Kali Mountford asked to pay back at least £1,000 in expenses

Oct 16 2009 by Barry Gibson, Huddersfield Daily Examiner

COLNE Valley MP Kali Mountford has been asked to pay back at least £1,000 of expenses.

But the Labour woman is contesting the request – and has declined to reveal the exact amount.

Ms Mountford received an email yesterday afternoon from Sir Thomas Legg, the former civil servant who has audited all MPs’ expenses claims from the last five years.

Kali has been asked to repay money for council tax and rent claims made on her London flat and for two taxi journeys.

Ms Mountford told the Examiner she would write to Sir Thomas to query the repayment request.

She said: “I’m surprised. I don’t think I’ve claimed anything I wasn’t entitled to claim. I’m sure I’ll be able to show him that.

“I’m going to go through it in a detailed way. I'm going to write to him and say ‘I don’t think I owe this money at all and here’s why’.”

Some MPs – including Prime Minster Gordon Brown – have disclosed the contents of their private letters from Sir Thomas.

However, Ms Mountford declined to reveal how much she had been asked to repay yesterday, though she said it was “four figures”.

Most of the money the MP has been asked to pay back is for rent and council tax on her designated second home in London.

She said: “There’s no reason for Sir Thomas to ask for repayment. The receipts are there. I’m unsure what the issue is, other than that I moved flat.”

Ms Mountford is also being asked to repay money for two taxi journeys in 2004 and 2005.

But she said: “I’ve had a look at my bills and I wasn’t paid that money in the first place, so clearly I’m not going to pay back money I wasn’t paid.”

Ms Mountford, who received her email two days later than promised, criticised the way Sir Thomas has handled the issue.

She said: “The email is very confusing. In some cases it’s not clear which years he’s referring to. I’m disappointed he hasn’t done a better job.”

The Examiner asked Sir Thomas Legg’s office if the paper could see the details of the email. A spokeswoman said: “I won’t discuss an individual case. These are private correspondences.”