46 Landlord MPs claim more than £1.3m for rent or hotels!

46 Landlord MPs claim more than £1.3m for rent or hotels!

8:46 AM, 3rd May 2019, About 5 years ago 7

Text Size

Here we go again. The expenses system was tightened up to stop MPs fleecing the public so they find another way to do it!

“Dozens of MPs are claiming taxpayer-funded expenses to rent homes or stay in hotel rooms in London while letting out property they own nearby”: click here for the Daily Mail article

Chris Bryant is apparently making £2K pm but they are “compelled” to rent a separate flat as they can’t claim their mortgage interest (but they can claim the rent)!

If these 46 MPs sold these rented flats (which were bought with the generous handout from the tax payer) it would add 46 more properties to the London market in one fell swoop. 46 more than Croydon’s Brick X Brick housing development arm since 2015. Or could take 46 families of the housing waiting list.


Share This Article



10:44 AM, 3rd May 2019, About 5 years ago

Why should they be able to claim mortgage interest / rent?! What other job allows it? Put them in a houseshare, you'll soon see them suddenly able to live in their own flats & pay their own way! So sick of these buffoons who can't even do their job yet can deduct every personal expense under the sun that should come our of their own salary.

Jack Craven

12:37 PM, 3rd May 2019, About 5 years ago

Sorry Heather, I can't see the logic here. Now I am not defending the MPs by any means but if they lived in the houses themselves or sold the houses then all the tenants would be homeless.


13:07 PM, 3rd May 2019, About 5 years ago

It is not their fault, its the baboons further up the chain who approve these expenses are to blame. Truth hurts and so let it. The baboons who approved this extortionate allowances need to check reality how ordinary people have to suffer at their hands. And what they are proposing tenancy fee act! baboon lunacy!

How much 1.3 Million would go to help the homeless folks?

Frederick Morrow-Ahmed

12:47 PM, 4th May 2019, About 5 years ago

Come back Guy Fawkes, all is forgiven!

Heather G.

16:58 PM, 4th May 2019, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Jack Craven at 03/05/2019 - 12:37
Not if they housed people from the council waiting list. Or sold them to the council. Or were forced to rent them below market rents. Or were not allowed to expense London accommodation if they already own a property within London. The point is they were funded by the tax payer and, now that they can't claim MIR, they're renting them out, keeping the profit, then charging tax payers to stay in hotels or other properties they rent.

Michael Barnes

17:25 PM, 6th May 2019, About 5 years ago

I don't see what is wrong here.

MPs that do not have constituencies in or near London need somewhere to stay so that they can attend parliament, in addition to their home in or near their constituency.

It is right that they should be reimbursed the (reasonable) costs of maintaining this second base (just as employees are when they are required to work away from their home).

MPs originally chose to buy a place to stay in London because it gives them security of tenure and the claiming of mortgage interest was less than the cost of hotels or renting a property.

The change in rules meant that if they continued to live in their London property, then they would be paying to represent their constituents; hardly a fair situation when London MPs would not have the same costs.

Why should MPs be required to sell their second properties when ordinary LLs like you and me are not?
Or do you propose that all private LLs should be required to sell their rental properties?

It is ridiculous that the changes that were introduced to prevent rip-off claims for refurbishing MP's London second homes mean that MPs are now claiming more from the public purse to live in hotels or rented properties than they would if their mortgage interest were paid.

Michael Barnes

17:47 PM, 6th May 2019, About 5 years ago

I have just looked at the article again, and it is 4 years old.

So why is it being referenced now?

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now