Less than two years ago, the Captain Tom Foundation was, in its own mind at least, on the brink of becoming a new British philanthropic force. The achievements of the eponymous war veteran, Covid fundraiser extraordinaire, were still fresh, and his family had grand plans for the charity that would bear his name.
Captain Sir Tom Moore, who died in 2021 aged 100, had become a symbol of altruism and generosity after his sponsored 100-lap walk round his garden in April 2020 caught the world’s imagination and raised £38m for NHS charities. He became a national treasure and was knighted.
The foundation, set up by Moore’s family before his death, pitched itself as the natural vehicle for his unique message of hope. It would use his “brand” to raise money and spread awareness and goodwill for a range of causes close to his heart, from support of older people to loneliness and children’s mental health.
There would be a “Children in Need style” global fundraising day in his memory. Experienced campaigner Esther Rantzen was on board. “We are excited by the future direction of the foundation and the opportunities that lie ahead of us, so that we can deliver real change and help to build a more hopeful world,” it said in a portentous mission statement in February 2022.
As the smoke cleared on another Captain Tom Foundation PR fiasco this week, however, that mission looked in ruins. Plans for a fundraising day appear to have been abandoned. It was no longer accepting donations. The trustees appeared to be at odds with members of Moore’s family. It was not clear whether the foundation was fully functioning, or indeed whether it had a future at all.
The foundation remains subject to an investigation by the Charity Commission into possible mismanagement and breaches of charity law. The watchdog is also examining whether its founders, Moore’s daughter, the entrepreneur Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband, Colin Ingram-Moore, personally profited from the charity.
It is not clear when the commission will rule in the case. But the danger for the foundation – crystalised in this week’s outrage over the family’s involvement in a swimming pool planning row – is whether the brand can ever recover after having become a lightning rod for suspicions of bad faith, vanity and self-interest.
The fall of the foundation may seem precipitous but in reality it barely got off the ground before it was dragged down by controversy and a series of missteps. In some ways it may in part be a victim of the absurd expectations attached to the foundation as the incarnation of a kind of philanthropic virtue, expectations burnished not least by the founders themselves, and the intense media scrutiny that came with it.
Andrew Purkis, a former charity chief executive, said: “Captain Tom was a massively oversimplified symbol of the spirit of charity. He was the modest, unselfish hero who did what he could. Everybody loved him, he made everyone feel better about themselves, and about charity.
“But that puts a lot of pressure on the charity. It’s setting it up to fail if anything goes even slightly wrong.”
The latest calamity to befall the foundation emerged this week when it was revealed the Ingram-Moores had been asked by planners to pull down a building on their Bedfordshire property. They had received planning permission for a single-story L-shaped building that was to be used partly by the foundation. Subsequently, they added an indoor swimming pool, and applied for retrospective permission for the larger building, which was refused. They have reportedly appealed against the decision.
The implication that the family had used the foundation’s name to try to push through a swimming pool for personal use sparked a public furore. Neighbours offended by the building plans queued up to denounce the Ingram-Moores in the media. The family, inevitably mocked on social media, were reported to be abroad on holiday this week.
The charity’s trustees were apparently appalled. They told the Sun: “At no time were the Captain Tom Foundation’s independent trustees aware of planning permissions made by Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore purporting to be in the foundation’s name. Had they been aware of any applications, the independent trustees would not have authorised them.”
Yet according to the Charity Commission website, Colin Ingram-Moore is one of three trustees on the foundation’s board (and as a family trustee is entitled to hold the office for life). This raises questions as to whether he told his fellow trustees.
The foundation did not respond to requests by the Guardian for comment but published the following statement on its website: “At this moment in time, the sole focus of the Captain Tom Foundation is to ensure that it cooperates fully with the ongoing statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission. As a result, The Captain Tom Foundation is not actively seeking any funding from donors. Accordingly, we have also taken the decision to close all payment channels whilst the statutory inquiry remains open.”
This was the latest of several controversies to hit the foundation. Last February it emerged that family companies had reimbursed companies run by the family with more than £50,000 in expenses relating to consultancy, transport and security for Moore’s publicity tours. A Charity Commission investigation later ruled these were legitimate. In its 2020-21 accounts it admitted the information commissioner and the fundraising regulator had also raised issues, subsequently resolved.
It later emerged the Charity Commission had stepped in to prevent Hannah Ingram-Moore being appointed as the foundation’s £100,000 a year chief executive in July 2021, calling it “neither reasonable nor justifiable”. A month later, with Charity Commission permission, the foundation gave her a contract for a maximum of nine months at an annual salary of £85,000. Ingram-Moore was later succeeded by Jack Gilbert, an experienced charity manager.
In March 2022, Hannah Ingram-Moore defended her family’s stewardship of the foundation on to Phillip Schofield on Good Morning: “I think we’ve been incredibly naive, but I don’t think that that means we’re bad. I think that we’re wholesome, good people and we run businesses we understand. We stepped into this for love, for humanity, for allowing as many people as we can have access to his legacy.”
Three months later the commission opened an inquiry into the foundation over a potential conflict of interest involving the foundation and Ingram-Moore’s registration of the Captain Tom brand name by a private company, Club Nook Ltd, of which they are directors. Inquiries are not proof of wrongdoing but are not undertaken without evidence of serious concerns.
There is little up-to-date information about the foundation. Its last set of accounts, signed off in February 2022, revealed it had received £1,058,676 in donations and legacies in the year to the end of May 2021 and had given out £160,000in grants to other charities. It retained funds of just under £700,000. It is not clear whether or where those funds have been subsequently spent.
The Ingram-Moores kept a low profile this week. The foundation said its main priority for now was to help the commission complete its inquiry. What happens then appears to be up in the air. In a statement it said: “Once the findings of the statutory inquiry have been communicated, the Captain Tom Foundation will be in a better position to make a decision in relation to its future.”
