Spink: I have not ‘over-claimed £ 2,425.86’

Bob Spink's expenses record

YOU DID, Bob. Any reasonable person would agree…

In your IEP claim, for 31/12/2004, you claimed £118.44 in respect of the firm Banner.

In your next month’s IEP claim, for 31/01/2005, you claim another amount, of £20.41, for the same firm.

In your following month’s IEP claim, 28/02/2005, you provide the Banner statement, detailing the outstanding invoice amounts of £20.41 and £118.44, for which you had provided claims in the previous two months. You then go on to claim the statement’s total of £138.85.

Your over-claim: £138.85.

In your IEP claim for, 31/07/2005, you claim £93.99 in respect of the firm Neat Ideas, and supply the invoice.

In your IEP claim two months later, 30/09/2005, you provide the Neat Ideas‘ statement, detailing the outstanding £93.99 invoice amount, and go on to claim it again.

Your over-claim: £93.99.

The month following your previous over-claim, you detail further Neat Ideas expenditure, for £123.33, in your IEP claim for 31/10/2005 — and provide the invoice.

The next month, in your IEP claim for 30/11/2005, you furnish the Neat Ideas statement for the previous invoice’s outstanding amount of £123.33, and go on to claim it again.

Your over-claim: £123.33.

In your IEP claim for 31/01/2006, you claim for, and provide, a statement from the firm CellHire, in the amount of £332.87. The amount is made up of two outstanding invoices: £276.13 for services provided in December, and £56.74 arising in January. You claim the full amount of £332.87.

Two months later, in your IEP claim for 31/03/2006, you provide the CellHire invoice for January, in the amount of £56.74, and already claimed for two months earlier. You go on to claim the full £56.74.

Your over-claim: £56.74.

In the same month, in your IEP claim for 31/03/2006, you provide, and claim for, a CellHire statement for outstanding invoices due in February and March. The amounts are for £14.78 (Feb) and £111.47 (Mar). The total of the statement, and the amount for which you claimed, is: £126.25.

Two months later, in your IEP claim for 31/05/2006, you furnish a running statement on your CellHire account, which restates the outstanding balance for £111.47 due on the March invoice, and two further sums, for April and May, in the amount of £82.86 and £41.34 respectively. You cross-through the £111.47 correctly (because it had been claimed for in March of the previous fiscal year) and you go on to claim for the remaining amounts, for April and May, in the amount of £124.20.

In your IEP claim for 31/07/2006, you furnish the previous month’s statement from CellHire, indicating that they still await payment for the services they had provided, and their invoiced amounts, for the period February to June. Those amounts are (Feb to Jun): £14.78, £111.47, £82.86, £41.34 and £29.36. The statement’s total is for £279.81 — and you claimed all of it.

Your over-claim: £250.45.

In your CA claim for 31/12/2007, you claim for £1,762.50 in regards to ‘Newsletter printing’ and provide a statement from London and Essex Newspapers detailing an invoice, for that same amount, raised in that month. You claim the full amount.

Two months later, in your CA claim for 29/02/2008, you label an item ‘Consituency Report,’ and back it up with another statement from London and Essex Newspapers, detailing that their December invoice, in the amount of £1,762.50, is now two months overdue.

You claim the statement’s total: £1,762.50.

Your over-claim: £1,762.50.

That brings your total over-claim, which can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, to a total of: £2,425.86.

All supporting documents are contained in your published expenses. For the record, I provide my working papers, which also contain an analysis of your IEP and CA expenditure, quoted in my Saturday’s email to you, here: Bob Spink.PDF

I conclude by bringing your attention to the following facts:-

Each Communication Allowance members’ reimbursement form that you sign states:-

Use this form to ask us TO REIMBURSE you for costs you have incurred on your Parliamentary duties.

The BLOCK CAPITALS are my own; but they are only there because you (or someone else) have circled that very phrase on your first CA claim form for 31/05/07.

I also point-out that each Incidental Expenses Provision members’ reimbursement form, which you also sign, clearly states:-

You can only claim for costs you have actually paid.

It saddens me that the tone of your email response was such that I decided to publish the full text of our communication. This has never been about you Bob: it is about the Public’s Right To Know.

I personally regret that you did not take the sixty-hour window, which I purposely provided you with, to launch an internal investigation and put these matters right.

It need not have come to this…

… (24/06/2009) – The Page That Will Not Go Away

… (27/06/2009) – Spink Claimed £1,053.98 For ‘General Media Advice’

… (24/08/2009) – Spink’s letter to Sir Christopher Kelly, whinging about his expenses and revealing, ‘in total confidence,’ that he does not actually live at his Downer Road address; but ‘at another house’ in his constituency.

… (Ted Pugh, 24/09/2009) – The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung

… (12/12/2009) – Bob And Other MPs Exploit Loophole To Claim Thousands Without Receipts

… (Ted Pugh, 24/12/2009) – Let’s Not Spoil Dinner This Year…

… (Julian Ware-Lane, 01/04/2010) – Bob promises to break spending limit

… (10/04/2010) – Spink Launches Leaflet Campaign

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. […] (23/06/2009) – Spink: I have not ‘over-claimed £ 2,425.86’ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Conscience pricked by sheetsPorn Is Not The […]

  2. I recall an MP who continually used threats of legal action, injunctions and warnings to gag the press. Robert Maxwell and look what happened to him.

  3. […] Spink: I have not ‘over-claimed £ 2,425.86’ « The Canvey Beat […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: