No Expenses Spared
Andy Burnham's accommodation arrangements in London may well be within the rules as far as MPs' expenses are concerned, but so what because the taxpayer is still being taken for a ride.
The purchase of the second Burnham home was supported with public money between 2005-2012 during which time the property must have increased significantly in value, helped no doubt by an expenses claim of £16,664 for obtaining and renovating the flat.
So why not, as Sir Alistair Graham says, just count your blessings and live in the place instead of charging the taxpayers an extra £17,000 a year for moving into a 'second' second home?
Burnham’s flat costs taxpayer £17,000 a year
By Kevin Dowling - The Sunday Times
Andy Burnham is favourite to succeed Ed Miliband as Labour leader (Bruce Adams)
THE Labour leadership frontrunner Andy Burnham is charging the taxpayer more than £17,000 a year in rent for a “second home” in London — while letting a nearby flat that he already owns.
According to figures from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), Burnham has been receiving £1,449.98 a month since July 2012 to cover the cost of renting a flat in Kennington, southeast London.
However, Burnham, whom Ladbrokes was this weekend quoting as 5-6 favourite to succeed Ed Miliband, also receives rental income from tenants living at his two-bedroom flat in Kilner House, near the Oval cricket ground in Kennington and a short walk from Westminster.
His arrangements are entirely within the rules but Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, suggested that the former health secretary had shown “a lack of judgment”. Burnham, who was elected MP for Leigh in 2001 and insists “any suggestion that he has made money with the help of the public purse is utterly false”, bought the Kilner House flat for £215,000 in 2005. Between May 2010, when Ipsa began publishing details of MPs’ claims, and June 2012, when he moved out, he was claiming up to £750 a month in mortgage interest.
The right of MPs who already owned second homes in London to claim for mortgage interest ceased in August 2012. It was scrapped in the wake of the expenses scandal when it emerged that the taxpayer had in effect bankrolled the purchase of some properties.
Unlike Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Mary Creagh, two of his Labour leadership rivals, chose to remain in the London properties that they already owned, rather than move into rented accommodation when the rules changed and they could no longer claim mortgage interest on expenses.
If Burnham, the favoured leadership candidate of the powerful Unite union, had done likewise, the taxpayer would not have paid almost £17,400 a year in rent.
THE Labour leadership frontrunner Andy Burnham is charging the taxpayer more than £17,000 a year in rent for a “second home” in London — while letting a nearby flat that he already owns.
According to figures from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), Burnham has been receiving £1,449.98 a month since July 2012 to cover the cost of renting a flat in Kennington, southeast London.
However, Burnham, whom Ladbrokes was this weekend quoting as 5-6 favourite to succeed Ed Miliband, also receives rental income from tenants living at his two-bedroom flat in Kilner House, near the Oval cricket ground in Kennington and a short walk from Westminster.
His arrangements are entirely within the rules but Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, suggested that the former health secretary had shown “a lack of judgment”. Burnham, who was elected MP for Leigh in 2001 and insists “any suggestion that he has made money with the help of the public purse is utterly false”, bought the Kilner House flat for £215,000 in 2005. Between May 2010, when Ipsa began publishing details of MPs’ claims, and June 2012, when he moved out, he was claiming up to £750 a month in mortgage interest.
The right of MPs who already owned second homes in London to claim for mortgage interest ceased in August 2012. It was scrapped in the wake of the expenses scandal when it emerged that the taxpayer had in effect bankrolled the purchase of some properties.
Unlike Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Mary Creagh, two of his Labour leadership rivals, chose to remain in the London properties that they already owned, rather than move into rented accommodation when the rules changed and they could no longer claim mortgage interest on expenses.
If Burnham, the favoured leadership candidate of the powerful Unite union, had done likewise, the taxpayer would not have paid almost £17,400 a year in rent.
Burnham lets out his flat in Kilner House, south London
While living at Kilner House from May 2010 to June 2012, Burnham claimed a total of £18,952 for mortgage interest. After moving out of the block of former council properties and into nearby rented accommodation, he has claimed £43,499 in rent up to the end of last year.
A tenant at Burnham’s Kilner House flat last week said she was paying the “going rate” but declined to give the sum. Similar two-bedroom flats at Kilner House have been marketed for rents of between £1,500 and £1,700 a month.
A source close to Burnham said the rental income, which is taxable, was sufficient only to cover the cost of the capital repayment mortgage, letting fee, service charge and maintenance costs.
The source added that Burnham, who invested in the property to create a nest egg for the three children he has with his wife, Marie-France van Heel, had been forced to change his arrangements because of the new Ipsa rules and would rather have remained in Kilner House.
A spokesman said: “Mr Burnham was forced into this arrangement by a change in the rules. He has received no public subsidy in respect of his flat and the rent he receives only covers his costs. If parliament changed the rules, he would return to his own flat. Any suggestion that he has made money with the help of the public purse is utterly false.”
Burnham’s investment in the Kilner House property has been shrewd. According to Zoopla, the property valuation website, it is worth £391,000. An estate agent said this weekend that a two-bedroom property in the block had recently sold for more than its asking price of £410,000.
Burnham is not the only MP who owns a property in London but claims rent for living in another property. According to an analysis by Channel 4 News in March, 46 MPs were charging rent or claiming for the cost of staying in hotels despite owning properties in the capital.
Commenting on Burnham’s living arrangements, Graham said: “I think it’s wrong and shows a lack of judgment in not recognising his first duty is to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is used properly. When he’s got a flat that he could use for staying in London . . . the ethically right thing to do is to use that flat rather than make a further charge on the taxpayer.”
Burnham has previously been criticised for his expenses claims. In 2009, it emerged that, after moving into Kilner House, he submitted a claim for £16,644 for obtaining and renovating the flat, including £1,845 for a new kitchen.
During lengthy negotiations with the fees office, Burnham — who later tried to reclaim the cost of a £19.99 bath robe from Ikea — even joked in a letter in December 2005 that he “might be in line for a divorce” if the expenses were not paid.
Commenting at the time, Burnham said: “I wish to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that I resent any suggestion that I have knowingly misused public funds.” He said the claim for the bath robe had been a “genuine oversight”.
While living at Kilner House from May 2010 to June 2012, Burnham claimed a total of £18,952 for mortgage interest. After moving out of the block of former council properties and into nearby rented accommodation, he has claimed £43,499 in rent up to the end of last year.
A tenant at Burnham’s Kilner House flat last week said she was paying the “going rate” but declined to give the sum. Similar two-bedroom flats at Kilner House have been marketed for rents of between £1,500 and £1,700 a month.
A source close to Burnham said the rental income, which is taxable, was sufficient only to cover the cost of the capital repayment mortgage, letting fee, service charge and maintenance costs.
The source added that Burnham, who invested in the property to create a nest egg for the three children he has with his wife, Marie-France van Heel, had been forced to change his arrangements because of the new Ipsa rules and would rather have remained in Kilner House.
A spokesman said: “Mr Burnham was forced into this arrangement by a change in the rules. He has received no public subsidy in respect of his flat and the rent he receives only covers his costs. If parliament changed the rules, he would return to his own flat. Any suggestion that he has made money with the help of the public purse is utterly false.”
Burnham’s investment in the Kilner House property has been shrewd. According to Zoopla, the property valuation website, it is worth £391,000. An estate agent said this weekend that a two-bedroom property in the block had recently sold for more than its asking price of £410,000.
Burnham is not the only MP who owns a property in London but claims rent for living in another property. According to an analysis by Channel 4 News in March, 46 MPs were charging rent or claiming for the cost of staying in hotels despite owning properties in the capital.
Commenting on Burnham’s living arrangements, Graham said: “I think it’s wrong and shows a lack of judgment in not recognising his first duty is to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is used properly. When he’s got a flat that he could use for staying in London . . . the ethically right thing to do is to use that flat rather than make a further charge on the taxpayer.”
Burnham has previously been criticised for his expenses claims. In 2009, it emerged that, after moving into Kilner House, he submitted a claim for £16,644 for obtaining and renovating the flat, including £1,845 for a new kitchen.
During lengthy negotiations with the fees office, Burnham — who later tried to reclaim the cost of a £19.99 bath robe from Ikea — even joked in a letter in December 2005 that he “might be in line for a divorce” if the expenses were not paid.
Commenting at the time, Burnham said: “I wish to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that I resent any suggestion that I have knowingly misused public funds.” He said the claim for the bath robe had been a “genuine oversight”.
