Charity Commission reports on mismanagement of The Captain Tom Foundation
The Charity Commission has published a lengthy report with details of its statutory inquiry into The Captain Tom Foundation, highlighting various instances of misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity which has garnered quite some attention in the national media.
The report follows on from the disqualification of Captain Tom’s daughter (Hannah Ingram-Moore) and son-in-law (Colin Ingram-Moore) from acting as charity trustees, or having senior management functions within a charity, for 10 and 8 years respectively.
Background
In April 2020, during the coronavirus national lockdown, Captain Tom Moore raised £38.9m for NHS Charities Together through his efforts to walk 100 laps of his garden. He was knighted later that year in recognition of his fundraising, and died in early 2021.
The Foundation (which is a completely separate charity from NHS Charities Together) was registered with the Commission in June 2020, with the aim of being a grant-maker focussed on various causes, including loneliness among the elderly and mental health.
The family’s business interest
The Commission’s report highlights some key background points regarding the Foundation and intellectual property rights, including that:
- Captain Tom assigned all his intellectual property rights to a private family trust in May 2020, established for the long-term benefit of the Ingram-Moore family;
- the family trust then licensed the intellectual property rights to a company called Club Nook Limited, which was owned by Hannah Ingram-Moore, Colin Ingram-Moore and their children.
The company granted an informal licence to the Foundation to use certain rights, such as the “Captain Tom” name, but the terms of the licence were not clear.
There was no written agreement in place between the company and the Foundation, despite the Commission advising the trustees at the registration stage to ensure that written agreements were put in place with any connected commercial bodies as would be typical in arrangements of this type.
Statutory inquiry
The Commission opened a statutory inquiry into the Foundation in June 2022 to look at a range of issues, including the management of intellectual property rights and trustee oversight.
In its inquiry report, the Commission highlighted “serious and repeated” instances of misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity in respect of the Ingram-Moores. Key points of concern include:
- Hannah Ingram-Moore being involved in discussions around setting her salary as interim CEO of the Foundation, and influencing an initial proposal submitted to the Commission for a salary level which the Commission deemed too high;
- a payment of £18,000 which Hannah Ingram-Moore received from Virgin Media for judging and presenting an award named after Captain Tom, while interim CEO of the Foundation, which the Commission did not accept was undertaken in her personal capacity;
- the use of the charity’s name in an initial planning application for a ‘Captain Tom Foundation Building’ on the Ingram-Moore’s private property, without the knowledge of the unconflicted trustees. A revised application removed references to the Foundation and was refused by the local authority, which subsequently ordered the demolition of the building;
- the fact that Club Nook Limited received an advance totalling almost £1.5m from Penguin Books under a publishing agreement, and the Foundation did not receive any money from this arrangement, despite a number of statements made implying it would be receiving money.
Concerns around the publishing agreement had been one of the key drivers for the statutory inquiry, and the Commission reports in detail on this arrangement.
The Commission concludes, in particular, that members of the public who bought Captain Tom’s autobiography will have believed they were supporting the Foundation financially via their purchase, but this was not the case, resulting in damage to public trust and confidence in the charity and charities generally.
Points of learning
This high-profile case serves as a reminder that charities should not be misused, and that the legal duties of trustees cannot be treated lightly. It also demonstrate the willingness of the Commission to use their extensive powers if considered appropriate.
The Commission’s report highlights the importance of ensuring that charity trustees declare and manage conflicts of interest, and that unconflicted trustees maintain sufficient oversight and control when faced with trustees in a position of conflict.
Charities need to ensure that if trustees receive any benefits from their charity, that these are clearly authorised under the governing document, or otherwise under law or by the Commission.
It is also crucial that charities keep a proper record of their decisions and related discussions. In its report regarding the Foundation, the Commission makes a number of references to meeting minutes – highlighting where key matters are absent from the charity’s records.
Summing up
In this matter, there is a dissonance between Captain Tom’s initial fundraising effort, which inspired so many, and the events that followed.
Captain Tom became a national figure due to his charitable fundraising, but the Foundation does not appear to have been the primary vehicle for activity undertaken in his name thereafter. Instead, there was a business driving much of the activity.
Being reliant on Club Nook Limited for its intellectual property rights and identity, the Foundation’s position appears to have been more like that of a corporate foundation – a charitable project alongside a business enterprise.
The unfortunate issue is that this is not how the Foundation was operated or presented, and the misuse of the Foundation has resulted in serious regulatory action against the Ingram-Moores.
Contact us
If you have any questions or concerns relating to the issues covered in this article, or would like to speak to our specialist charities team, please contact us below.