When people donate to an animal welfare charity, they do so because they want to help animals. They want their money to fund wheelchairs, veterinary care, equipment, rescue work and the practical costs of helping animals in need. And when supporters contribute towards a vehicle specifically requested for charitable work, they are entitled to ask a very reasonable question:
Is that vehicle being used for the purpose donors were asked to support?
This investigation concerns Pumpkin and Friends Charity its much-publicised pink ‘Pumpkinmobile’, a Land Rover associated with founder CEO Tammie Fox and another van reportedly available to her partner and Trustee Richard Blogg. We’ll be examining the Land Rover further down the line, for now we’ll be focusing on the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ and Trustee Richard Blogg’s van.
DECEMBER 2024 — THE APPEAL FOR A CHARITY VEHICLE
On 17th and 19th December 2024, Pumpkin & Friends Charity told supporters that it urgently needed a suitable vehicle. CEO Tammie Fox’s personal Land Rover had supposedly suffered engine failure, leaving the charity without a vehicle large enough “for animal crates, wheelchairs, tools and strollers“.
Subsequently, on 19th December 2024, a GoFundMe appeal was launched to help buy or rent a vehicle for the charity. The fundraiser raised £13,715.
The public responded generously. And that generosity deserves accountability.
LAND ROVER TRANSFERRED TO THE CHARITY
In a Facebook statement made at the time of the vehicle appeal, Tammie Fox explained that she had purchased her Land Rover approximately a year earlier for £11,000 from her personal savings. She stated that the engine needed replacing and that she and Richard Blogg did not have the £4,000 required for the repairs. However, what she said next raises some particularly important questions:
“So I have decided to give and sign it over to the charity. This way the charity can pay for the repairs and be the legal owner.”
If the intention was to transfer the Land Rover to Pumpkin and Friends Charity so that charitable funds could pay for its repairs, why were supporters also asked to fund an entirely different vehicle? Was ownership of the Land Rover actually transferred to the charity? Was the engine replaced? Did charitable funds pay for those repairs? And what eventually happened to the vehicle?
There is also the question of the replacement vehicle itself. The charity said it needed sufficient space for animal crates, wheelchairs, tools and strollers. Why was a substantially larger van selected, complete with a second row of passenger seats, rather than repairing the Land Rover at the reported cost of £4,000? Was a proper comparison of the costs and suitability of both options undertaken?
In a separate post Tammie Fox stated their needed a vehicle big enough for 4 people. Why?
Did the charity ultimately acquire two vehicles — the Land Rover donated by its CEO and the Pumpkinmobile funded through public donations? And, if so, what happened to each vehicle and who paid their running costs?
With £13,715 raised through the vehicle appeal, supporters are entitled to clear answers about what happened to the original Land Rover and why an additional vehicle was necessary.
BUT WHAT ABOUT RICHARD’S OWN TRANSIT VAN?
Here is where the vehicle appeal becomes particularly interesting. Although the charity publicly described its need for a larger vehicle, photographs and social media material indicate that CEO Tammie Fox and Trustee Richard Blogg had access to another van when it suited them.
On 23rd December 2024, just four days after the GoFundMe appeal began, a substantial quantity of donated pet food, courtesy of MARS, was photographed in a van which appears to be the vehicle associated with Richard Blogg. Then, on 13th February 2025, footage relating to the collection of the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ the following day, shows Tammie Fox and Richard Blogg travelling in Richard’s transit van, which CEO Tammie Fox stated “is going once we pick our van up.”
This raises an obvious question. If another van was available, why was its existence and suitability not explained more clearly to potential donors?
There may be a perfectly reasonable answer. Richard Blogg’s van may not have been available for regular charity use. It may have lacked suitable insurance, passenger accommodation, wheelchair storage or other necessary features. We recognise those possibilities. But the charity was asking the public to fund a significant purchase. Surely a clear explanation of the available alternatives would have helped donors understand the need particularly as Richard Blogg’s transit van was perfectly suitable for the collection of a significant amount of dog and cat food for the charity.
RICHARD BLOGG ‘S TRANSIT — WHY DID IT HAVE TO GO?
The appeal was about replacing CEO Tammie’s Land Rover. So why did the arrival of the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ apparently mean Richard Blogg’s Transit was no longer needed? If Richard Blogg’s van was available and suitable for charity work, why was a replacement vehicle presented as such an urgent necessity? If it was his work van and unavailable for charity use, why was its departure apparently linked to the arrival of a charity-owned vehicle?
Of course, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. Richard Blogg may have stopped working, changed vehicles or had other reasons for disposing of the transit. But the connection between his privately owned van and the charity-funded ‘Pumpkinmobile’ deserves an explanation. Was the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ intended solely to replace the charity transport previously provided by Tammie’s Land Rover, or was it also expected to replace Richard Blogg’s Transit?
Because those are two rather different explanations for why supporters were asked to fund a new vehicle.
FEBRUARY 2025 — ENTER THE ‘PUMPKINMOBILE’
On 13th February 2025, the charity collected the ‘Pumpkinmobile’. Bright pink, unmistakable and heavily promoted across social media, it became a prominent symbol of the charity’s work. The charity described it as a vehicle for transporting wheelchairs, equipment, animals and supplies, as well as supporting its wider activities. There is nothing inherently wrong with a charity acquiring a vehicle.
For an organisation delivering equipment and travelling to assist disabled animals, suitable transport may be essential. But acquiring a vehicle for charitable purposes creates an equally important responsibility being able to account for how it is used and how its costs are allocated.
We also have questions about the harness Pumpkin is pictured wearing in the image on the side of the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ – CLICK HERE.
THE PUMPKINMOBILE – CHARITY VEHICLE OR FAMILY TRANSPORT?
The ‘Pumpkinmobile’ was purchased through public donations to support the charity’s work with disabled animals, in their own words “a vehicle big enough for animal crates, wheelchairs, tools and strollers.” Photographs and videos confirm that it has a second row of passenger seats, although these may well have been factory-fitted. The issue isn’t how many seats the van has, it’s how the vehicle is being used.
We have received accounts from local people in Lincoln of the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ being seen on journeys that appear to involve supermarket shopping, school runs and other everyday family activities. While these observations do not establish that the journeys were private, they raise legitimate questions about whether a publicly funded charity vehicle is also serving as family transport.
If the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ is being used privately, who is paying for the fuel, mileage, insurance, maintenance and wear and tear? Personal use may be permitted under an appropriate arrangement, but donors are entitled to expect that charity funds are spent on charitable purposes, not simply absorbed into the costs of everyday family life. We would welcome clarification.
And here’s a curious detail: despite its unmistakable bright pink appearance, the ‘Pumpkinmobile’ is still registered with the DVLA as silver.
SHERWOOD FOREST – A CHARITY JOURNEY OR A PERSONAL DAY OUT?
On 28th May 2026, social media material records a visit to Sherwood Forest involving CEO Tammie Fox, Trustee Richard Blogg and visiting friends from the USA, Tony Hofstetter. A publicly shared video shows the pink Pumpkinmobile travelling back from the outing.
We are interested in the nature of this journey. We can find no evidence that the trip was connected to an organised charity activity, fundraising, volunteering, supporter engagement or another legitimate charitable purpose. It appears to have been primarily a recreational outing. If the latter, was any private use authorised, recorded and paid for appropriately? A journey does not become a charitable journey simply because it is made in a charity-branded vehicle.
The relevant questions are:
- What was the purpose of the journey?
- What are the charity’s policies?
- Who bore the cost?
Even when a journey appears inexpensive, vehicle use involves more than fuel. It contributes to mileage, depreciation, tyre wear, servicing and other running expenses.
The relevant questions are the purpose of the journey, the charity’s policies and who bore the costs. Even when a journey appears inexpensive, vehicle use involves more than fuel. It contributes to mileage, depreciation, tyre wear, servicing and other running expenses.
Who pays for those costs when a charity vehicle is used privately? That is a fair question for any charity operating a vehicle acquired with public support. We would welcome clarification.
PERHAPS THIS ANSWERS OUR QUESTION
Another interesting post has emerged from the Pumpkin The Wheelie Westie Warrior Facebook page. The page shared photographs from a visit to Sherwood Forest with Tammie Fox and Richard Blogg’s American ‘family’, the Hofstetters. The accompanying caption stated:
“Yesterday we treated our American family the Hofs to a day out at Sherwood forest.” It then added: “We surprised them with a professional photographer joining us to capture the memories.” The photographer was publicly thanked and credited as Forest Fox Photography.
Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with spending a day out with visiting family, or arranging a photographer to capture the occasion. But when a charity vehicle is involved, the distinction between personal and charitable activities matters.
We have not identified a corresponding post about this visit on Pumpkin and Friends Charity’s official Facebook page. Instead, the outing was presented on the separate Pumpkin influencer page as a family occasion. That raises several questions.
It appears that the charity-funded vehicle, purchased using public donations, may have been used for a private family outing. We therefore believe it is entirely reasonable to ask: Who arranged and paid for the professional photographer? Was this a privately funded family treat, a complimentary service, or was the cost met by the charity or the separate influencer operation?
The issue is not whether Tammie Fox and Richard Blogg are allowed to enjoy a family day out. The issue is whether charity-funded resources were used for that outing, and, if they were, whether any private use was properly authorised and accounted for.
A family photograph may capture a lovely memory. It doesn’t tell us who paid the bills.
PUBLIC DONATIONS DESERVE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The ‘Pumpkinmobile’ was made possible by the generosity of people who believed they were helping disabled animals. It was funded as a charity vehicle, not a family runaround. CEO Tammie Fox has repeatedly maintained that Pumpkin and Friends Charity and the money-generating Pumpkin The Wheelie Westie Warrior influencer page are two entirely separate operations, insisting that she and Richard Blogg take no money from the charity. But if that separation is so clear, why does the charity-funded ‘Pumpkinmobile’ appear to be used for personal outings and activities associated with the influencer page?
Whether it’s the bright pink van, the Land Rover or the other vehicle apparently available to the household, the same principle applies: charity resources should be used for charity purposes, and any private use should be properly authorised and paid for. We are not suggesting that every journey is improper, but donors deserve to know where charity business ends and personal convenience begins. Until there is greater transparency about vehicle ownership, mileage, fuel and running costs, those questions remain unanswered.
After all, generosity should be a gift to the animals — not a blank cheque for the people running the charity.
We will be examining Pumpkin and Friends Charity’s finances in greater detail in a separate investigation, having already identified a multitude of questions that we believe deserve clear answers. From how donations are spent to the transparency of financial reporting, there is much we intend to scrutinise. We also look forward to the publication of the charity’s annual accounts for the financial year ending April 2026, which may provide further insight into how public donations are being managed and spent.