Six bombshells from Charity Commission's scathing report into Captain Tom Foundation

An enquiry recovered Sir Tom's girl Hannah Ingram-Moore and her hubby Colin pocketed implicit £1m from links to a foundation acceptable up successful his sanction during the Covid-19 pandemic.

A damning study has made a bid of bombshell claims against the household of leader Covid-19 fundraiser Captain Sir Tom Moore.

The Charity Commission enquiry recovered his girl Hannah Ingram-Moore, 53, and her husband, Colin, 66, pocketed implicit £1m successful his name. It said they gained a “significant” fiscal payment from links to a foundation acceptable up during the pandemic.

The study said a probe of The Captain Tom Foundation had uncovered “repeatedly failures of governance and integrity”.

World War II leader Sir Tom raised astir £39 cardinal by walking 100 lengths of his plot up of his 100th birthday. His fundraising efforts captured the nation’s hearts and led to a record- breaking flood of donations from well-wishers.

He was fixed a BBC Sports Personality of the Year grant and performed successful a chart-topping euphony single. Sir Tom was knighted by the Queen successful July 2020 and died, aged 100, successful February 2021 aft contracting Covid-19.

The Captain Tom Foundation was acceptable up by his girl Hannah and her hubby Colin successful his honour. But it became the taxable of respective allegations, starring to Charity Commission and Fundraising Regulator investigations.

The Charity Commission archetypal opened a compliance lawsuit successful March 2021 and began reviewing the set-up of the organisation. It opened a statutory enquiry - usually reserved for lone the astir superior cases - successful June 2022. Now the watchdog’s study has been published - and is damning successful its disapproval of Hannah Ingram-Moore and her hubby Colin. Here

The Book Deal

The study revealed income of Captain Tom’s autobiography ‘Tomorrow Will Be A Good Day’ did not payment The Captain Tom Foundation.

In the book’s prologue helium wrote of being fixed “the accidental to rise adjacent much wealth for the charitable instauration present established successful my name.” But alternatively an beforehand of £1.4m for the three-book woody was paid to Club Nook - a institution of which the Ingram-Moore’s are directors.

Literary cause Bev James, who represented Captain Tom, said the mates were “very clear” they did not privation the wealth to spell to charity.

The Commission said that “to day the foundation has not received immoderate wealth from the archetypal publishing agreement”. It said the nationalist “would understandably consciousness misled” to larn that the foundation did not payment from the publication sales. The study said their nonaccomplishment to honour the donation “has earnestly damaged the estimation of the charity”.

Charity Commission bosses person present called connected the Ingram-Moores to marque a “suitable donation”.

The £200,000 spa block

The committee criticised the mates for utilizing the foundation’s sanction successful a readying exertion for a spa excavation artifact astatine their Bedfordshire home. Mrs Ingram-Moore and her hubby said it had been an mistake which they blamed connected being engaged “undertaking planetary media work”.

Planners gave “significant weight... to the information that the foundation was to usage the projected gathering for its charitable purposes,” the study said. But the £200,000 artifact was demolished earlier this twelvemonth aft a revised readying exertion did not diagnostic the connection “charity” oregon “foundation”. The study authors said grounds suggests the mates “were utilizing the foundation and its sanction inappropriately for their backstage benefit”.

The Awards Ceremony Fee

Mrs Ingram-Moore personally pocketed an £18,000 interest for appearing astatine an awards ceremony. Just £2,000 was donated to the foundation aft she claimed her quality astatine the Virgin Media Awards was undertaken successful a idiosyncratic capacity.

The study said “the enquiry does not hold with Mrs Ingram-Moore's assertion that this was thing that she undertook successful her idiosyncratic capacity”. It added: “There is nary grounds to suggest that this enactment was done extracurricular her contracted enactment hours, oregon that yearly permission was booked to undertake the role”.

The Salary

It said determination was grounds Mrs Ingram-Moore acceptable retired expectations for a £150,000 wage earlier becoming the charity’s main executive.

Rights Row

Charity committee bosses criticised disorder implicit the handling of intelligence spot rights. The study said those rights were owned by the household but offered to the instauration to usage without due agreements successful place. This led to imaginable fiscal losses to the charity, it stated.

Explosive Criticism

Charity Commission main enforcement David Holdsworth said the instauration had “not lived up to that bequest of others earlier self, which is cardinal to charity”. He said the Ingram-Moores had failed to “make an unambiguous favoritism betwixt their idiosyncratic interests and those of the foundation and the beneficiaries they are determination to serve”.

“We recovered repeated instances of a blurring of boundaries betwixt backstage and charitable interests, with Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore receiving important idiosyncratic benefit,” helium added. “Together the failings magnitude to misconduct and/or mismanagement.”

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