How not to run a charity – lessons from the Captain Tom Foundation

Posted: 27/11/2024

The saga of the unravelling of the Captain Tom Foundation has gripped the nation’s charity lawyers, and certainly also set alarm bells ringing across charity board meetings. It is a case study into how not to run a charity – the full report may be accessed here.

Trustees would be well advised to take time to study the Charity Commission’s findings and review their own practices and procedures. The report, whilst offering painful reading for those who found such comfort during the difficult days of the pandemic by watching the efforts of Captain Tom, is an unequivocal condemnation of those trustees who seek to make personal gain out of their work for a charity. 

It has been emphasised that the initial sums raised for the charity NHS Charities Together (amounting to £38.9 million) were all safely delivered to that charity, and Captain Tom’s family made no personal financial gain from this. If only they had stopped there; but even before the JustGiving page had closed, the Ingram-Moores were busy making plans.

Captain Tom’s daughter and son-in-law set up a private company ‘Club Nook Limited’ (CNL), in April 2020, installing themselves as directors and their children as shareholders. Next, they established the Captain Tom Foundation as a charity. Shortly afterwards, a private family trust was established in order to hold all of the intellectual property rights of Captain Tom, which were then licensed to CNL – not the charity. At that time, of course, these rights were a valuable asset. At the same time, a publishing agreement was entered into between CNL and Penguin Books for various publications, including the now ironically named, ‘Tomorrow Will Be a Good Day’.

During the charity’s registration process, the family stated that there were no plans for any family member to receive any benefit from it, although it was also stated that they were instrumental in setting it up.

On 1 February 2021, Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore became trustees of the Captain Tom Foundation. The following day Captain Tom passed away. The next month, Mrs Ingram-Moore resigned as a trustee and an application was made to the Charity Commission to approve her appointment as CEO of the charity, with the (revised) request for a £100,000 salary. The regulator resisted to some degree, but eventually approved a more restrictive package. This approach should have put the trustees on notice that there were important points of principle here that must be carefully managed; however, throughout the entire life of the charity, Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore have demonstrated an extraordinary lack of understanding of the legal requirements of their roles.

The report proceeds to set out in fascinating detail the extent of the business deals then entered into by the family, CNL and the charity. There can be no doubt that the Ingram-Moores intended to derive significant personal gain from the legacy of Captain Tom. There is much to enthral the reader in the report including publishing deals, commemorative roses, limited edition gin and online stores, but perhaps the most shocking episode in the story relates to the failed planning application for the Captain Tom Foundation building.

Initially granted planning permission, having made repeated references in their application to the charity in respect of the building’s intended use, it was erected on the family’s private property. However, when a retrospective, revised application was made, it became clear that there was no such intention, and the building was in fact to be used as a private spa/pool facility. The application was refused and after an appeal the building was demolished. The family claimed the original application had inadvertently contained numerous errors and should never have referred to the Captain Tom Foundation.

The Charity Commission refers to some of Mrs Ingram-Moore’s behaviour as disingenuous. In fact, there was an abject failure to act only in the charity’s best interests. There were serious and repeated instances of misconduct and mismanagement in its administration, including by the unconflicted trustees who did not exercise sufficient oversight and control. The public was misled, and the reputation of the charity was destroyed.

Key points to take away from this are as follows:

• trustees must always act in the best interests of the charity;
• conflicts of interest or loyalty can lead to decisions which are not in the best interests of the charity, and can lead to difficulties and damage to its reputation;
• the law states that trustees, or someone connected to a trustee, cannot receive any benefit from their charity in return for any service they provide to it. This equally applies to someone who has recently resigned as a trustee;
• fundraising is often a key way in which charities interact with supporters, donors and the public. This means that a charity’s approach to fundraising has the potential to significantly build or damage its reputation.

Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore have both been disqualified from acting as charity trustees, and they have been vilified widely. What is sad is that this disastrous situation for that family and the charity sector could have been so easily avoided had the conflicts of interest been properly managed, and the trustees taken time fully to understand the breadth of their legal responsibilities. Charities can sometimes grow rapidly, but it always takes time and great care to enable them to thrive within a legally compliant framework. 

Return to news headlines