- 16 October 2025
In the early weeks of the pandemic, Captain Sir Tom Moore became an emblem of public spirit. Beginning on 6 April 2020, he walked 100 lengths of his Bedfordshire garden to raise £1,000 for NHS Charities Together. Within three weeks, more than 1.5 million people had donated, pushing the total to more than £33 million before Gift Aid, which rose to around £39 million including Gift Aid by 30 April 2020. He was knighted at Windsor Castle on 17 July 2020, a rare moment of ceremony in a year otherwise defined by crisis. Those headline facts are uncontested, and they matter because everything that followed traded on the trust that story created.
From hero to household name
The Captain Tom Foundation was incorporated on 5 May 2020 and registered with the Charity Commission a month later. In parallel, the family incorporated Club Nook Ltd on 24 April 2020. On 13 May 2020 a private family trust was established to which Captain Tom assigned intellectual property associated with his name and imagery. The trustees of that family trust, which included his daughter Hannah and her husband Colin Ingram‑Moore, then licensed those rights to Club Nook. Trade mark applications for variations of “Captain Tom” were filed from 18 May 2020. Those filings came after the Foundation existed, and in the absence of clear written agreements about IP use by the charity, the structural tensions were obvious. The Commission would later highlight these tensions, noting that the handling of intellectual property and the lack of formalised agreements created confusion and potential loss for the charity.
When governance meets goodwill
Hannah and Colin Ingram‑Moore were appointed trustees on 1 February 2021, the day before Captain Tom's death. Hannah resigned from the board on 15 March 2021, and with the Commission’s consent she became the Foundation’s interim CEO from 1 August 2021 to 29 April 2022 on a salary of £85,000. An earlier £100,000 proposal had been refused by the Commission in July 2021 as not reasonable in the circumstances. These details matter because they are recorded in the Commission’s inquiry and they illustrate how apparently straightforward role changes can become lightning rods for public concern if conflicts are not carefully anticipated and documented.
Regulatory interest was not confined to the Commission. In 2021 both the Fundraising Regulator and the Information Commissioner’s Office engaged with the Foundation. The ICO received complaints but, after meeting the charity, provided advice on data protection and direct marketing and took no further action at that time. The Fundraising Regulator advised on the accuracy of the charity’s fundraising statements and closed its concerns once changes were made. None of this was fatal in itself, yet taken together the picture was of a young charity grappling with governance fundamentals in the full glare of publicity.
The Commission opened a compliance case in March 2021 and escalated to a statutory inquiry on 16 June 2022. On 3 July 2024 it confirmed that Hannah and Colin Ingram‑Moore had been disqualified from serving as charity trustees and from holding senior management positions in any charity, for 10 and 8 years respectively. The Commission stated that the legal test for disqualification was met because there had been misconduct and or mismanagement, the individuals were not fit to be trustees or senior managers, and disqualification was in the public interest. Those are strong findings and they were made before the final report was published in November 2024, which is unusual but permissible.
The final inquiry report was published on 21 November 2024. It concluded there were repeated instances of misconduct and or mismanagement concerning the conduct and actions of Hannah and Colin Ingram‑Moore. It set out failings in conflict identification and management, in oversight and record keeping, and in the handling of intellectual property and connected‑party relationships. It also covered specific episodes, including public communications about book deals, an awards engagement where the interim CEO personally received fees while the charity received a smaller sum, and the use of the charity’s name in a private planning application. The Commission’s language is careful and evidence led, and so should ours be. It is also explicit on an important dividing line. The £38.9 million raised for NHS Charities Together through JustGiving was outside the scope of the inquiry. Those funds were never part of the Foundation’s accounts and were not under investigation.
In January 2025, the charity removed Captain Tom’s name at the family’s request and adopted its registration number as its title, THE 1189808 FOUNDATION. The charity remains on the register, with its entry noting that it is not currently operating. This is a significant symbolic shift. It signals that both the brand and the organisation that tried to steward it have been altered by the regulatory process, and that questions about independence and the appropriate use of a public figure’s name are not academic. They are matters of trust and of law.
Lessons learnt
Define and protect intellectual property
If a charity’s identity depends on a name, image, or set of assets held by connected persons, the board must insist on written, transparent, and comprehensive agreements. In this case, the Commission concluded that the lack of written IP arrangements, and the overlap between private companies and the charity, created a risk of direct and indirect private benefit and undermined independence. Boards should consider an IP register, independent valuation where appropriate, and clear reporting in the annual report.
Identify and document conflicts of interest
Conflict management is not a paperwork exercise, it is the backbone of trustee decision making. Where connected parties are involved, use a standing agenda item, early declarations, and minute‑level documentation. Conflicted individuals should not be present for discussion or decision, and the board should be able to show why any arrangement is in the charity’s best interests, on terms no less favourable than could be obtained from an unconnected party.
Maintain board independence and avoid founder syndrome
Separation between governance and management is a cornerstone of good practice. Excessive influence by founders or family members can undermine decision making and expose the organisation to regulatory action. The inquiry’s findings on oversight, record keeping, and public communications about roles and remuneration underline the need for boards to keep their focus on purpose, beneficiaries, and long‑term credibility.