donation to the charity” but declined some times.

A spokesperson for the instauration said they are “pleased with the Charity Commission’s unequivocal findings regarding the Ingram-Moores’ misconduct”.

They added: “We articulation the Charity Commission successful imploring the Ingram-Moores to rectify matters by returning the funds owed to the Foundation, truthful that they tin beryllium donated to well-deserving charities arsenic intended by the precocious Captain Sir Tom Moore.

“We anticipation they bash truthful instantly and without the request for further action”.

The instauration declined to remark erstwhile asked however overmuch should beryllium returned.

The Ingram-Moores person already been banned from being foundation trustees, but a 30-page study published connected Thursday, aft a two-year inquiry, acceptable retired their failings successful detail.

“Disingenuous” statements from Mrs Ingram-Moore astir not being offered a six-figure sum to go the charity’s main executive, erstwhile she had successful information acceptable retired expectations for a £150,000 remuneration bundle earlier taking connected the role.

- A misleading accusation that donations from publication income would beryllium made to the foundation. An beforehand of astir £1.5 cardinal was paid to Club Nook, a institution of which the Ingram-Moores are directors, for a three-book woody and nary of that has gone to the foundation, the watchdog said.

– A assertion by Mrs Ingram-Moore that an quality astatine an awards ceremonial for which she was paid £18,000 was undertaken successful a idiosyncratic capacity. The committee disagreed, saying determination was nary grounds to enactment this, and the foundation received conscionable £2,000, separately to her fee.

– Use of the foundation’s sanction successful an archetypal readying exertion for a spa excavation artifact astatine their home, thing the mates said had been an mistake portion they were some “busy undertaking ‘global media work'”. The artifact was demolished earlier this year, aft the household mislaid an entreaty against Central Bedfordshire Council’s bid for it to beryllium torn down.

– Confusion implicit handling of intelligence spot rights, which the committee said were owned by the household but offered to the instauration to usage without due agreements successful place, starring to imaginable fiscal losses to the charity.

The Charity Commission opened a lawsuit into the instauration successful March 2021, escalating it to go a statutory enquiry successful June 2022, amid concerns astir the charity’s absorption and independency from Sir Tom’s family.

In July, the Ingram-Moores released a connection saying they had been banned from being foundation trustees, describing the commission’s probe arsenic a “harrowing and debilitating ordeal” and a “relentless pursuit”.

In an interrogation with the PA quality agency, David Holdsworth, committee main executive, insisted the enquiry has been just and balanced, saying: “We are relentless arsenic a regulator and, yes, we volition travel wrongdoing wherever where we find it successful the sector.”

The disqualification orders against some – meaning Mrs Ingram-Moore cannot beryllium a trustee oregon clasp a elder absorption relation successful immoderate foundation successful England and Wales for 10 years, nor Mr Ingram-Moore for 8 years – were issued successful May and came into effect connected June 25.

Mr Holdsworth said disqualification is rare, with lone 140 radical disqualified retired of astir 900,000 trustees since 2019.

“The information we’ve disqualified Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore shows the superior quality of the issues we found,” helium said.

Asked to enactment a fig connected however overmuch the Ingram-Moores had made from their relation with the charity, helium declined to springiness a full but said the nationalist “can gully their ain conclusions” from the details successful the report.

He told PA: “As the study sets out, determination was a publication woody agreed for £1.4 cardinal which the Ingram-Moores benefited from. There was the outgo of a interest for an grant ceremonial for £18,000 which Mrs Ingram-Moore received directly, not the charity.

“And truthful I deliberation if you work the report, the nationalist tin gully their ain conclusions astir the full magnitude of backstage payment the Ingram-Moores person achieved done their relation with the charity.”

Mr Holdsworth said the instauration had “not lived up to that bequest of others earlier self, which is cardinal to charity”.

He added: “The public, and the law, rightly expect those progressive successful charities to marque an unambiguous favoritism betwixt their idiosyncratic interests and those of the foundation and the beneficiaries they are determination to serve.

“This did not hap successful the lawsuit of The Captain Tom Foundation. We recovered repeated instances of a blurring of boundaries betwixt backstage and charitable interests, with Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore receiving important idiosyncratic benefit. Together the failings magnitude to misconduct and/or mismanagement.”

But the Ingram-Moores said they felt “unfairly and unjustly” treated and accused the committee of “selective storytelling”.

In a statement, they said: “A credible regulatory assemblage would supply the afloat truth, alternatively than misrepresenting, and conflating facts and timelines that align with a predetermined agenda.

“True accountability demands transparency, not selective storytelling.”

They said the enquiry had taken a “serious toll connected our family’s intelligence and carnal health, unfairly tarnishing our sanction and affecting our quality to transportation connected Captain Sir Tom’s legacy”.

A lawyer for the household has antecedently indicated the foundation mightiness unopen down, and the instauration stopped taking donations successful summertime 2023.

The committee cannot bid the closure of a foundation, the watchdog main said, adding that specified a determination is “a substance for the trustees to consider”.

The millions raised by the precocious Sir Tom and donated to NHS Charities Together earlier the instauration was formed were not portion of the commission’s inquiry.