- The former Home Secretary claimed that a room at her sister's house was her main residence and her home with her husband was her second home.
- This meant she could claim second home allowance for her more expensive home and receive over £100 000 more than she would otherwise have done.
- When the issue was raised she insisted that she spent more time at her sister's house so she was right to designate it as her primary residence.
- However it turned out that the records of the police protection officers demonstrated that this was completely untrue.
I must be missing something because it would be preposterous to let someone keep money that they had no right to.
3 comments:
Is it because Parliament is different? I have to admit to not following any of this very closely, but it seems to me that in normal jobs it would also be impossible to change the rules on what amount of expenses one can claim going back in time a number of years?
But she did have the right to that money - that's the blood problem!
LfaT- If she had the right to the money then why did she need to claim something that was untrue?
Matthew- I assume that the retroactive changes in the rules probably aren't legal, but any politician who challenges them will lose their seat. I don't expect any politician who loses office next year will actually pay back anything.
Post a Comment