Appendix 1: Memorandum
submitted by the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Mr Bill Wiggin MP
Complaint against Mr Bill Wiggin MP
Introduction
1. This memorandum reports on my investigation into
a complaint that in 2004-05 and 2005-06, Mr Bill Wiggin, the Member
for North Herefordshire, made fixed monthly claims against the
Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) which were not justified by the
costs he had incurred.
The Complaint
2. On 6 November 2009, Mr Jim Miller of Leominster
wrote to me with his complaint against Mr Wiggin.[33]
Mr Miller alleged that Mr Wiggin had claimed for costs which were
not incurred at his second home in London for the purposes of
his parliamentary duties, and that he had claimed for costs which
he had not actually paid.
3. The complainant sent me redacted copies of all
the Additional Costs Allowance claims made by Mr Wiggin for 2004-05
and 2005-06.[34] He said
that on the 12 monthly claims for the year from 1 April 2005 to
1 April 2006 Mr Wiggin had claimed the following costs:
"Utilities £240
Council Tax £240
Telephone £240
These exact figures are claimed every month for
12 months. They are plainly made-up figures, chosen to avoid the
instruction on the form: 'Please list all items costing £250
or more and include receipts'".
4. In the year 2005-06, the complainant said, Mr
Wiggin had claimed £240 a month for 12 months for council
tax at his London home in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham,
making a yearly claim of £2,880. However the amount Hammersmith
and Fulham Council asked of its highest, Band H, households for
that year had been £2,316. He enclosed a record of the council's
charges for the relevant period.[35]
Moreover, he said that this was Mr Wiggin's second home, subject
to that Council's 10% second home discount, "so the highest
possible figure Mr Wiggin could have been billed for that year
was £2,085, yet he has claimed £2,880. Assuming that
the Fees Office paid Mr Wiggin's claim, he personally received
£795: money he had never actually paid ..."
5. The complainant said that the claims for the other
year he had submitted (2004-05) were slightly less clear cut,
in that 4 months—December 2005, and January, February and
March of 2006—were missing from the MPs' Allowances website.
[36] With the eight
monthly forms that did exist, the complainant said, Mr Wiggin
had claimed £1,896 in council tax. The Band H charge in Hammersmith
and Fulham for that year had been £2,262. However, Hammersmith
and Fulham Council still had a 50% discount on second homes and
so the maximum Mr Wiggin could have been charged was £1,131.
"He has therefore claimed at the very least £765
which he did not owe to that Council. However, if he claimed £240
a month for the currently missing four months—quite likely,
as he did so for every subsequent month in 2006—he actually
over-claimed £1,725."
6. The complainant said that the £2,880 a year
for utilities claimed by Mr Wiggin seemed in his view "very
excessive", and for telephone bills at a second home,
"hugely excessive". He said that Mr Wiggin had
publicly stated that he spent more than half the year at his main,
Herefordshire, home. The complainant said he was sure, for example,
that Mr Wiggin would not claim to have spent the parliamentary
summer recess of 2005 at his second, London home, yet he, Mr Wiggin,
had claimed £240 a month for the months of July, August and
September for phone calls "which simply cannot have been
made. That is £720 in one year alone, a sizeable sum and
in violation of his signed declaration that these are for costs
he has actually paid, and which were necessary in performance
of his parliamentary duties."
Relevant Rules of the House
7. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
provides in paragraph 14 as follows:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."
8. The rules in relation to parliamentary expenses
and allowances relevant at the time in question include those
in the Green Book published in 2003. In the introduction, the
then Speaker wrote:
"Members themselves are responsible for ensuring
that their use of allowances is above reproach. They should seek
advice in cases of doubt and read the Green Book with care. The
Finance and Administration Department is there to relieve Members
of the bulk of the day to day administration of Parliamentary
allowances whilst helping Members to provide the necessary accountability."
9. Section 3 set out the provisions in relation to
claims against the Additional Costs Allowance. Paragraph 3.1.1
set out the scope of the allowance as follows:
"The additional costs allowance (ACA) reimburses
Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred when staying overnight away from their main residence
(referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing
Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred
for purely personal or political purposes."
10. Paragraph 3.2.1 set out eligibility provisions
as follows:
"You can claim ACA if:
a You have stayed overnight away from your only
or main home, and
b This was for the purpose of performing your
Parliamentary duties, and
c You have necessarily incurred additional costs
in so doing, and
d You represent a constituency in outer London
or outside London."
11. Paragraph 3.6.1. set out the documentation to
be supplied by the Member to the Department of Finance and Administration
when making ACA claims, including
"?
Invoices/receipts for all items of expenditure of £250 or
more (except for food)."
12. Paragraph 3.7.2 set out the following on making
a claim:
"If you wish to claim a fixed sum per month
in order to cover council tax, mortgage interest or rental costs,
you may submit a statement of expected expenditure at the beginning
of the allowance year, along with a copy of your latest council
tax statement, mortgage interest statement or rental agreement
as appropriate. Each month we will pay you a fixed sum, which
will not exceed 1/12 of the annual allowance. You must then submit
a statement of actual spend at the end of the year, together with
documentation (as listed in paragraph 3.6.1.) This will mean that
you do not have to submit monthly claims. However, this arrangement
is conditional on your providing the required documentary evidence
at the end of the year. You cannot claim a fixed sum per month
for items other than council tax, mortgage interest or rental
costs."
13. Paragraph 3.11.1 gave examples of allowable expenditure
including:
" Service Charges
. heat
. light
. water
Council tax
- Telecommunication charges".
14. A subsequent edition of the Green Book was published
in April 2005. It contained similar provisions to those set out
above, except that paragraph 3.7.2 of the 2003 rules was not reproduced
in the April 2005 Green Book.
My Inquiries
15. I wrote to Mr Wiggin on 12 November to invite
his comments on the complaint.[37]
I noted that the essence of the complaint was that he had made
claims against his Additional Costs Allowance for utilities, council
tax and telephone costs which were not wholly, exclusively and
necessarily incurred on his parliamentary duties.
16. I asked Mr Wiggin in particular: why he had made
claims for utilities, council tax and telephone at the same rate
of £240 for each month over the financial years 2004-05 and
2005-06; whether he had invoices in support of these claims, and
if so whether he could forward them to me. If he did not have
such invoices, I asked him to let me know how his utility charges
were broken down between each of the utilities. I said I realised
that at this remove he might need to rely on his best estimate.
I also asked him how he had incurred the same telephone costs
for each of the 24 months in question, including during parliamentary
recesses; whether he could provide me with details of his council
tax liability for the second home during the years in question,
whether he had a second home or single person discount for his
council tax and, if not, why not; how on the basis of the complainant's
evidence, he had apparently claimed for council tax in excess
of the maximum charged by Hammersmith and Fulham Council; whether
he had at any time consulted the Department of Resources about
these matters, and, in particular, whether his council tax claims
were subject to the arrangements for claiming fixed sums a month
set out in paragraph 3.7.2 of the 2003 rules. I also asked Mr
Wiggin to forward copies of the claims relating to the period
December 2005 to March 2006 which appeared to be missing from
the parliamentary website.[38]
17. Mr Wiggin replied on 16 November.[39]
He said that he had made claims for utilities, council tax and
telephone "because to the best of my knowledge, these
were what I thought were the right amounts and which fell within
the rules which were also wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred within my parliamentary duties."
18. Mr Wiggin said that he did not have the invoices
which I had requested. However to try to guide me as to how much
he had been spending, he told me his current utility bills were:
Gas £174.00
Electricity £80.00
Water £50
Gas service £25
Total £257[40]
19. Mr Wiggin said that while this was more than
he had claimed in the past, fuel prices had risen while his home
had become more energy efficient. He said that his wife and others
had also used the telephones. His wife had paid the bills and
there was more than one supplier. Mr Wiggin sent me copies of
some telephone bills which he had been able to find from 2004-05.[41]
These showed that in August 2004 the bills were £597, the
bills for November 2004 came to £503, and in February 2005
to £552. "Therefore in order to fall within the rules,
I estimated my usage incurred for parliamentary duties was £240
per month. While I can understand how this estimate could be considered
too high in recesses it is much too low at other times of the
year."
20. Mr Wiggin said that his house in London was in
Band H. He did not receive a discount of any sort for council
tax; he lived with his family and so was not eligible for the
single occupancy discount. Mr Wiggin told me that he could not
claim the second home discount because Hammersmith and Fulham
Council did not allow residents' parking permits for second homes.
21. Mr Wiggin apologised for accidentally submitting
claims for eleven months rather than ten months council tax.[42]
However, he said, these claims had not been paid. He enclosed
a table setting out his council tax claims from 2004-05 to 2008-09,
"demonstrating that although I have put in claims for
more than the total amount, I did not receive from the Fees Office
that amount, indeed I could not because my allowances ran out
before all the claims could be paid." [43]
22. Mr Wiggin said that he had always been willing
to repay any money which he had received in error. However his
mortgage claims were not paid in full either and "any
error on my part in claiming is more than offset against my mortgage
which was unpaid." On the question of consulting the
Department of Resources, Mr Wiggin said he had made mistakes in
the past for which he had apologised. So in 2006 he had asked
the Fees Office to check his ACA and ensure that his claims were
in order. He said that they had done this in 2007.[44]
Mr Wiggin enclosed copies of all his claims between December 2005
and March 2006.[45] He
had made no claims for the same period in the previous year (December
2004 to March 2005).
23. Mr Wiggin also enclosed a series of articles,
one of which had appeared in the Daily Telegraph following
the receipt of my letter by Mr Miller.[46]
Mr Wiggin concluded his letter by saying: "If I have in
any way claimed more than I should, I am very willing to pay back
any money due. However, I do not believe this to be the case and
I hope you will confirm this."
24. On 3 December I wrote to Mr Wiggin, asking him
whether he could explain a little more about how he had arrived
at the figures of £240 a month as being "the right
amounts" for his claims in each of the categories of
utilities, council tax and telephones.[47]
25. I also asked him to provide the same information
for his service/maintenance claims, which were not part of the
complaint, but which were identified on his ACA claim forms, along
with what those claims covered. I asked Mr Wiggin to clarify the
period covered by the figures in his letter for his recent gas,
electricity and water bills. I noted that the telephone bills
for 2004-05 appeared to relate to a public relations consultancy,[48]
and appeared to cover three different telephone lines. I asked
Mr Wiggin to confirm that these were the lines that he had used,
and if they had indeed been shared with a business, how his share
of the usage was calculated.
26. I asked Mr Wiggin for his response to the suggestion
that it was his practice to claim £240 for different categories
of ACA expenditure even when his bills were in excess of that
figure, so that he did not have to produce invoices for each of
his claims. In view of Mr Wiggin's reference to his mortgage payments,
I asked him how much mortgage interest he had paid for the relevant
years 2004-05 and 2005-06; what he had claimed for mortgage interest
in those years and how far these claims were met. In relation
to his council tax, I asked Mr Wiggin to tell me how much council
tax he had been charged for each year covered by the complaint.
I noted that Mr Wiggin believed that he had accidentally claimed
for eleven months rather than ten months, and asked him in which
year this happened, and whether he had claimed a fixed sum each
month for his council tax, with a statement of actual spend at
the end of the year as set out in paragraph 3.7.2 of the Green
Book rules. I noted that Mr Wiggin no longer had the invoices
for his utilities, telephone and council tax charges. But I asked
Mr Wiggin whether it might be possible to provide me with copies
of any of these or other evidence of payments made. I suggested
that these details might be obtained from bank statements or business
records.
27. Mr Wiggin replied on 7 December, saying that
he had nothing further to add to his previous answers to me on
how he had arrived at the figures of £240 a month as being
"the right amounts" for his claims.[49]
He continued, "I respectfully draw your attention to
point 11 of the Procedural Note". This Note, Procedural
Note 3, accompanied my first letter.[50]
Point 11 of the Note includes the following, "The Commissioner
will ask for the Member's response (preferably in writing). What
is asked of the Member is to give a full and truthful account
of the matters which have given rise to the complaint: there is
no question of them being required to prove their innocence."
28. Mr Wiggin told me that the figures he had given
in his letter of 16 November[51]
for his utility bills were monthly, and confirmed that "all
and any" of the phone lines referred to in that letter
were used by him. He explained that the amount expressed on the
spreadsheet he had sent was the amount of council tax which I
had enquired about. Mr Wiggin continued: "I think the
Fees Office would be better placed to explain the ACA claim forms
and this is true for my mortgage payments and receipts too."
29. As to the suggestion that it had been his practice
to claim £240 for different categories of ACA expenditure
even when his bills were in excess of that figure, so that he
did not have to produce invoices for each of his claims, Mr Wiggin
said, "I am sure that is what my constituent wrongly believes.
However I have shown that I have not claimed more than the phone
and utility bills or received more council tax than I should."
Mr Wiggin said that information about his mortgage interest
claims and council tax payments was held by the Fees Office or
was in the public domain.[52]
30. I wrote to Mr Wiggin on 10 December, explaining
that the purpose of my letter of 3 December had been to ask for
information and relevant explanations to assist me in the resolution
of this inquiry.[53]
I noted Mr Wiggin's reference to paragraph 11 of Procedural Note
3 which I had sent him, and said that I was, I believed, acting
within the expectations of that paragraph in asking for his account
of matters which had given rise to the complaint. I said that
I knew that he was ready to cooperate at all stages with my inquiry,
as provided for in the Guide to the Rules at paragraph 110.[54]
31. I said that I would, therefore, take it from
his letter of 16 November that he had arrived at the figures of
£240 a month, even though on occasions the bills came to
more than that, because he considered that that figure was the
right amount, but that he was not able to help me with any more
detailed recollection of why he had come to this conclusion.
I said that I assumed also that he was not able to provide the
documentary evidence I requested about the payments he had actually
made to these suppliers, because he could not obtain this information
from his own records, from the suppliers, or from his bank.
32. Having reviewed the evidence I had received from
Mr Wiggin, I decided that it would be helpful to seek the advice
of the Department of Resources. Accordingly, I wrote on 10 December
to the Director of Operations in the Department.[55]
I asked for his comments on Mr Wiggin's explanation of his decision
to claim £240 a month for utilities (gas, water, electricity),
council tax, telephones, and service/maintenance. I also asked
the Director to let me have any information he held about Mr Wiggin's
mortgage interest claims for the relevant financial years, including
how much mortgage interest he had paid and how much he had claimed
in those years, and to confirm Mr Wiggin's council tax claims,
including the amount of council tax Mr Wiggin had been charged
for each year covered by the complaint, and whether he had lodged
a statement of actual spend at the end of the year, as apparently
required by paragraph 3.7.2 of the Green Book rules at the time.
33. I also asked about any discussions Mr Wiggin
might have had with the Department about the ACA claims he made
for 2004-05 and 2005-06. I noted that Mr Wiggin had said in his
letter to me of 16 November that at his request, the Fees Office
had checked his claims in 2007. And I also pointed out that Mr
Wiggin noted on the spreadsheet which he forwarded with that letter
that £133 from his council tax claim had been set against
his mortgage for 2005-06.
34. On 11 January 2010 the Director of Strategic
Projects at the Department of Resources replied to me on behalf
of the Department.[56]
The Director said that, during 2004-05 and 2005-06, receipts were
required for any item of expenditure greater than £250. Some
Members, he said, had been in the habit of submitting regular
rounded monthly claims at a lower level than £250 because
they had considered that they had spent that amount or more in
total on the service in question in that month. The Director said
that in so doing the Members were certifying that they had incurred
at least that cost in that month for that service.
35. On Mr Wiggin's statement that the amounts he
had claimed were the "right amounts", the Director
said that "If Mr Wiggin means that he incurred costs of
at least £240 per month on the services for which he claimed
£240, then those were indeed 'right' amounts for him
to claim. However, from Mr Wiggin's letter to you of 16 November,
I infer that he may not have incurred telephone charges of £240
during recess months for which he claimed this amount, though,
averaged over the year, his costs would have been £240 per
month. Strictly this was not in accordance with the rules, though
I can understand why he may have thought this acceptable if his
cumulative totals exceeded a monthly £240 average."
36. The Director said that the rules on mortgage
interest and council tax had been slightly different at the time.
Members had been permitted to claim a fixed sum per month in order
to cover these costs. The Director explained that, to benefit
from this, Members had to submit a statement of expected expenditure
at the beginning of the allowance year, along with a copy of their
latest council tax statement or mortgage interest statement, and
to provide statements showing actual spend at the end of the year.
The Director said that each month the Department would pay a fixed
sum, which would not exceed one twelfth of the annual allowance.[57]
37. On council tax, the Director confirmed the figures
which Mr Wiggin had provided to me for the claims he had made
and the amounts he had received. The Department had, however,
no record of what Mr Wiggin had actually paid, and a file note
from 2007 indicated that no such records had been held at the
time. Furthermore, the Director said that Mr Wiggin "should
not have claimed for more council tax than his liability, as he
appears to have done in 2005-06, albeit that the excess of what
was claimed over what was paid was offset against other costs
which he properly incurred."
38. The Director enclosed a table setting out the
amounts claimed by Mr Wiggin on mortgage interest and council
tax during the two financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06.[58]
This showed that he had submitted monthly claims in 2004-05 until
his allowance ran out in November 2005, and in 2005-06 until his
allowance ran out in March 2006. The Department did not have on
file any of the statements required at the beginning and end of
the year, in respect of either of the two years in question.[59]
However, the Director said that a file note from 2007 suggested
that mortgage interest documentation was held at the time, and
that approximate monthly mortgage payments of £500 were being
made. He was unable to confirm the mortgage interest Mr Wiggin
had actually paid.
39. The Director continued: "There is a further
complication: Mr Wiggin nominated his Herefordshire home as his
second home from January 2004 to January 2007 and his claims were
made in respect of that home (except in respect of April 2004:
we do not hold the forms for January to March 2004).[60]
However, following a discussion with Mr Wiggin in January 2007,
the Department accepted that this had been an administrative error,
and that the nomination should have been for his London address
in respect of which the costs were in fact incurred, and in respect
of which the claims should have been made."
40. As to the question of Mr Wiggin's contacts with
the Department about his claims for 2004-05 and 2005-06 under
ACA, the Director said: "We have no records of such contacts,
but this does not mean that they did not occur. You also ask about
Mr Wiggin's request to the Department to check his claims in 2007.
I believe this is a reference to the discussion which led to the
regularisation of his affairs to which I refer in the previous
paragraph."
41. On 14 January I wrote again to the Director of
Strategic Projects.[61]
I asked him to confirm my understanding of the way the Department
operated the rules at the time. I said that my understanding was
that it was allowable for Members to claim up to £250 monthly
on each of their utilities, without producing receipts, provided
they had spent this amount or more on the relevant service that
month. I understood also that Mr Wiggin was in breach of the rules
in apparently claiming during recesses for telephone calls which
he did not make at that time. I asked the Director if he could
confirm my assumption that it would have been open to Mr Wiggin
to have claimed in excess of £250 for his telephone bills
at other times as long as these were supported by invoices and
as long as he had incurred those costs in the performance of his
parliamentary duties. I said that my understanding was that the
Department had no record of any council tax invoice or statement
for the two financial years in question. I asked the Director
to confirm that they would have expected to have retained such
statements on their files. Finally I said I understood that Mr
Wiggin was correct in saying that the Department did not in fact
meet his council tax claim for the eleventh month in 2005-06,[62]
and that, as the Department had no record or knowledge of Mr Wiggin's
council tax bills during this period, it was not possible to say
with certainty how Mr Wiggin's annual payment from the allowance
related to his actual council tax liabilities.
42. I noted that, with the exception of April 2004,
Mr Wiggin's ACA forms from January 2004 to January 2007 had stated
that his claims were for the costs of his Herefordshire home which
he had nominated as his second home. I asked the Director to let
me know why he considered that Mr Wiggin's claims for utilities,
telephone and council tax were made in respect of the costs incurred
on his London property which he had intended to nominate as his
second home; if he had any information he could give me about
how this mistake occurred; who was responsible for the administrative
error he referred to; how it had been resolved; and whether the
Director considered that Mr Wiggin was in breach of the Green
Book rules in making these claims over that period.
43. The Director of Strategic Projects responded
to me on 25 January.[63]
He confirmed that it was allowable for Members to claim up to
£250 monthly on each of their utilities without producing
receipts, provided that they had spent this amount or more on
the relevant service that month. He confirmed my assumption that
it would have been open to Mr Wiggin to claim in excess of £250
for his telephone bills as long as the claim was accompanied by
the telephone company's invoice and as long as the costs had been
incurred in the performance of his parliamentary duties.
44. The Director also confirmed that the Department
had no record of Mr Wiggin's council tax invoices or end-of-year
statements. These should have been retained on file for four years.
The Department could not say whether they had ever been submitted.
The Director added, however, that he now understood that paragraph
3.7.2 of the Green Book at the time had only been applied to Members
who did not submit monthly claims. Mr Wiggin had not been in this
category—he had claimed monthly—and therefore statements
under this paragraph were not in fact expected from him. The Director
said that Mr Wiggin would, however, have been required to produce
annual mortgage statements (and other documentation) required
under paragraph 3.6.1. He confirmed that the Department did not
have on file any mortgage documentation from the two years in
question, although they did hold mortgage documentation in January
2007.
45. The Director said that in 2005-06 Mr Wiggin submitted
claims for council tax every month. However, the Department had
not met his total ACA claim in the twelfth month of that year
because the ACA limit had been reached: he had claimed £2,077
that month but £437 had been paid. The Director said that,
as the Department had no record or knowledge of the council tax
bills which the local authority sent Mr Wiggin during this period
it was not possible to say with certainty how Mr Wiggin's annual
payment from the allowance related to his actual council tax liabilities.
46. The Director commented on Mr Wiggin's apparent
nomination of his Herefordshire property as his main home. He
told me that "A file note indicates that a discrepancy
was noticed between the second home address nominated by Mr Wiggin
(Herefordshire) and the location of the claims which could be
geographically identified (London)." These geographically
identifiable claims had been in respect of mortgage interest and
works. Utility and telephone claims had not been geographically
identifiable. This discrepancy had been discussed with Mr Wiggin
in January 2007 "and the position was rectified."
Mr Wiggin had confirmed the accuracy of his claims in respect
of his London home. "The administrative error was on the
part of the Department in not noticing this discrepancy earlier,
and on the part of Mr Wiggin in not aligning his address with
the claims. In strict terms, Mr Wiggin could be said to have been
in breach of Green Book rules, but the view was taken that his
actions were inadvertent and that the Department's failure to
question those actions had given him security that he was doing
nothing wrong."
47. I wrote to Mr Wiggin on 27 January. [64]
I told him that I had now heard back from the Department of Resources
with their advice. I noted that, according to the Director's letter,
Mr Wiggin might have been making his claims for utilities and
telephone costs on a home, his London home, which he had designated
as his main home. If so, this would appear to have been in breach
of the rules of the House. I also noted that the Department had
no information relating to the amount of council tax Mr Wiggin
had been charged in each of the years in question. I said I was
asking the Department for copies of the relevant nomination and
claim forms.
48. In the meantime, I asked Mr Wiggin for his explanation
of why he had identified his main home as being in London when
he had intended to claim against his ACA for that property; whether
he could provide me with any evidence to substantiate his belief
that his claims for utilities and for telephone bills for 2004-05
and 2005-06 were for his London property; whether he accepted
the council tax figures given by the complainant in the annex
to his letter of 6 November[65]
which, when compared with the figures he himself had provided,[66]
suggested that he had over-claimed on this tax by £133 in
2005-06; and whether the Department was correct in noting that,
for some months at least of the period covered by this complaint,
his claims (for example, for telephone bills) were likely to have
been greater than the amount he had actually incurred that month.
49. I said to Mr Wiggin that I needed this information
because I needed to be able to form a conclusion on whether his
claims were made against his London property (despite his having
nominated that property as his main home) and whether any claims
he had made in 2004-05 and 2005-06 had been greater than the amount
he had in fact been charged in each relevant month.
50. On 28 January I received an e-mail from Mr Wiggin,
in which he said that he had filled in the nomination forms wrongly.
[67] He continued, "I
have always and only claimed for my London house." Mr
Wiggin said that the telephone bills he had submitted to me showed
that address. On council tax, Mr Wiggin told me, "Mr
Miller wrongly accused me of over-claiming several thousand pounds.
I provided you with the correct and accurate figures in my spreadsheet
and while apologising for over-claiming £133 it is clear
from the letters from the Department that I did not get the money."[68]
51. Mr Wiggin also confirmed that the Department
was incorrect in suggesting that, for some months at least of
the period covered by this complaint, his claims (for example,
for telephone bills) were likely to have been greater than the
amount he had actually incurred that month.[69]
Mr Wiggin concluded his email by stating: "In [the
27 January letter] you asked if I have claimed greater amounts
than I spent and the answer is no."[70]
52. The Director of Strategic Projects at the Department
of Resources wrote to me on 28 January,[71]
enclosing Mr Wiggin's ACA nomination forms for July 2003, January
2004 and January 2007, together with his ACA claim forms for April
2004 to March 2006.[72]
These confirmed Mr Wiggin's ACA claims as summarised in the schedule
the Department had sent me.[73]
They showed that Mr Wiggin had nominated his London property as
his second home in July 2003, his Herefordshire property as his
second home in January 2004 and his London property as his second
home in January 2007.
53. The Director also enclosed a copy of a letter
which Mr Wiggin had sent to an official in the Department, together
with his January 2007 ACA nomination form.[74]
In the 2007 letter Mr Wiggin told the official: "Following
our discussion it is clear that I should have filled this [the
form] out earlier as my mortgage is on [the London property]
and not on my [Herefordshire] home. I am sorry and realise
that I cannot claim mileage for travel in London."
54. I decided that I needed further information from
the Department. On 2 February, therefore, I sent the Director
of Strategic Projects a copy of my letter to Mr Wiggin of 27 January
and his e-mail response of the following day.[75]
I noted that the Director had included with the forms he had sent
me on 28 January a copy of a letter from Mr Wiggin which the Department
had received on 12 January 2007 about his ACA nomination forms.
This referred to a discussion with House officials. I asked whether
there was any record of that discussion. I also asked the Director
whether he could throw any light on the words in Mr Wiggin's letter
of January 2007: "... it is clear that I should have filled
this out earlier as my mortgage is on [the London property]".
55. I noted that on the second page of the ACA claim
forms for October and November 2004, the address of Mr Wiggin's
second home had twice been changed in manuscript, and it appeared
that the mortgage claim had been disallowed. I asked the Director
about the circumstances in which those changes had been made,
whether they were made by officials or the Member, and whether
there had been any discussions with the Member at that stage about
his nomination. I asked whether, in the Director's view, the statement
in Mr Wiggin's letter of 12 January 2007, together with the alterations
made to the ACA claim forms of October and November 2004, could
be taken as evidence to suggest that in these months at least
Mr Wiggin had made claims or intended to make claims for his Herefordshire
home.
56. The Director replied to me on 15 February.[76]
He told me that the only correspondence between Mr Wiggin and
the Department about his nominated main or second homes which
the Department had on file was the letter received by the Department
on 12 January 2007.[77]
The Department also held a file note from January 2007 which partially
recorded discussions with Mr Wiggin on this matter, drew inferences
from those discussions, and recorded actions taken and to be taken.
The Director confirmed my analysis of the identification of his
second homes made by Mr Wiggin between July 2003 and January 2007.
He said that he believed that the Department had identified the
official who had dealt with the October and November 2004 claim
forms. However the Director said that the official could not be
sure of what had happened six years previously.
57. The Director said that, on the back of his October
2004 claim form, Mr Wiggin had given his London address as his
second home and added "unchanged". Given that
in his earlier claims Mr Wiggin had entered his constituency address,
which was the address on his most recent nomination form, "the
official believes that he [the official] manually crossed
through the London address and entered the constituency address.
We do not know whether or not Mr Wiggin was consulted about this
change."
58. The Director went on to say that the recollection
of the official who processed the claims was that the mortgage
amount of £576 for October 2004 was crossed through by him
(or a colleague) because there had been uncertainty over how much
money remained in the budget. "This was compounded by
the fact the two claims had been submitted at the same time".
Although the amount was crossed through, the full amount of
mortgage interest had, in fact, been paid as part of a total payment
of £2,036.
59. On the back of the November 2004 claim form,
the Director said, Mr Wiggin had entered both the London and constituency
addresses, further adding "unchanged". As with
the October claim, the official believed that he had manually
amended the address on the form. "The reason for the alterations
to the front of the form is unclear. I cannot confirm for certain
whether or not Mr Wiggin was consulted about these changes, though
the official concerned believes that, if he made the alterations,
he would have been."
60. On the question of whether Mr Wiggin's letter
of 12 January 2007 and the alterations referred to could suggest
that he had been intending to make claims against his Herefordshire
home, the Director said: "I do not think that this inference
can be drawn. The alterations to the amounts do not seem to me
to give any reason for such a conclusion. The alterations to the
addresses, so far as they were made with Mr Wiggin's agreement
or by him, tend to confirm the view that he continued to confuse
his designations of second and main homes. Evidence which corroborates
the view that claims made for these months were for the London
property is that the amounts claimed for mortgage interest in
October and November 2004 were identical to [the] mortgage
interest claim made in September 2004."
61. On 18 February I responded to the Director of
Strategic Projects, asking him to let me have sight of the Department's
file note of January 2007 recording discussions with Mr Wiggin
about his second home designation.[78]
I also asked the Director for a fuller explanation of the process
by which Mr Wiggin's over-claim of £133 in his council tax
claim for 2005-06 had been offset against other costs—according
to Mr Wiggin, his mortgage interest. I asked whether this was
the normal practice in the Department at the time the action was
taken, and whether it had been suggested by the Department or
by Mr Wiggin.
62. The Director of Strategic Projects replied to
me on 23 February.[79]
He told me the note had been written by two officials of the Department
(one responsible for the original typescript; the other for some
manuscript additions). The Director said the Department had not
known at the time that Mr Wiggin was claiming more in respect
of council tax than he had expended. However, the Department had
been aware that his annual ACA would have been exceeded by his
March claim. The Department had therefore allowed Mr Wiggin the
total sum remaining to him for that month, but had not determined
the services to which that amount should be applied. The Director
said that £133 was not, therefore, offset against Mr Wiggin's
mortgage claims. But he emphasised that "Mr Wiggin was
not paid any more than he was entitled to have received."
63. The Director said that the process described
was one for which the Department was responsible and that Mr Wiggin
was very unlikely to have been informed of anything other than
the total payable. Had Mr Wiggin made the Department aware that
his claim for council tax was greater than the amount he actually
paid, the Department would have looked at his total claims and
would have determined that the amount he was over-claiming was
offset by the significantly greater difference between his legitimate
claims for March 2006 and the amount of the allowance remaining
to him. The Director continued: "In these circumstances,
for the convenience of all concerned, it would not have been the
practice to ask a Member to refund an overpayment and then to
pay the same amount to the Member."
64. The Director enclosed the file note which I had
requested.[80] The typescript
part of the note was dated 12 January 2007. It said that Mr Wiggin
had had his main home registered as London and his second home
in the constituency. All the Department's records reflected this.
The note then continued, "However, all ACA documentation
(mortgage interest statements etc) relate to his London address.
Although this appears to have been on file for a number of years,
the discrepancy has not been noticed until recently." The
note said that Mr Wiggin had given the impression that he had
applied the ACA rule "in a fairly cavalier manner"
and that he believed that as he used both homes on an equal
basis, he could, in effect, "claim for both of them".[81]
The note also said that there were some items on Mr Wiggin's
claim forms, such as food, utilities and council tax, for which
no documentation had been provided and which totalled around £1,500
a month. The official said that there could be no guarantee that
the additional costs claimed all related to Mr Wiggin's London
home.
65. On 25 January 2007 a manuscript note had been
added to the typescript file note. It recorded that another official
in the Department had spoken to Mr Wiggin. The note said that
Mr Wiggin was paying off his mortgage early and that the official
had explained to Mr Wiggin that his claims must exclude any additional
payments. It said that Mr Wiggin's interest claim for October,
November and December would be reduced to match his building society
statements. The note said that Mr Wiggin had confirmed that all
other expenditure claimed was accurate and represented the minimum
sums he had paid each month.
66. Meanwhile, I had written to Mr Wiggin on 18 February
to let him know that the Department had sent me the relevant ACA
nomination and claim forms,[82]
and that I was asking them for a copy of the file note of January
2007 and for a little more information about the process for off-setting
his council tax over-claim in 2005-06 against his mortgage interest
costs. I also enclosed a note summarising the facts as I understood
them.[83]
67. I wrote again to Mr Wiggin on 3 March, enclosing
a copy of the Department's response of 23 February, together with
a copy of the file note from January 2007.[84]
I noted the Department's explanation that Mr Wiggin's over-claim
for council tax in 2005-06 was deemed to have been offset by his
other, legitimate claims.
68. Mr Wiggin wrote to me on 4 March (before he had
received my letter of the previous day),[85]
responding to the statement of facts I had sent him with my letter
of 18 February.[86] He
said, "Given that it is possible such a document will
find its way into the public domain and given the proximity of
the General Election I hope you will accept some additions so
that you can proceed with your report." He said that
fortunately there were some points on which he had been able to
add to assist me. He also sent me his two water bills for the
years 2008-09 and 2009-10.[87]
These were for annual totals of £386 and £402 respectively.
69. Mr Wiggin enclosed with his letter his amended
version of my statement of facts of 18 February.[88]
The statement summarised the facts as Mr Wiggin understood them,
and amended my earlier statement. In this statement Mr Wiggin
said that, in 2004-05, according to the rules, he was not expected
to produce receipts or records for claims below £250. His
claims of £240 were below the maximum allowable without receipts.
He was not challenged at any time on what he claimed and six years
later it was hard to find evidence which was not required at the
time.
70. In relation to his designation of his London
home as his main home on his ACA1 nomination form of January 2004
and each month in his ACA2 claim form throughout the period of
my inquiry, Mr Wiggin said that this had been recognised in 2006
and corrected. This was a "form filling mistake"
which gave him no financial benefit. He added that, in 2006-07,
he had asked the Fees Office to ensure that he had not taken any
money to which he was not entitled. He said that this was done.[89]
He had apologised for his "form filling error".
All the money claimed was spent on his London house and his [building
society] mortgage.
71. Mr Wiggin said that six years ago he was not
required to produce utility bills and so had not kept helpful
records. The sort of corroboratory evidence which might assist
in this enquiry was simply not available. He gave the following
information on property maintenance. He said that he was entitled
to claim for electricians or plumbers who did work on electrical
or plumbing incidents, leaks, heating repairs, gas repairs, etc.
There was a burglar alarm and similar items which required maintenance.
He believed such repairs were "both worthwhile and sensible".
Major jobs which required a receipt were reported and were shown
in the records.[90] He
did not have records for items under £250. Mr Wiggin carried
out some maintenance jobs himself and would have been entitled
to claim items such as paint, wall filler and materials for ensuring
repairs were done.
72. Mr Wiggin said that he had stated that he had
not claimed for more than the sums necessary to meet his telephone
and utility bills or received more payment for his council tax
than necessary to cover his costs. He said that his claims
for utilities (in 2004-05 and 2005-06) were significantly less
than he currently paid which included gas services (£25 per
month), water (£402 per annum), gas (£174 per month)
and electricity (£80 per month) and accurately reflected
what he believed he was charged six years ago.
73. Mr Wiggin said that the amount he claimed for
telephone bills was £240. He was able to find some telephone
bills from that period which showed monthly figures of £597,
£503 and £552, "a great deal more than the amount
claimed". Because his wife also used the telephone for
her business Mr Wiggin estimated his usage and did not vary it.
It would have been "deceptive" to have varied
the amount and while the figures could have been altered to reflect
recesses this would have been as difficult to justify as altering
the amount. As it was impossible to give exact figures, Mr Wiggin
claimed what he believed was "the right amount".
74. Mr Wiggin said that his council tax bill for
his Band H property was £2,263 in 2004-05 and £2,316
in 2005-06. He claimed no discounts.
75. On 10 March I wrote to Mr Wiggin, noting that,
in reviewing the statement of facts, he had provided additional
information which I would treat as evidence for my inquiry.[91]
I noted that Mr Wiggin had provided me with information about
his property maintenance claims, and asked him if he could confirm
the implication of the final sentence in his paragraph on property
maintenance, which was that he did not claim for the materials
for the maintenance jobs which he had carried out himself.
76. I said that I thought I now had a clear enough
understanding of the circumstances of his claims to give him the
opportunity to respond briefly to the principal points which had
been raised during the inquiry. I asked him: whether he accepted
that he was in breach of the rules of the House in identifying
his London home as his main home when he made claims for that
property against his Additional Costs Allowance; whether he accepted
that the reason that he decided that £240 was the right amount
to claim for each of these items was because it avoided him having
to keep or submit receipts for this expenditure; whether he accepted
that it was not possible at that remove and in the absence of
receipts to say for certain whether his expenditure on utilities,
telephone and property maintenance in each case exceeded the £240
which he had claimed each month for each item; whether he accepted
that his telephone usage did not come to £240 a month in
the recesses (some four months of the year), although he believed
that it exceeded that sum in other months, thus evening it out
over the 12 month period; and whether he accepted that he should
have reduced his utility, council tax and maintenance claims (as
well as his claims for telephone bills) to take account of the
apparent use of the London property by Wiggin Public Relations—and
if not, why not.
77. I said I was putting these points to Mr Wiggin
not to suggest that I had myself come to a conclusion, but because
I needed to be clear whether or not he accepted that he was in
breach of the rules in respect to any of the allegations which
had arisen from this inquiry.
78. The complainant wrote to me again on 23 March,
before Mr Wiggin had responded to my letter.[92]
He explained that he wished to make a complaint against Mr Wiggin
"for claiming money from the parliamentary Fees Office
to which he was not entitled. These claims were not for monies
actually paid as the rules require, and were not wholly and necessarily
incurred in pursuit of his parliamentary duties as the rules also
require."
79. The complainant said that the complaint related
specifically to 29 monthly claims made for "utilities"
in the three years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. In these years,
he said, Mr Wiggin had habitually claimed £240 a month for
utilities. The complainant said that "This figure is clearly
not the true amount of his utilities bills for those months: he
has claimed this figure in order to benefit from the parliamentary
rule which requires no receipts be provided for any claim less
than £250."
80. The complainant said that in 2004-05 Mr Wiggin
made the claim of £240 a month for eight months, in 2005-06
he made the £240 claim for twelve months, and in 2006-07
he made the £240 claim for the first nine months. The complainant
attached with his letter a printout taken from the parliamentary
website of what he said were typical months from each of these
years,[93] and from April
2007. The complainant said that the first time that Mr Wiggin
actually itemised what he "really paid for utilities"
was in the first few months of 2007-08.
81. The complainant said that Mr Wiggin specified
the following costs in the first of those claims:
Gas £72
Electricity £47
Water £30
Total utilities £149.
82. The complainant commented, "I have no
reason not to believe these were the true amounts Mr Wiggin was
paying per month for his utilities at his second home. Now it
is of course likely that Mr Wiggin's utilities bills in years
previous to 2007-08 would have been somewhat less than this (gas,
electricity and water charges do tend to rise over time!) My own
belief is that the best thing Mr Wiggin could do would be to hand
his Additional Costs claims and all his utilities bills to an
auditor who might then assess exactly how much he has over-claimed
by."
83. But, the complainant said, it was easy to calculate
the very least Mr Wiggin had over-claimed by. On the assumption
that Mr Wiggin's utilities bills did not increase over these three
years, and instead assuming that he was charged £149 per
month for utilities, as he was in 2007-08, the minimum discrepancy
could be calculated. Summarising his calculations, he said that
Mr Wiggin had in the three years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07
"claimed at least £2,647 more for utilities than
he was entitled to. Since the rules require that expenses are
only claimed for monies paid, and Mr Wiggin was never asked by
the utilities companies to pay this excess of £2,647, I hope
you will understand why I am requesting you to instruct Mr Wiggin
to pay this sum back."
84. I replied to the complainant on 30 March.[94]
I noted that his letter appeared to seek to extend my inquiry
to 2006-07. I told the complainant that I did not propose to
extend my inquiry beyond the two years covered in his original
complaint, because I thought that it would be right for me to
conclude my work on that complaint without the inevitable delay
which would occur if I were to extend it into further years. I
told the complainant that his letter did however compare Mr Wiggin's
claims for 2007-08 to his claims for earlier years. Since that
might be relevant to my current inquiry, I was copying his letter
to Mr Wiggin for his comments.
85. The complainant wrote to me again on 31 March.[95]
He said that he wished to amend his complaint about Mr Wiggin's
utilities claims to cover just 2004-05 and 2005-06. He said that
in these twenty months (four months were missing from the MPs'
allowances website) Mr Wiggin had claimed £4,800 for utilities.
He said that if Mr Wiggin had claimed for the actual bills as
he revealed them to be in 2007 (not £240 a month but £149)
he would have claimed, at most, £2,974. He said that his
complaint was that Mr Wiggin had therefore over-claimed at least
£1,826 in the period concerned.
86. The complainant also observed that in 2008-09
Mr Wiggin made "absolutely no claim for telephone costs.
This is in fact honest and correct as the amount of calls made
on parliamentary duty at one's second home and out of parliamentary
hours must be negligible." He said he hoped the fact
that Mr Wiggin had now honestly ceased to claim telephone costs
at his second home reinforced his (the complainant's) original
complaint that he had been wrong in 2004-2006 to claim £4,800
for this.
87. Meanwhile, Mr Wiggin had written to me on 25
March in response to my letter of 10 March.[96]
He accepted what he described as my "conclusion"
that due to offsetting he had not "benefited from [his]
error on council tax." Mr Wiggin said that he
was not in breach of the rules. His main home had always been
in Herefordshire and his second home on which he claimed the ACA
had always been in London. "This has not changed from
2001 to the present day. No claims have ever been made for Herefordshire
at any time, on anything. All mortgage statements and my receipts
support this. All claims were made on my house in London."
88. Mr Wiggin described as "a smear"
the suggestion that he decided that £240 was the right amount
to claim for each of these items was because it avoided his having
to keep or submit receipts for this expenditure. "The
rules were clear and were not broken. I did not claim the maximum
amount. I did not seek to alter amounts or to deceive."
Mr Wiggin said that it was "clear from the telephone bills
which [he] had been able to find and from the utility bills
which [he was] currently paying" that his expenditure
on these items exceeded £240 per month. He said that he
did not accept that his claims for telephone usage should have
been altered: "Just as any good MP should, of course,
I love to spend as much time as possible in my constituency however
it is not always possible to stay there for every recess day.
I still have to return to London during recesses and so it would
not have been accurate to alter the bills. You might also note
that recesses do not fit exactly within calendar or billing months
therefore to alter the amounts accurately could be misconstrued
as deception."
89. Mr Wiggin said that he did not accept that he
should have reduced his utility, council tax and maintenance claims,
as well as his claims for telephone bills, to take account of
the apparent use of the London property by Wiggin Public Relations.
He said that his wife's professional activity was on the telephone.
The temperature, council tax, water usage and electricity were
not in any way affected by her work. "However it is still
clear ... that my bills are higher than the amount I claimed.
When my wife was not on the telephone at home she would have been
looking after my baby daughter. There is no possible taxpayer
contribution towards my wife's business."
90. Mr Wiggin then provided a number of comments
on the statement of facts which I had attached to my letter of
18 February.[97] He asked
me to withdraw my comment that he had "apparently"
made ACA claims against his London home as he had "not
claimed for any other house." He said "apparently"
was a word which created doubt. In my statement I had said that
he had retained no evidence of his utility costs and had not responded
to my suggestion that he could seek it from the utility companies
or his bank. Mr Wiggin said, "I do not have the sort of
detail which you ask for from my bank or utility company."
I had also said that he had declined to give information
on claims for property maintenance and services. Mr Wiggin said
that he had provided more information on maintenance, and
had been helpful.
91. In my statement I had said that there was no
direct evidence to support his utility claims. Mr Wiggin observed
that that he had found some water bills which he had sent to me.
He said I was wrong to say that he believed that his telephone
costs did not come to £240 a month during recess, commenting
"I did not say that my bills were less during recess."
In answer to my point that he did not appear to have taken any
account of the use of his home by Wiggin Public Relations in his
claims for utilities and council tax (or for service and maintenance),
Mr Wiggin said the only relevant cost was the telephone bill
which he had taken into account in making his ACA claims.
92. Mr Wiggin told me that "While you ask
me to draw no conclusions from your comment that you are minded
to write a report for the committee. I confess my thought is that
you are now seeking to justify your inquiry. Because I feel that
this is a very one sided attack on me, through you, by my political
opponent." Mr Wiggin said that "Despite all the
tricky questions I have not broken the rules, the spirit of the
rules, Nolan principles or taken money to which I was not entitled.
I have apologised for my administration and I therefore hope that
you will dismiss this inquiry."
93. I wrote again to Mr Wiggin on 30 March.[98]
I said that I should make clear that I had myself come to no
conclusion on this matter and would not do so until I had completed
work on the factual sections of my memorandum to the Committee.
I had not, therefore, come to any conclusions about his council
tax claims. I said that it was for me to judge whether I should
prepare a draft memorandum for the Committee on any particular
matter, and I assured Mr Wiggin that that my decision had nothing
to do with any need to justify the inquiry itself, or with the
identity of the complainant. The statement in my letter of 3 March
was intended to be a statement of the facts as I understood them:
Mr Wiggin's over-claim was deemed (by the Department) to have
been offset by his other legitimate claims. I said I would need
to come to a view on that decision. I said I would take account
of Mr Wiggin's comments on the original statement of facts which
I had sent him on 18 February in preparing the factual sections
of my draft memorandum.
94. I asked Mr Wiggin to clarify two of the points
he made in relation to his telephone bills. First, he had said
in his letter of 25 March, "I did not say that my bills
were less during recess."[99]
I said that I had some difficulty in reconciling this with
Mr Wiggin's letter of 16 November, where he said, "While
I can understand how this estimate could be considered too high
in recesses it is much too low at other times of the year."[100]
I asked Mr Wiggin therefore to confirm whether he believed
that his telephone usage for parliamentary purposes amounted to
£240 each month during all recesses in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Secondly, I noted that in his letter of 25 March Mr Wiggin said
that the temperature, council tax, water usage and electricity
were not in any way affected by his wife's work; when not on the
telephone at home, she would have been looking after their baby
daughter. In his letter of 16 November, however, Mr Wiggin had
said that his wife "and others" also used the
phones. If there had been others in Mr Wiggin's home using the
phones, I said that it could follow that they—and therefore
the business—benefited from the various services on which
he had made his claims. I noted that Mr Wiggin had said that he
believed he had taken full account of the company's telephone
usage in making his claims for the telephone bill and I said I
would need to come to a conclusion on that. I said that it would
appear from Mr Wiggin's evidence that he took no account of the
business's other usage of utilities—council tax and maintenance
and services—and, if so, I would need also to come to a
conclusion on that.
95. I also enclosed a copy of the letter of 23 March
which I had received from the complainant.[101]
I said that he had identified evidence from Mr Wiggin's later
claims which could be relevant to the levels on which he had made
his claims for the previous two years. In particular, I asked
Mr Wiggin why his monthly claims for utility bills (which appeared
to be for £149 a month from April to August 2007, followed
by £150 un-itemised for two months, and £240 for two
further months) were, in all but the final two cases, lower than
the monthly claims of £240 he had submitted for utilities
in 2004-05 and 2005-06. I also asked him to explain why his 2007-08
claims for telephone and telecommunications charges (which, from
April to December 2007, were for between £50 and £200
a month) appeared to be significantly less than the monthly claims
for £240 which he had put in for these items in 2004-05 and
2005-06.
96. Having first informed the complainant that I
was doing so, I wrote again to Mr Wiggin on 6 April, enclosing
my letter to the complainant of 30 March and his letter to me
of 31 March.[102] I
noted that the complainant had also compared Mr Wiggin's claims
for telephone bills in 2004-05 and 2005-06 with the claims he
made in 2008-09. According to the complainant, Mr Wiggin had made
no claims for telephone calls from his London home that year.
I asked Mr Wiggin to comment on this comparison.
97. After Parliament was dissolved on 12 April, I
reviewed all the evidence I had received. I noted that Mr Wiggin's
claims for council tax in 2005-06 might not have taken sufficient
account of the Dissolution of Parliament for the General Election
of May 2005. Members were not able to claim against their Additional
Costs Allowance for costs incurred during the Dissolution period.
I therefore wrote to the Director of Strategic Projects at the
Department of Resources on 15 April.[103]
I said that it seemed to me that Mr Wiggin's calculation of his
over-claim in 2005-06 did not take account of the effect on his
claims of the Dissolution period in the first two months of that
year. Taking this into account, I said it would seem to me that
the over-claim was £368. I attached a table showing my calculations,[104]
which I had based on the figures which Mr Wiggin had sent me with
his letter of 16 November. I asked the Director whether he agreed
with this recalculation and, if so, whether it was his view that
Mr Wiggin had legitimate unmet claims of at least £368 for
2005-06.
98. The Director of Strategic Projects replied to
me on 28 April.[105]
He confirmed that Members were not entitled to claim ACA for the
period of Dissolution up to and including polling day. Entitlement
recommenced on the day after polling day.
99. The Director said that, having done his own calculations,
the total council tax claimable by Mr Wiggin for 2005-06 should
have been reduced by 24/365, to £2,164. This meant that Mr
Wiggin had claimed an excess of £716 and had been paid an
excess of £285. He also pointed out that Mr Wiggin's March
2006 ACA claim of £2,077 had not been met in full. Only £437
was paid. £1,639 had not been paid. "So even allowing
for the increased over-claim for council tax, Mr Wiggin's legitimate
costs still exceeded the maximum of the allowance." The
Director said that he therefore believed that all the arguments
presented in his letter of 23rd February[106]
still stood, but that the figure of £285 should be substituted
for the figure of £133 in that letter.
100. I wrote again to the Director on 4 May,[107]
seeking clarification of one further point. I asked the Director
to provide me with the basis on which he had formed the assessment
that Mr Wiggin's "legitimate costs" still exceeded
the maximum of the allowance in 2005-06. Given the absence of
documentation to support Mr Wiggin's claims, I asked the Director
to identify how he had established that in 2005-06 at least £285
of Mr Wiggin's claims which exceeded his allowances could otherwise
have been met.
101. The Director of Strategic Projects replied to
me on 6 May.[108]
He said that all Mr Wiggin's claims in the last month of 2005-06
(except for council tax and food) had been below the level at
which receipts were required. The Director said that these would
therefore have been regarded as legitimate claims. The claim for
food did not require receipts but did not exceed the level permitted.
The Director said that again, this would have been regarded as
legitimate. These claims had amounted to £1,510 and were
what he had referred to as "legitimate costs". He
said that he did not intend the adjective "legitimate"
to presuppose any finding which the Committee might make about
whether Mr Wiggin did, in fact, incur the costs for which he claimed.
102. Following the General Election, Mr Wiggin wrote
to me on 10 May, replying to points I had made in my letter of
30 March.[109] He said
he believed that his telephone bills had been £240 throughout
the year irrespective of the recess. "That is why I claimed
this amount. I can understand why Mr Miller
[the complainant] would want you to
think otherwise but I think he is wrong."
103. Next, Mr Wiggin said that he noted that I was
concerned that "[his] wife's fledgling business might
have had some sort of financial advantage from the taxpayer."
He said that he really did not think that was possible "given
that we are talking about three telephone lines one of which is
used for the burglar alarm and fax machine. When I meant 'others'
I meant that we had a nanny who may also have used the phone.
I guess that you might have been worried that there were huge
numbers of staff which sadly there were not. I am very sorry if
I misled you with any such delusions of grandeur. My wife started
her little business from home and I cannot imagine how I could
have charged her any meaningful amount for our council tax. It
is my wife who is allowed to live in our home, not some large
multinational firm." He said that the same was true
for maintenance and service. If there had been any sort of financial
benefit to his wife's business like the telephone bill then he
would have made deductions in the same way.
104. Mr Wiggin said he had read the complainant's
letters which seemed "to focus on mathematical amounts
rather than providing any new evidence of any error."
Mr Wiggin said that the complainant's further complaint seemed
to depend on the assumption that he (Mr Wiggin) should claim more
in later months, although "this does not actually need
to happen as the allowances are fixed amounts." Mr Wiggin
said he was now paying considerably more than £240, which
he said meant that he should perhaps have claimed larger amounts
in the previous periods. The same was true for telephone bills.
"The Nolan principles suggest that under claiming is preferable.
I am certain that I have under claimed a great deal in the later
years. I know that I cannot now claim the difference because the
years are closed and the full amount of the allowance was used
in each year ... I am sure you will confirm that I am not in the
wrong by claiming too little?"
105. I wrote to Mr Wiggin on 18 May.[110]
I noted that in the complainant's letters of 23 March[111]
and 31 March[112] he
made comparisons between Mr Wiggin's utility claims for 2004-05
and 2005-06 and those for the first few months of 2007-08. I said
the complainant had pointed out that some of these claims for
utilities in 2007-08 were itemised. I noted that the parliamentary
webpages showed that in 2007-08, in each of the months in which
Mr Wiggin's utility costs were itemised, he had claimed a total
of £149 for utilities (gas, electricity, water), and that
his claims were supported by an annual bill of £366 for his
water charges, which divided by twelve gave a monthly charge for
water of £30, the figure which appeared on five of Mr Wiggin's
monthly bills. I said that the webpages also showed that in 2008-09
Mr Wiggin's claims for utilities increased to £203 in each
month in which they were supported by evidence of his direct debit
charges and that they were supported by the invoice for his gas
and electricity charges for August 2008 to February 2009.
106. I noted that the complainant believed that it
was likely that Mr Wiggin's utility bills for 2004-05 and 2005-06
were less than his later bills. I said that, in the light of the
evidence, it might be difficult to reconcile the detail of these
later utility claims with Mr Wiggin's suggestion that he had under-claimed
in these years (2007-08 and 2008-09) at least for utilities.
In relation to Mr Wiggin's telephone bills, I said I noted from
his letter of 10 May[113]
that one of his telephone lines—presumably one of his business
lines—was used for a burglar alarm and fax machine. I asked
him whether that fax machine had been used for his wife's business
as well as any parliamentary duties, and if so, broadly what had
been the split between the two.
107. I also attached copies of relevant correspondence
with the Department of Resources.[114]
I noted that the Department had recalculated the council tax due
to Mr Wiggin in 2005-06. This was because his original calculations,
set out in the table which he had sent me with his letter of 16
November,[115] had
not taken account of the fact that he was not entitled to reimbursement
of council tax incurred during the Dissolution of the House in
2005. I said that the Department now believed that in 2005-06
the amount of Mr Wiggin's over-claim had been £716, and that
he had been overpaid by £285 for council tax incurred in
that year.
108. Mr Wiggin replied to me in an e-mail on 26 May.[116]
On the question of his bills, he said that he still believed that
his later bills were too low. His direct debit payments had always
been drawn on estimated usage. He was currently paying £329
through direct debits for his utilities.[117]
"Even though my house is more energy efficient than it
previously was, this sum exceeds the previous £240 per month
I was claiming in the months you have questioned following Mr
Miller's letters to you."
109. On the use of his telephone line for faxes,
he said that he did not remember nearly seven years later what
faxes were sent or received. Mr Wiggin noted that the council
tax figures had been checked again although he had already apologised
for inadvertently over claiming. "Having seen your own
difficulties with the calculations it would seem that the amount
I received is still less than a single mortgage payment which
I forwent due to the allowance having been used up."
His mortgage interest payment for March 2006 had been £567,
far exceeding the £285 figure which it now appeared he had
over-claimed and had been inadvertently over-paid in respect of
the council tax element of his ACA. He said that the Department
"accepts that any over-payment inadvertently received
in respect of council tax claims offsets other legitimate claims
made by me which were reduced due to the ACA running out."
110. Furthermore, having looked at a sample of claims
made by other Members of Parliament, he said that over-claiming
due to the Dissolution period appeared to have happened inadvertently
to other colleagues "but not in all circumstances have
the amounts been automatically adjusted by the Fees Office."
111. Finally, in preparing the factual sections of
my memorandum, I drew up a table summarising the ACA claims which
Mr Wiggin had made, and the sums he received for 2004-05 and 2005-06
for utilities, telephone, service/maintenance and council tax.[118]
I sent this to Mr Wiggin on 16 June.
Findings of Fact
112. Mr Wiggin has a home in his constituency and
a home in London. From January 2004 he made Additional Costs Allowance
claims for council tax and telephone, utilities, service and maintenance
costs, as well as other items, including mortgage interest.
113. In July 2003 Mr Wiggin had identified his London
home as being his second home. In January 2004 he changed his
second home designation to his constituency home. He did not change
it back again to the London home until January 2007. The change
in January 2007 followed a discussion with the Department of Resources,
who had noticed that Mr Wiggin's main home address for his ACA
claims did not match the documentation provided with those claims.
Mr Wiggin had identified his constituency home as his second home
each month in his ACA claim form throughout the period from May
2004 to December 2006, except for October and November 2004 where
the London address had been entered and crossed out. Mr Wiggin's
evidence, however, is that all his claims against the ACA related
to the costs of his London home.
114. Mr Wiggin's council tax bill for his Band H
property in London was £2,263 in 2004-05 and £2,316
in 2005-06. He claimed no discounts. Mr Wiggin made seven monthly
council tax claims of £240 for 2004-05 (and one for £217
in the eighth month, when the budget ran out). He therefore received
£1,897. He made 12 monthly claims of £240 in 2005-06,
one month of which was not met because the ACA budget had run
out, and so received £2,449.[119]
Taking account of the Dissolution, during which Members were not
permitted to claim, in 2005-06 Mr Wiggin over-claimed for council
tax by £716 and was overpaid by £285.
115. The telephone bills for Mr Wiggin's London home
were in the name of Wiggin Public Relations. There were three
lines. They were also used by his wife in the course of her business.
Mr Wiggin estimated that his share of the use of the telephone
amounted to £240 a month. He claimed £240 each month
for seven months in 2004-05 and so received £1,680. He claimed
£240 each month for 12 months in 2005-06. After a reduction
to take account of the Dissolution period, he received £2,449.[120]
In respect of these claims, Mr Wiggin has provided six telephone
bills showing monthly costs of £503, £552 and £597
in three months of 2004-05.
116. Mr Wiggin made seven monthly claims of £240
for his utility bills in 2004-05 (and one for £176 in the
eighth month, when the budget ran out). As a result, he received
£1,856. He made 12 monthly claims of £240 in 2005-06.
After a reduction to take account of the Dissolution period, he
received £2,449. [121]
There is no direct evidence of the size of the utility bills which
he incurred, but his itemised claims in 2007-08 show that in that
year his combined monthly standing order charges for gas, water
and electricity were £149. In 2008-09 his monthly claims
for utilities were £203 in each month in which they were
supported by evidence of his direct debit charges, and in November
2009 they were £304.[122]
Mr Wiggin's published claims show that his annual water bill for
2007-08 was £366, and he himself provided his water bills
for 2008-09 and 2009-10, which amounted respectively to £386
and £402 a year (giving a monthly charge of £30.50,
£32 and £33.50 in each of these three years).
117. Mr Wiggin claimed a monthly sum of £240
under the heading of service and maintenance for six months in
2004-05 and for 12 months in 2005-06. In 2004-05 he received £1,440
(in addition to reimbursement for major works, for which he claimed
£4,458). After a reduction to take account of the Dissolution
period, he received £2,449 in 2005-06.[123]
118. The Department of Resources says that there
was an administrative error on Mr Wiggin's part in not aligning
his second home designation with his claims from January 2004
to December 2006, and on the part of the Department in not noticing
the discrepancy earlier. The Department's view is that, while
in strict terms Mr Wiggin could be said to have been in breach
of Green Book rules, his actions were inadvertent and the Department's
failure to question those actions had given him security that
he was doing nothing wrong. In January 2007, however, an official
of the Department said that Mr Wiggin had given the impression
that he had applied the ACA rule in a "fairly cavalier
manner ..."
119. The Department accepts that Mr Wiggin was paid
£285 more than his council tax bills in 2005-06, and that
he should not have over-claimed by £716 for his council tax
liability in that year. Nevertheless, they note that in March
2006 Mr Wiggin made a number of claims for other items which were
not met because he had already exceeded his allowance. On the
assumption that these were legitimate claims, they consider that
his overpayment for council tax should be deemed to have been
offset by these other unmet claims. In respect of his telephone
calls, the Department considers that Mr Wiggin may not have incurred
telephone charges of £240 a month during recesses, but notes
that Mr Wiggin might have thought this acceptable if the annualised
bill exceeded an average of £240 a month.
120. Mr Wiggin has said that the mistaken designation
of his constituency home as his second home from January 2004
to January 2007 and on his claim forms from May 2004 to December
2006 was a "form-filling error" which gave him
no financial benefit: all his claims were on his London home.
Mr Wiggin does not consider that his error reveals a "cavalier
manner" in applying the ACA rules, as suggested by an
official at the time. His view is that he at no time claimed for
more than the costs he had incurred in accordance with his parliamentary
duties (except inadvertently in 2005-06 for council tax). Members
were not required to provide receipts or invoices for claims,
such as his, which came below the monthly threshold of £250.
He has not retained and cannot now find all these receipts. On
council tax, he apologises for his over-claim in 2005-06, but
notes the Department's view that the amount he was over-paid should
be offset against his unmet claims. He did not apply for any council
tax discount because he was not eligible for a single occupancy
discount and needed a resident's parking permit which the council
did not allow for second homes.
121. On his telephone claims, Mr Wiggin considers
that his use amounted to at least £240 a month, including
in the recesses. His wife's use in the course of her business
was extra. Mr Wiggin's evidence is that the business made no other
use of the home and so Mr Wiggin considers that there should be
no suggestion of parliamentary allowances benefiting his wife's
business. He believes that it would have been deceptive to have
varied the amounts he claimed. On utilities, Mr Wiggin notes that
his bills are currently above the £240 a month he charged
in 2004-05 and 2005-06, despite steps taken by him to use energy
more economically. He believes his later claims were too low.
On service and maintenance, Mr Wiggin notes that he was entitled
to claim for the work of electricians and plumbers, including
dealing with incidents at the home: the repairs were "worthwhile
and sensible".
122. Mr Wiggin's case is that he claimed the right
amounts. He believes his bills were higher than the amounts he
claimed and that he should not be penalised for this.
Conclusions
123. The principal issue I am to resolve is whether,
over the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06, Mr Wiggin acted
within the rules in claiming routinely £240 a month from
his Additional Costs Allowance for a range of services. That amount
was just £10 below the limit established by the Department
for claims not backed by invoices or receipts.
124. If Mr Wiggin made these claims when his actual
costs were in fact less than £240 a month, or they were not
incurred as a result of his parliamentary duties, then Mr Wiggin
was in breach of the rules.
125. There is an ancillary question about whether
Mr Wiggin was in breach of the rules for designating his London
property as his main home from January 2004 to January 2007 while
continuing to claim parliamentary allowances for that home.
126. I consider, therefore, the following questions:
1. Was it permissible between 2004 and 2006 for
Members to claim £240 a month for a range of services without
producing invoices or receipts if their actual costs were above
that level?
2. Were Mr Wiggin's claims justified by the expenditure
he actually incurred?
3. Did Mr Wiggin wrongly designate his London
home as his main home from January 2004 to January 2007?
127. I address each of these questions in turn.
Was it permissible between 2004 and 2006 for Members
to claim £240 a month for a range of services without producing
invoices or receipts if their actual costs were above that level?
128. The Green Book rules in force at the time stated
that invoices or receipts must be provided for all items of expenditure
of £250 or more. This was repeated on the forms which Members
completed and signed in order to make the claims.
129. It follows that Members were not required to
produce invoice or receipts for items of less than £250.
And that was the arrangement followed by Members and the House
authorities at the time.
130. This arrangement was clearly unsatisfactory.
That has subsequently been pointed out by many others and the
House itself stopped the practice from April 2008. After then
any claims over £25 had to be backed by invoices. The consequences
of the former arrangement are well illustrated by this inquiry.
It allowed the Member the choice of claiming the full amount with
invoices where the sum exceeded £250, or claiming less than
£250 even when the actual costs were higher and so being
relieved of the obligation of justifying their claims. As a result,
substantial sums of money were claimed and paid to Mr Wiggin without
any invoices being produced and therefore without Mr Wiggin being
required at the time to demonstrate the validity of his claims.
And it has meant that neither the House authorities nor Mr Wiggin
has evidence of the costs Mr Wiggin incurred for most of these
services.
131. A Departmental official at the time noted that
Mr Wiggin had what he described as a "fairly cavalier"
manner towards the ACA rules. Whether or not that was true at
the time, I consider that there have been remnants of that attitude
in the information he has given in my inquiry. It is disappointing
that Mr Wiggin did not make a greater effort to identify what
he actually paid for the various services for which he claimed,
neither from the telephone or utility companies nor from his bank.
132. Nor has Mr Wiggin explained why he decided to
claim routinely £240 a month for a range of items, other
than saying that he thought they were "the right amounts".
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mr Wiggin was influenced
in that decision by the fact that he was not required to produce
invoices for claims at that level.
133. It would not be right for me, however, to find
that Mr Wiggin was in breach of the rules of the House solely
because he pitched his claims at £240 a month and, in so
doing, did not produce—as he did not need to produce—invoices
or receipts. That was allowed at the time. Many Members apparently
did the same. There was no requirement that, if the actual bills
were higher, the Member had to claim the full amount and so produce
the invoice/receipt. While the rules were, in my judgement, far
too lax, it would be wrong to hold that Mr Wiggin was at the time
in breach of the rules in adopting this approach. My conclusion,
therefore, is that, provided the costs claimed were actually incurred,
Mr Wiggin did not breach the rules in routinely claiming £240
a month for some services without presenting invoices or receipts
for those services, even if the actual costs were above that amount.
134. But routine monthly claims of £240 would
only be justified if the actual expenditure Mr Wiggin incurred
as a result of his parliamentary duties was at least at this level
in each of the months for which he claimed. And it is to that
question I now turn.
Were Mr Wiggin's claims justified by the expenditure
he actually incurred?
135. Other than for council tax, it is not possible
for me to give a definitive answer to the question of whether
Mr Wiggin actually incurred the costs he routinely claimed (£240
a month each for utilities, telephone, and service and maintenance).
Mr Wiggin has provided very little evidence to substantiate his
claims. There is some strength in his argument that he did not
expect to be asked for invoices or receipts (since the rules at
the time did not require them) and it is now some years after
the event. I suggested that Mr Wiggin check with his service providers
and his bank to see whether any relevant records existed. He chose
not to do so. And the calculations are complicated because of
the Dissolution of Parliament in 2005 for the General Election
and because Mr Wiggin's overall claims regularly exceeded his
ACA ceiling, so they could not all be met. But the significantly
lower level of similar claims for utilities which he made in the
calendar year 2007 does provide some circumstantial evidence against
which to judge the higher claims in the previous years.
136. Taking account of the limited and largely circumstantial
evidence available, I have had to form a judgement on the balance
of probabilities of whether it is more likely than not that Mr
Wiggin actually incurred the costs for which he claimed for each
of the relevant items. My conclusions are as follows:
1. Council tax. Mr Wiggin has noted that he
was not eligible for a single person discount on his council tax
and decided that he would not claim a second home discount since
he needed the resident's parking permit which he could not get
if he claimed that discount. The rule did not require a Member
to claim any available discount and I consider that Mr Wiggin
was not in breach of the rules in deciding, with reason, not to
do so. Taking the year 2004-05 as a whole, Mr Wiggin claimed less
than his full council tax bill, mainly because he did not claim
for the last four months as he had already exceeded his ACA budget
for the year. But there is no doubt that Mr Wiggin over-claimed
on his council tax bill for 2005-06. The over-claim was £716.
But £431 of this was not met. So he was over-paid by £285.
And the Department have pointed out that other claims could have
been met had the budget allowed, so this overpayment could be
set against those. I accept that it is reasonable to conclude
that, had he not been overpaid by £285 for council tax, that
sum could have been used to meet some of Mr Wiggin's unmet claims
for March 2006. This provides some reassurance that Mr Wiggin
did not benefit overall from his council tax over-claims. But
it does not, in my view, detract from the fact that the result
of Mr Wiggin routinely claiming £240 a month for council
tax whenever he considered the ACA budget would allow it, meant
that he received £285 more for this item than he should have
done. He was, therefore, in my judgement, in breach of the rules
in receiving this amount for his council tax in 2005-06. I therefore
uphold this part of the complaint.
2. Utilities. Mr Wiggin claimed a total of
£1,856 for his utility costs in 2004-05, and £2,880
in 2005-06. Mr Wiggin has told me that in November 2009 his monthly
utility costs were £329 (or £304 if gas services are
excluded). That is above—but in my view not markedly above—the
£240 he claimed for seven months in 2004-05 and twelve months
in 2005-06: some three to five years earlier. And £240 a
month was significantly more than the £149 he claimed in
2007 for each of the five months in which he itemised his bills.
I accept that Mr Wiggin, like others, may well have been able
to use his energy more economically in more recent years. But
I find it hard to accept that such savings would not have been
more than offset by the marked increase in utility costs in the
last five years. On the balance of probabilities, I find that
it is more likely than not that Mr Wiggin's actual utility costs
in 2005-06 were less than the £2,449 he received that year
(after a reduction to take account of the Dissolution period).
On balance, I do not make the same finding for 2004-05, when he
received £1,856: there is insufficient evidence to suggest
that that was excessive. I therefore uphold this part of the complaint
for the £2,449 Mr Wiggin received for his utilities bills
in 2005-06, but not in 2004-05.
3. Telephone/telecommunication costs. Mr Wiggin
claimed £240 a month for seven months in 2004-05 (a total
of £1,680 over the year) and £240 a month for each of
the 12 months in 2005-06 (a total of £2,880). Mr Wiggin
had three telephone lines to his home and shared them with a business
run by his wife, Wiggin Public Relations. Mr Wiggin's evidence
is that his wife conducted that business on the telephone. The
three lines coming into the home were therefore used both by Mr
Wiggin and by Wiggin Public Relations. It would have made much
more sense for there to have been separate lines separately billed
and charged. I accept that the total telephone bill for the property
was considerably higher than £240 a month. But £240
is a lot to spend on a home telephone in a month. And Mr Wiggin
would not have been there for substantial periods—he would
have spent a considerable amount of time in his main home in his
constituency, particularly in the recesses. And, when Parliament
was sitting, he would have been in the House. I therefore find
it hard to accept that Mr Wiggin's telephone costs when staying
in his London home on parliamentary duties reached £240 each
month. I am reinforced in this conclusion by the considerably
lower telephone claims Mr Wiggin made in 2007-08, when he claimed
for five months at £190, two months at £75, one month
at £60 and one month at £50. He made no claims at all
in 2008-09. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, I find
that Mr Wiggin's domestic telephone bills were more likely than
not to have cost less than £240 in each of the 19 months
in which he claimed at that level. Even on an annual basis, based
on the balance of probabilities, I find it more likely than not
that the total bill claimable from parliamentary expenses would
not have come to the £1,680 Mr Wiggin received in 2004-05,
or the £2,449 he received (after a reduction to take account
of the Dissolution period) in 2005-06. I therefore uphold this
part of the complaint.
I have no reason to doubt Mr Wiggin's evidence that
his wife made no significant use of the property, other than its
telephone, in respect of her business. I make no finding of breach,
therefore, in respect of the other claims which Mr Wiggin made
which took no account of his wife's business. This was not a matter
raised by the complainant.
4. Service and maintenance. This claim was
not specifically identified by the complainant. But it was the
only other regular £240 a month claim made by Mr Wiggin in
2004-05 and 2005-06. In 2004-05, he claimed and received £240
a month for six months (a total of £1,440), in addition to
some major items for which he claimed a total of £4,458.
In 2005-06 he claimed £240 a month for each of the 12 months.
He received, after a reduction to take account of the Dissolution
period, £2,449 in total. I considered that the questions
this raised were the same as the questions raised by the complainant
in respect of the expenditure he had identified. I thought it
right and fair, therefore, that it should be considered alongside
them. Mr Wiggin has told me that he was "entitled"
to claim for electricians and plumbers, for maintenance for the
burglar alarm and "similar items", and that he
would have been entitled to claims for DIY materials. But, on
the balance of probabilities, and without further evidence, I
find it hard to accept, even given London rates, that the costs
of such incidental and routine maintenance could—and should—have
come every month to at least £240. That in my judgement is
not credible, particularly as major items were claimed for separately.
On the balance of probabilities, therefore, I find that Mr Wiggin's
service and maintenance bills were more likely than not to have
cost less than the £1,440 he received on 2004-05 and the
£2,449 he received in 2005-06.
Did Mr Wiggin wrongly designate his London home
as his main home from January 2004 to January 2007?
137. The evidence is that Mr Wiggin's designation
of his main home during this period was handled by him in a chaotic
way. His evidence is that he always intended that his constituency
property should be treated as his main home for allowance purposes,
allowing him to claim for his London property as his second home.
Nevertheless, in January 2004 he designated his constituency property
as his second home on the nominations form (ACA1). That designation
lasted three years. Formally, over that period, Mr Wiggin should
not have been claiming for his London home; any claims should
have been for his constituency property. Mr Wiggin's monthly claim
forms (ACA2) were also a muddle. Most showed the constituency
address as his second home, but the London address was sometimes
entered. The Department continued to assume that the claim was
for the constituency home. Nevertheless, I accept Mr Wiggin's
evidence that he continued to claim throughout this period for
the costs of his overnight stays in his London home. He did not
intend to switch his claims to his constituency home in that period
and I have no evidence that he did so.
138. My conclusion, therefore, is that Mr Wiggin
was in breach of the rules of the House in wrongly designating
his London home as his main home from January 2004 to January
2007. This was a careless—but repeated—mistake on
his part. He did not intend to switch his designation or to move
his claims from his London home to his constituency home; and
there is no evidence that he did so. This did not form part of
the matters raised by the complainant.
Overall Conclusions
139. My overall conclusion, therefore, is that Mr
Wiggin was not in breach of the rules at the time in claiming
£240 a month for items of expenditure for which, as a result,
he did not need to provide invoices or receipts. But I have concluded
that he was, on the balance of probabilities, in breach of the
rules in receiving payments as a result of his routine monthly
claims which I consider were more likely than not to have been
in excess of his actual expenditure. The excessive payments he
received were for service and maintenance and for telephones in
2004-05 and 2005-06, and for council tax and utilities in 2005-06
only. Mr Wiggin was also in breach of the rules of the House for
mistakenly designating his London home as his main home from January
2004 to January 2007 when he intended it to continue to be his
second home for allowance purposes.
140. Mr Wiggin's designation of his London home as
his main home appears to have been an unfortunate and unintended
muddle. The Department accepts that they should have picked up
the error much earlier and should have identified the problem
with the Member. That is a strong mitigating factor. But I consider
the rest of Mr Wiggin's breaches to have been serious. This is
because his claims for some items were, on the balance of probabilities,
above the costs he was reasonably likely actually to have incurred.
I consider that, even by the standards of the time, the way Mr
Wiggin handled his claims was not acceptable since a too casual
approach led to him making some excessive claims for his second
home costs in 2004-05 and 2005-06. In my judgement, these claims
could not be justified by what was likely to have been the actual
expenditure he necessarily incurred in support of his parliamentary
duties. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mr Wiggin
believed that he was entitled to receive the full ACA allowance
each year, and submitted his claims accordingly, without always
checking that each monthly claim was justified by the expenditure
he had actually incurred in each category.
1 July 2010 John Lyon CB
33 WE 1 Back
34
Not included in the written evidence. Back
35
WE 2 Back
36
Presumably December 2004 and January, February and March 2005.
Mr Wiggin's evidence is that he made no claims for these months
(see paragraph 22). Back
37
WE 3 Back
38
See footnote 4. Back
39
WE 4 Back
40
Actually £329, including gas services. Mr Wiggin has informed
me that this was a typing error. Back
41
Not included in the written evidence. Back
42
The Director of Strategic Projects later said that Mr Wiggin had
claimed for 12 months in 2005-06, although he had not been paid
for the twelfth month. See WE 13. Back
43
Reproduced for 2004-05 and 2005-06 at WE 5. Back
44
The Director of Strategic Projects later said that he believed
that this was a reference to a discussion which the Department
had with Mr Wiggin in January 2007 about his nomination of his
Herefordshire home as his second home and which led to the regularisation
of his affairs. See WE 10. Back
45
Not included in the written evidence. Back
46
Articles not included in the written evidence. Back
47
WE 6 Back
48
Wiggin Public Relations Back
49
WE 7 Back
50
WE 3 Back
51
WE 4 Back
52
In his letters of 11 and 25 January (WE 10 and WE 13), the Director
of Strategic Projects said that the Department did not hold mortgage
interest statements from Mr Wiggin, although a file note from
2007 suggested that mortgage interest documentation was held at
the time. A file note from 2007 indicated that no records on council
tax were held at the time. They were therefore unable to confirm
the amounts Mr Wiggin actually paid on mortgage interest or council
tax. Back
53
WE 8 Back
54
"The Code of Conduct together with The Guide to the Rules
Relating to the Conduct of Members", 23 June 2009 HC 735
provides at paragraph 110: "It is a requirement of the
Code of Conduct that Members cooperate at all stages with any
inquiry by the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Commissioner
into their conduct. It is also a requirement that Members do not
lobby members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges or
the Commissioner in a manner calculated to influence their consideration
of complaints." Back
55
WE 9 Back
56
WE 10 Back
57
The Director subsequently explained in his letter of 25 January
(WE 13) that, under this arrangement, Members did not need to
submit monthly claims for these items, provided the documentation
was in place. He said that Mr Wiggin was not in this category
because he claimed monthly. His letter ought not to have implied,
therefore, that these statements were required of him. The Director
said that Mr Wiggin would still have been required to provide
annual mortgage statements. He said that the Department did not
have such documentation on file for the years in question, although
they had held mortgage documentation in January 2007. Back
58
WE 10 Back
59
See note 25 above. Back
60
Mr Wiggin's last claim under his Herefordshire nomination was
in December 2006. Back
61
WE 12 Back
62
The Director confirmed in his letter of 25 January (WE 13) that
the Department had not met Mr Wiggin's council tax claims for
the twelfth month of 2005-06. Back
63
WE 13 Back
64
WE 14 Back
65
WE 2 Back
66
WE 5 Back
67
WE 15 Back
68
The Director of Strategic Projects said in his letter to me of
23 February (WE 22) that the Department did not know at the time
that Mr Wiggin was claiming more in respect of council tax than
he had expended. However, they were aware that his annual allowance
would have been exceeded by his March claims and, therefore, allowed
him the total remaining to him for that month, but did not determine
the services to which that amount should be applied. Back
69
Mr Wiggin subsequently confirmed that he intended to say that
he had not claimed more in any month than the amounts he had incurred:
his one-word answer to my question on this should therefore have
been "No", not "Yes". Back
70
WE 14 Back
71
Not included in the written evidence. Back
72
Not included in the written evidence Back
73
WE 11 Back
74
WE 16 Back
75
WE 17, 14, 15 Back
76
WE 18 Back
77
WE 16 Back
78
WE 19 Back
79
WE 22 Back
80
WE 23 Back
81
In commenting on 28 June 2010 on the factual sections of this
draft memorandum, Mr Wiggin told me, 'I believe that it was actually
the National Audit Office who picked up my error and that this
quote is being used to defend the Fees Office who failed to spot
my error. It is a personal comment about me from a file note
which I feel is being given more weight than it deserves.' Back
82
WE 20 Back
83
WE 21 Back
84
WE 24, 22, 23 Back
85
WE 25 Back
86
WE 20, 21 Back
87
Not included in the written evidence. Back
88
WE 26 Back
89
In his letter of 11 January (WE10) the Director of Strategic Projects
said that this appeared to be a reference to the discussion which
the Department had with Mr Wiggin in January 2007 about his nomination
of his Herefordshire home as his second home and which led to
the regularisation of his affairs. Back
90
See WE 42, first footnote. The cost of this work claimed for in
May 2004 was £4,458. Back
91
WE 27 Back
92
WE 28 Back
93
Not included in the written evidence Back
94
WE 29 Back
95
WE 30 Back
96
WE 31 Back
97
WE 20, 21 Back
98
WE 32 Back
99
WE 31 Back
100
WE 4 Back
101
WE 28 Back
102
WE 34, 29, 30 Back
103
WE 35 Back
104
Not included in the written evidence. Back
105
WE 36 Back
106
WE 22 Back
107
WE 37 Back
108
WE 38 Back
109
WE 39, 27 Back
110
WE 40 Back
111
WE 28 Back
112
WE 30 Back
113
WE 39 Back
114
WE 35, 36, 37, 38 Back
115
WE 4, 5 Back
116
WE 41 Back
117
Excluding gas services, the figure was £304: see WE 4 Back
118
WE 42 Back
119
WE 42 Back
120
WE 42 Back
121
WE 42 Back
122
£304 excludes charges for gas services, which Mr Wiggin claimed
under another heading in 2008-09. Back
123
WE 42 Back
| 
