Bill Wiggin - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents


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

  • Utilities

.  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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 14 October 2010