Captain Tom Foundation report is a welcome reminder that charity is supposed to be solely for the public good

When the long awaited inquiry into the Captain Tom Foundation^[1] charity was published^[2], it did not bring good news for the Ingram-Moore family – or the reputation of charities^[3] more generally.

A highly critical report^[4] found that Hannah Ingram-Moore (Captain Sir Tom’s daughter) and her husband Colin gained “significant personal benefit” from their links to the charity.

Other details were similarly damning. For example, the proceeds of a £1.5 million book deal, which included Sir Tom’s book Tomorrow Will Be a Good Day, have not benefited the foundation.

Then there was the “excessive” £150,000 salary request by charity CEO Hannah Ingram-Moore (a sum of £85,000 was eventually agreed). And the £18,000 payment she received from Virgin Media to judge an awards ceremony, with the charity receiving £2,000.

There were also issues around intellectual property rights and a family trust which led to possible financial losses for the charity.

Overall, the charity regulator found that the Ingram-Moores were engaged in repeated misconduct and mismanagement. The Captain Tom Foundation ^[5] is still a registered charity which has received donations of around £1.5 million. But only £370,000 has been distributed in grants.

The Ingram-Moore family might yet do the right thing and give the rest of the money to charity. But they have previously refused^[6] to hand over book sale proceeds to the charity when asked to do so in 2022.

After the Charity Commission’s report, they also claimed that they had been treated “unfairly and unjustly”^[7]. The couple were previously disqualified^[8] from acting as charity trustees (Hannah for ten years, Colin for eight).

Their clear role as charity trustees was to promote the success of the charity and its public benefit objectives. Self-interested activity^[9] and denials of responsibility are a problem for trust and confidence^[10] in charities.

And theirs is the latest in a growing list of high profile mismanagement cases. Though relatively rare^[11], this case and others, including the recent disqualification^[12] of supermodel Naomi Campbell for the mismanagement of her Fashion for Relief^[13] charity, highlight a small but persistent trend in charity mismanagement.

Charities are meant to benefit the public. And trustees should be ensuring that the charity achieves this goal^[14]. Traditionally^[15] this has meant the relief of poverty, or the advancement of education or other purposes beneficial to the community.

But charitable missions^[16] can include everything from animal welfare and environmental protection, to helping with sectors such as the arts, culture, heritage, science, equality and diversity.

All of these charities, whatever their particular purpose, need to be well managed to fulfil (and report on) these public benefit aims^[17]. As the Charity Commission chief executive David Holdsworth observed^[18]: “The public – and the law – rightly expect those involved in charities to make an unambiguous distinction between their personal interests, and those of the charity and the beneficiaries they are there to serve.”

A spokesperson for the commission said after the report was published: “We haven’t seen evidence of a crime. If we do, we have very close relations with the police and of course, would do so. There is a high bar for criminal offences and we have not identified that.”

And a spokesperson for the Captain Tom Foundation said^[20] they were “pleased with the Charity Commission’s unequivocal findings regarding the Ingram-Moores’ misconduct”.

They added: “We join the Charity Commission in imploring the Ingram-Moores to rectify matters by returning the funds due to the Foundation, so that they can be donated to well-deserving charities as intended by the late Captain Sir Tom Moore.

"We hope they do so immediately and without the need for further action”.

Generally, charity trustees may be pursued for any breaches of their fiduciary^[21] (legal and ethical) duties towards the charity by the charity itself and any remaining trustees. For now, the disgraced trustees in this instance have been publicly held to account and received a very public slap on the wrist.

It is important to note that the £38.9 million raised by Captain Sir Tom did go to the charity NHS Charities Together^[22]. This latest inquiry relates only to the Captain Tom Foundation, a charity created to continue the work he started.

But the Charity Commission report into it should be welcomed. It will help to maintain high standards from charity management, which in turn will help charities to function as they should. If the foundation recovers any of the money it says it is seeking, it might also help to provide a legacy of charitable work for which it was created in the first place.

References

1. ^{^} Captain Tom Foundation (captaintom.org)
2. ^{^} published (www.gov.uk)
3. ^{^} reputation of charities (www.bbc.co.uk)
4. ^{^} highly critical report (www.gov.uk)
5. ^{^} Captain Tom Foundation (captaintom.org)
6. ^{^} previously refused (www.dailymail.co.uk)
7. ^{^} “unfairly and unjustly” (www.bbc.co.uk)
8. ^{^} disqualified (www.gov.uk)
9. ^{^} Self-interested activity (www.dailymail.co.uk)
10. ^{^} trust and confidence (www.gov.uk)
11. ^{^} relatively rare (www.thirdsector.co.uk)
12. ^{^} recent disqualification (theconversation.com)
13. ^{^} Fashion for Relief (www.fashionforrelief.org)
14. ^{^} achieves this goal (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
15. ^{^} Traditionally (www.commonlii.org)
16. ^{^} charitable missions (www.legislation.gov.uk)
17. ^{^} public benefit aims (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
18. ^{^} observed (www.gov.uk)
19. ^{^} Ground Picture/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
20. ^{^} said (www.thenorthernecho.co.uk)
21. ^{^} breaches of their fiduciary (www.bailii.org)
22. ^{^} NHS Charities Together (nhscharitiestogether.co.uk)