‘I was shocked’ by Captain Tom’s charity, says ex-boss

The former CEO of the Captain Tom Foundation has told the BBC he was “shocked” and “stunned” by what he found at the charity.

In his first interview, Jack Gilbert said he had exposed what he considered questionable practices and that he believes Captain Sir Tom Moore’s daughter was partly motivated by self-interest.

It comes after the Charity Commission found that Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore benefited from their association with the charity set up in Captain Sir Tom’s name, including money from a £1.4million book deal paid to a family business, not the Foundation.

Ms Ingram-Moore has been contacted for comment.

Captain Sir Tom, a World War II veteran, became a household name in 2020 during the pandemic after raising millions for NHS charities by walking laps of his enclosed garden.

After he died in February 2021, the charity watchdog opened an investigation into the Captain Tom Foundation.

Experienced charity professional Mr Gilbert was appointed to take over as CEO from Ms Ingram-Moore and led the charity for five months before it was closed down due to the Charity Commission investigation.

He told BBC News: “When I walked in I have to admit I was stunned.

I was shocked at the number of systems that simply did not meet best practices.

Of course, one of my first exercises was to gain trusted charity status for the foundation, which meant overcoming a whole host of different hurdles.

And the fact was that even though we had done a lot of it, there were a lot of important practices that simply weren’t in place.

Mr Gilbert said that when he was setting up management accounts in the correct charity format, which had not been done before his arrival, he said he discovered an invoice to Virgin Media which had been cancelled.

The Charity Commission found that Ms Ingram-Moore had been paid £18,000 for an appearance at the Virgin Media O2 Captain Tom Foundation Connector Awards.

She said the appearance took place in her personal capacity and on her own time, but the committee disagreed, saying there was no evidence to support this, and the charity only received £2,000.

“If you are a director of a charity and you represent that charity, it is very unusual and unheard of for the charity not to benefit from the activities you have done during your working day,” Gilbert said.

He said that in his view it was “highly unethical” for a charity director to gain personal benefit at the expense of charitable activities.

Mr Gilbert said he became “quite suspicious” and reported this payment and other things he found by going through the accounts to the chairman, who then reported it to the board.

He said he believed there was a “level of self-interest”.

The committee’s report found a ‘pattern of behaviour’ in which the couple personally benefited from their association with the Captain Tom Foundation and said people would ‘understandably feel misled’.

The committee called on the Ingram-Moores, who have already been disqualified as charity trustees, to make a “matching donation” to the charity in response.

A press release, various marketing materials and the prologue to Captain Sir Tom’s memoirs stated that the books would be used to support the foundation.

A spokesperson for the foundation said they are “satisfied with the Charity Commission’s unequivocal findings in relation to the Ingram-Moores’ misconduct”.

Mr Gilbert added that the foundation was a “missed opportunity”.

“The point of the idea we had was to create a charity that would tackle ageism, that would enable people to work when they were older, to create connections between older people who are isolated in the wider community” , he said.

In response to the charity watchdog’s report, the Ingram-Moores argued that it was a “breach of privacy” that the book deal was made public by the Charity Commission and that “significant fees” were paid to the literary agent, legal and PR professionals, with part of the money used to support the Captain Tom Foundation.

The Ingram-Moores said there was no misappropriation of the charity’s funds and that they had been treated ‘unfairly and unjustly’ by the investigation.

Additional reporting by Jon Ironmonger