Charity asks founders to give back what they took in the famous fundraiser's name

Cash raised in the name of Captain Tom should be returned to the foundation created in his name, trustees have demanded.

It follows a damning report into Captain Tom Moore’s daughter and son-in-law’s running of the charity by the Charity Commission.

It concluded that the husband and wife gained personally from the foundation and detailed patterns of behaviour that could only be seen as profiteering from Captain Tom’s name.

Earlier this year Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore were disqualified from serving as charity trustees for benefitting from conflicts of interest between the charity and companies they owned.

Significantly, the inquiry found that none of an advance of almost £1.5m from Penguin Books for three titles to be penned by Sir Captain Tom Moore found its way to the charity. 

The report says the public “would understandably feel misled” to learn that sales of Moore’s autobiography, Tomorrow Will be a Good Day, had not benefitted the charity, given that statements were made implying donations from sales would be made to the charity carrying his name. 

Now the Captain Tom Foundation wants the couple to repay what the charity believes was money raised in its name.

"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", a spokesperson said.

The probe found that Ms Ingram-Moore was "very much involved in discussions around setting her salary" and said to trustee Stephen Jones that "her expectations were in the region of £150,000 per annum".

Her claim that she was not offered a six-figure salary was described as "disingenuous" by the inquiry.

She also "purposely" removed the conflicts of interest clause from her employment contract with the charity, telling Jones: "This is not a legal requirement... I will not be doing anything to conflict with all my roles but I cannot be in a position to request authority at every turn, my life would grind to a halt."

And since the Ingram-Moores' company, Club Nook, owned the Capt Sir Tom trademarks, trustees had to consult with them when it wanted to use his name for charity purposes, including by asking for permission to sell printed mugs.

David Holdsworth, chief executive of the Charity Commission, urged the Ingram-Moores to "follow through on the commitment that was made and donate a substantial amount to the charity".

He said it was up to the remaining trustee whether to take legal action and the commission "stood ready to provide advice as they considered that".

“Captain Sir Tom inspired a nation and reminded us what service to others can achieve even in the most challenging of times. 

“Sadly, however, the charity set up in his name has not lived up to that legacy of others before self, which is central to charity. 

“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. 

“This did not happen in the case of The Captain Tom Foundation.”

Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore described the Charity Commission inquiry as "unjust and excessive".

They said: "True accountability demands transparency, not selective storytelling.

"We remain dedicated to upholding Captain Sir Tom's legacy and want the public to know, that there has never been any misappropriation of funds or unauthorised payments from the charity's bank account, by any member of our family."

"Disingenuous" statements from Mrs Ingram-Moore about not being offered a six-figure sum to become the charity's chief executive. While she may not have been offered this, the commission said it had seen written evidence that she had set out expectations for a £150,000 remuneration package before taking on the role.

A misleading implication that donations from book sales would be made to the foundation. The commission said the public "would understandably feel misled" to learn that sales of his autobiography did not benefit the charity. An advance of almost £1.5m was paid to Club Nook, a company of which the Ingram-Moores are directors, for a three-book deal.

A claim by Mrs Ingram-Moore that an appearance at an awards ceremony for which she was paid £18,000 was undertaken in a personal capacity. The commission said there was no evidence to support this. While she received £18,000, just £2,000, separate from that sum, was donated to the charity.

Use of the foundation's name in an initial planning application for a spa pool block at their home, something the couple said had been an error while they were both "busy undertaking 'global media work'". The block was demolished earlier this year, after the family lost an appeal against Central Bedfordshire Council's order for it to be torn down.