How Captain Tom Moore’s unvanquished legacy fell victim of controversy

From Captain Sir Tom Moore’s triumphant NHS fundraising feat to the disqualification of his daughter and son-in-law as charity trustees, we take a look at how a story of hope was overcome by controversy

Staggering, slowly, with the support of his walking frame, the image of Captain Sir Tom Moore won the hearts of the nation and provided inspiration during the darkest days of the Covid pandemic.

The Second World War veteran, fed up with lockdown, took on the challenge of walking laps of his garden in Bedfordshire with the goal of raising £1,000 for the NHS by his 100th birthday.

Astonishingly, he raised an incredible £39m as the country rallied behind him, with his saying “tomorrow will be a good day” becoming the trademark of hope during the first lockdown.

But four years on from the incredible feat, the veteran’s legacy is under serious threat after yet another hammer blow to the family name.

On Wednesday, it emerged that his daughter Hannah Ingram-Moore, and her husband Colin, have been disqualified from being charity trustees amid an ongoing inquiry into the foundation set up in his name.

The Captain Tom Foundation, set up in May 2020 in the wake of the veteran’s fundraising efforts, is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Charity Commission over its management and independence from the family.

Captain Tom Moore walked laps of his garden to raise millions during the pandemic (PA Archive)

From the outset, it appeared to start so well.

The intention at the foundation’s launch was to promote issues close to the veteran’s heart, including loneliness and mental health, and donations followed to MIND, the Royal British Legion and Milton Keynes-based Willen Hospice.

A national annual event called Captain Tom 100 was organised, aimed at raising further funds for the foundation, and there were plans for a Captain Tom Day to commemorate the epic fundraising mission carried.

But soon after Captain Tom died at the age of 100 in 2021, problems started to unravel when the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case into the foundation.

The watchdog had been called when the charity requested Ms Ingram-Moore, who had been appointed with her husband as trustees of the foundation in February 2021, be appointed chief executive with a £100,000 full-time salary.

That request was refused, before the daughter was permitted to become interim chief executive for a maximum of nine months on a £85,000 annual salary.

Colin Ingram-Moore (left) and Hannah Ingram-Moore (second from right) have been disqualified as charity trustees (PA Archive)

More PR problems arose for the family when it was revealed in the first set of foundation accounts published in 2022 that it had spent more on management fees than it had released in grants.

Of the £1.1m raised over its first 13-month period, just £160,000 had been released as charitable grants.

Coupled with that, more than £54,000 was paid to two companies controlled by Ms Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin, called Club Nook Limited and Maytrix Group Limited.

The foundation justified the administrative costs by saying it was building its team - but the growing criticism appeared to lead Ms Ingram-Moore to take to television to defend herself.

On ITV’s This Morning, she told hosts Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby: “It’s clear our accounts are there to be seen but we’re not hiding anything, there’s nothing wrong, we haven’t made any false action and I genuinely think the vast majority of people know that.

“Those clickbait headlines have been destructive and have put the foundation at peril.”

Hannah Ingram-Moore defended herself on ITV’s This Morning (ITV/This Morning)

The Charity Commission’s compliance case into the foundation forced it to cancel Captain Tom Day.

“We couldn’t possibly do it this year,” said Miss Ingram-Moore, before making clear: “It’s [Charity Commission compliance case] not an investigation.”

But just two months later in June 2022, the commission announced it was formally investigating the foundation over concerns that a failure to consider intellectual property and trademark issues when it was established provided Club Nook the opportunity to trademark variations of Captain Tom’s name without object.

Trustees were to be scrutinised on whether they had been responsible for mismanagement or misconduct in the administration of the charity, and whether, as a result, it had suffered financial losses.

The inquiry would also check if the trustees had managed conflicts of interest, including the companies connected to the Ingram-Moore family.

A before and after of the demolition of the unauthorised spa pool block at the home of Hannah Ingram-Moore (PA Wire)

A year later, an explosive interview with Piers Morgan saw Ms Ingram-Moore admit keeping £800,000 from three books Captain Moore had written, despite the prologue of one of them suggesting the money would go to charity.

She said her late father had wanted the family to keep the profits in Club Nook Ltd.

A month later, it emerged Ms Ingram-Moore was paid £18,000 via Maytrix Group Limited for an appearance for the Virgin Media O2 Captain Tom Foundation Connector Awards, out of which the foundation received a £2,000 donation.

The family were also quickly losing popularity in their village of Marston Moretaine when work started on a community space for the foundation in their back garden. It soon became clear that the building was not entirely to plan, and included a spa and pool.

The family went back to the local council with a retrospective revised planning application, which was refused, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed - before the building was torn down earlier this year.

The family had claimed the spa would be opened for older people living nearby. “A load of bulls***,” said a 78-year-old man The Independent approached in the village.

He added: “The worst bit is that it’s made a mockery of Captain Tom’s name.”

On Wednesday, after revealing both Mr and Ms Ingram-Moore had been disqualified from being charity trustees, the family said they would not be appealing against the decision, despite saying they “fundamentally disagree” with the watchdog’s decision.

They also voiced concerns that the commission’s investigations had become a “relentless pursuit”.

The Charity Commission has not yet said when its investigation, now ongoing for more than two years, will be published.