Former MP won’t face charges over expenses
TWO-YEAR POLICE INVESTIGATION DROPPED DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE
EX-ROCHDALE MP Simon Danczuk will not face charges after a two-year police investigation into his Parliamentary expenses.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has it has recommended the case is dropped due to a lack of evidence.
He was ordered to pay back more than £11,000 he had wrongly claimed following an inquiry.
Mr Danczuk, who lost his seat in last June’s General Election, claimed the cash for his two oldest children to routinely stay in London. But the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) found his daughter never actually stayed there and his son had only stayed the night on one occasion.
Mr Danczuk spoke of his relief that the case had been dropped, but criticised the fact the investigation had taken two years.
He told the M.E.N.: “I am pleased no action is being taken. Such an intrusive investigation has caused me much anxiety and I am disturbed the police put so much time and money into the investigation. This is not the first police investigation I have been subjected to in the last two years.”
IPSA launched an investigation in 2016 after questions were raised about Mr Danczuk’s expenses.
Rules say MPs are only entitled to extra accommodation cash for children if they are dependent and ‘routinely’ stay with them.
IPSA’s investigation into Mr Danczuk concluded: “The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the MP obtained an increase to his accommodation expenditure budget by claiming dependent uplifts for his two oldest children for a period of over three years, when, at no point were either of the children routinely resident. The compliance officer must conclude that this was done knowing that there was no reasonable prospect of the children staying at the accommodation.” It found he wrongly claimed £11,583.20 between 2012 and 2015 and ordered him to pay it all back. A CPS spokesman said: “We received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police in relation to an allegation contrary to Section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act of 2009. We considered the evidential test for prosecution was not met and therefore no charges were authorised.”
The evidence points to the conclusion the MP received an increase to his expenditure budget IPSA