Getty ImagesThe former executive of the Captain Tom Foundation told the BBC he was “shocked” and “appalled” by what he found at the charity.
In the first interview, Jack Gilbert said he found what he considered to be questionable practices and believed that Captain Sir Tom Moore’s daughter was partly motivated by self-interest.
It comes after the Charity Commission found Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore benefited from an association with a charity set up in Captain Sir Tom’s name, including money from a £1.4m book deal paid to the family company, not the Foundation.
Mrs 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 around his garden with a lock.
After his death in February 2021, the charity watchdog opened an investigation into the Captain Tom Foundation.
Seasoned charity professional Mr Gilbert was appointed chief executive from Mrs Ingram-Moore and ran the charity for five months before being investigated by the charity commission.
He told BBC News: “When I went in, I have to admit, I was shocked.
I am amazed at the number of systems that simply do not conform to best practices.
One of my first exercises was, of course, to get the trust charity status for the foundation, which meant going through a lot of different hurdles.
And the truth is, although we have done a lot, there are many key practices that are missing.
Mr. Gilbert said that while he was setting up the Management account in the correct format for the charity, which had not been completed before his arrival, he said that an invoice for Virgin Media was closed, which had been cancelled.
The Charity Commission found Mrs Ingram-Moore was paid £18,000 for her appearance at Virgin Media’s O2 Captain Tom Foundation Connector Awards.
He argued that the appearance was in a personal capacity and on his own time, but the commission disagreed, saying there was no evidence to support this, and that the charity had only received £2,000.
“When you’re the chief executive of a charity and you’re representing the charity, it’s unusual, it’s unknown, because the charity doesn’t benefit from the activities you’ve done during the working day,” Mr Gilbert said.
He said it was “grossly unethical” for a charity’s chief executive to benefit at the expense of the charity’s activities.
Mr Gilbert said he became “quite suspicious” and reported this payment and other items he found by passing the account to the chair, who then reported it to the board.
He said there was a “level of self-interest”.
The commission’s report found a “pattern of behaviour” in which the couple benefited from their relationship with the Captain Tom Foundation and said people “would be understandably misled”.
The commission called on Ingram-Moores, who has been disqualified from being a charity trustee, to make an “appropriate donation” to the charity.
The press release, various marketing materials and the prologue of Captain Sir Tom’s memoirs stated that the book would be used to support the foundation.
A spokesman for the foundation said it was “pleased with the Charity Commission’s findings of misconduct by the Ingram-Moores”.
Mr Gilbert added the foundation was a “missed opportunity”.
“At the heart of the idea we’re working on is to create a charity that will tackle ageism, that will enable people to work in old age, creating links between isolated older people in the wider community,” he said.
In response to the charity watchdog’s report, Ingram-Moores said it was a “breach of privacy” because the book deal was disclosed by the Charity Commission and said “significant fees” were paid to literary agents, legal and PR professionals, with part of the money used to support the Captain Tom Foundation. .
Ingram-Moores said there had been no misuse of funds from the charity and that she had been treated “unfairly and unfairly” by the inquiry.
Additional reporting by Jon Ironmonger
