Tags
account, code, commissioner, conduct, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, harrop fold, house, inquiry, Interest, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, Parliamentary, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Vox Political
Is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards going to let Osborne get away with using taxpayers’ money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits? Only you can make him think again. It seems clear that if he committed fraud he should be jailed.
Efforts to find out exactly why George Osborne was allowed to make up to £1 million by using taxpayers’ money to pay mortgage interest on three properties in Cheshire, while fraudulently claiming he needed it to pay expenses for his use of just one of them for Parliamentary duties, appear to have run into difficulty.
I received this letter from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards:
“Thank you for your letter… to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.
“I hope it will be helpful if I explain the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach of both the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House only if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry.
“Your letter suggests that criminal conduct may have occurred. Any allegations of criminal behaviour would be a matter for the police, not for the Commissioner, and I note that you have reported this matter to them. Any police investigation would take precedence over the Commissioner’s inquiries.”
That’s not good enough, is it?
It makes no mention of what the commissioner is doing about the complaint and merely runs over ground that has been covered already, via email.
I decided to try again, as follows:
“Thank you for your letter… regarding my complaint.
“I notice that you do not mention anywhere in your reply whether the commissioner is going to investigate this matter or not. However you do, helpfully, state that the commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach “if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry”.
“You will know that a previous inquiry was made into the status of Mr Osborne’s former property in Cheshire after concern was raised about his claim for expenses regarding Parliamentary duties he allegedly carried out at a house there.
“This is a separate complaint.
“As you will know from my previous letter, Mr Osborne claimed expenses, not only for the house but for two other land titles which were also part of his mortgage. These pieces of land could not have anything to do with his Parliamentary business and yet his claim included them. Therefore, his claim was fraudulent – he was stating that it was for one thing – Parliamentary duties – when in fact it was for another – to pay off, at the taxpayers’ expense, a mortgage he had taken out for a considerable amount of money. We have subsequently discovered that Mr Osborne has sold all three properties for an amount that could be more than double the price he originally paid for them – up to £1 million – and kept the entire amount. I have provided ample evidence to support the above statements.
“This is a scandalous matter. A member of the Cabinet – the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no less! – diverting taxpayers’ money under false pretences in order to gain a pecuniary advantage of up to £1 million. And at a time when millions of people are having to make the choice between staying warm and eating!
“It may interest you to know that many right-thinking citizens of the UK are also scandalised by this matter and wish to see it resolved and justice done. Articles I have written have attracted the support of around 5,000 readers and they all want to know what will be done about this. I appreciate that, in the context of a nation of 60 million people, 5,000 is not a great number. However you should bear in mind that I occupy only a very small corner of the UK’s media. If my platform had been more high-profile, you can be assured that many more people would be calling for justice in this matter.
“You also refer to the fact that I have reported this matter to the police. This is true. But I must inform you that I received a strange telephone call from the Metropolitan Police, stating that they could not investigate the matter directly as an investigation was already in progress, being handled by others. They declined to explain what they meant. Can you tell me what they meant? I wrote to my MP, seeking clarification, but he has not yet responded.
“Taken as a whole, and writing as a right-thinking person myself, I have to wonder whether attempts are being made to obscure this matter – cover it up, hide it away. Your letter is a case in point. Why do you not tell me outright what the commissioner has decided?
“It all seems very suspicious to me.”
Does anyone feel like supporting this complaint? Just email standardscommissioner@parliament.uk and say you are aware a complaint has been made about George Osborne’s expenses claims for the property in Cheshire he recently sold, and that you wish to know when the inquiry will be set up and how matters are progressing. If enough people shout about it, maybe they’ll shift.
Mike Sivier's blog 
We need to get a paper to run with this, do you know Sonia Poulton it’s possible that she would do it. Government needs reeling in from all directions, they think they are above the law and can treat us however they want to – major changes need to be make.
Agreed it would be very supportive if we could get one of the national papers to go with this fraud.There clearly has been a mis-use of public funds& no one is above the law.The man needs to be forced to come clean & take the damage on the chin…if he is man enough.It would be jail if it was against a benefit claimant..
Have Private Eye cottoned onto this one yet? They may not have the coverage of a national daily but they aren’t in the Tory pocket,do tend to persevere on issues like this and have a good circulation figure.
I sent an email to the standards commissioner, I will keep you informed of any response.
Have written. Will pass on reply – if any!
Great! If anyone has read this – but hasn’t emailed the commissioner’s office – please do!
And if you’re one of those pessimists who’s refusing to do it because “It won’t make any difference”, just remember that, if it doesn’t make any difference, YOU’re the reason!
I have sent off an e-mail as per your suggestion. I trust others have. I’ll put a link together on my FB page.
Not a pessimist – shall do.Is there a link ready?
Yes – it’s at the end of the article.
I have sent an email and will let you know the outcome.! Keep up the great work, you give me and mine a bit of hope! Still waiting for the letter from ATOS to drop through the door… am dreading it!
I would be very inclined to contact Ian Hislop at Private eye as Joan suggests–dont be fobbed of——-PI can not be bought off!
Ian Hislop ‘may’ not be “in the Tory pocket” but he IS in the ‘establishment pocket’. His recent appearance on H.I.G.N.F.Y, with Roger Moore, when he trashed any idea that ‘COMMON PURPOSE’ were an organisation not to be trusted.
I have emailed to enquire about the apparent lack of activity and clarity of the commissioner’s office. I have just sent it also enquiring about any criminal investigation and expanantion on the part of the commissioner. It does seem there is considerable reluctance to show any urgency in an investigation, as well as offering us with a reasonable justification of the commissioners office responsibilities.
I’ve emailed too…
http://www.parliament.uk/pcs, states “The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards deals with the application of the Code of Conduct and related Rules that apply to Members of Parliament. This includes the registration of financial interests held by MPs and the investigation of complaints about MPs who have allegedly breached the Code of Conduct or related Rules”
Very suspicious that despite what their own website says, they are trying to fob you off and pass the buck. Another Tory cover up.
I would just like to point out that European legislation is not a solution.
I’ve emailed ccing to my MP! Will wait and see x
I have not followed this issue too closely. If Osbourne had bought just the house, and not the paddock (and 2nd piece of land?) would his claims for mortgage support have been any less than was paid to him? It seems to me there is only an issue if his purchase of additional land was unnecessary (i.e. not part of an overall deal, and thus optional) and,secondly, this led to additional expense for the tax payer. If someone bought a property with additionall adjoining or nearby land as an add on, and chose to role that into a single mortgage for practical reasons, that in itself does not seem unreasonable. Clearly the question then is whether this optional decision led to more money being paid out by the taxpayer. Is there clear evidence that not purchasing the paddock would have reduced his expenses claim – or was the mortgage interest payment significantly higher than his expenses claim anyway?.
I raise these points not to be critical, but so I can understand whether there is any basis for rejecting your allegations, that is defensible. I suppose my initial view is that the press would have taken this forward if they saw a case to answer (unless we believe they are all in the pockets of the Government).
My understanding is, he bought the house and two other titles, and mortgaged them all together. Because they were all separate titles, they would all have had price tags attached. His expenses claim covered the mortgage interest in full – in other words, the payment for all three titles. His claim stated that the money was ONLY to cover his use of the farmhouse, for Parliamentary duties. Therefore, it seems to me, he was lying about the purpose of the payments as they would have covered the interest costs on the other two titles as well (I’m being careful about my language for legal reasons). It is not unreasonable to roll three titles into a single mortgage for practical reasons, but Parliamentary rules mean that MPs must not claim for anything that is not used for the purposes of fulfilling their duties. Obviously a paddock has nothing to do with an MP’s duties and we know nothng of the other piece of land.
I have messaged the Standards Commissioner.
I have emailed, and shared your article on Facebook. I’m intigued to see what reply will come, if any.
They’re quite good at responding, in fact! I’m looking forward to seeing what happens. As I write this, I know that at least 62 people have emailed them (based on clickthroughs from the article). At least one person is writing a snail-mail letter and others may have chosen different ways to get in touch. So they may be a little snowed-under but they’ll probably get back to you at some point.
I don’t mind waiting if they are snowed under, I shall take that as a positive sign!
Email sent, more people need to switch off Big Brother and do something to make a difference. I’m ashamed of the majority of people I know for their disinterest in the real world and preference for fakeality TV.
Welcome to the minority, Melanie!
Yes Melanie !!–I’m fighting the Gov on welfare right now and it’s like raising the dead trying to get some interest–what the hell is wrong with people !! People have even blocked me from Facebook,
Amusing… I have the exact sRE: Fraud
Hide Details
From
Standards Commissioner
To
‘fionacollins@rocketmail.com’
Dear Ms Collins,
Thank you for your e-mail of 16 January to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.
The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.
I hope it will be helpful if I explain how the Commissioner works. Before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.
Any questions of criminal conduct would be a matter for the police, not for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It would be for the police to comment on any complaint that has been made to them.
Yours sincerely,
Heather Wood
Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests
ame bog standard email too!
I agree with you Melanie, more people should get involved, especially our youth! My teenage daughter is interested, and her friends are more than willing to share their feelings and grievances about the way they are treated and what we are all leaving them! My problem with this fraud case is that our youth are being bashed, and accused about being criminals, but our so called government are a bunch of thieving and lying criminals! IDS [might as well be] a murderer, Cameron a Nazi, Osborne a thief… the list is endless… so what to tell the kids eh?
I just edited you a little bit to prevent us both getting libel writs!
The problem with motivating young people is they find it very hard to see how anything they do can make a difference, and nobody wants to point the way because it isn’t in their interests to do it! I say: Just get involved. Go to meetings, read up on the Internet, and then open your mouths and voice your opinions. They are as valid as anybody else’s, from the highest expert to the humblest observer and they will make a difference.
Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL JOURNAL.
Reblogged this on kickingthecat and commented:
The continuing stench of corruption. At least “Banana republics” have sunny weather. and cheaper bananas….
I have emailed parliament as requested and urged my Facebook friends to do likewise. I truly hope this greedy man is held to account for his hypocrisy!
This is the reply I got:
Thank you for your e-mail of 15 January to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.
The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.
I hope it will be helpful if I explain how the Commissioner works. Before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.
Yours sincerely,
Heather Wood
Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests
Just got the same reply as others in this comment thread. Disappointed but not surprised…
Mike someone clearly is lying – I’ve also had the same response:
Dear Ms Linney,
Thank you for your e-mail of 16 January to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.
The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.
I hope it will be helpful if I explain how the Commissioner works. Before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.
Allegations of criminal conduct such as fraud would be for the police, not the Commissioner, to consider.
Yours sincerely,
Heather Wood
Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests
I can only suppose they refuse to ACCEPT your original complaint?!
Me too, I got the exact same response and have suggested they compare the claim for expenses with the land registry plans not rocket science you would think, smacks of a cover up?