16 MPs claiming cash to rent London homes - while letting out their own

[iansheff]

MP's are cashing in by claiming taxpayers’ money to rent homes in London while letting out ­properties they own in the capital.

The tax payers have shelled out enough for them, they got a high pay rise and yet they can still make money out of property part funded by the taxpayer.  The expenses scandal was sorted out when it was revealed what they were getting away with. MP's should be stopped from making money on these properties, if they rent them out the money should go to the treasury not line their pockets. MP's are elected to serve the country not become rich by using the tax payer to increase their savings, it is time the gravy train was brought to a halt.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/scandal-mps-claiming-cash-rent-14277665

 

Yesterday the article below revealed that 160 MP's made £42m profit selling properties the tax payer helped pay for.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/outrage-more-160-mps-make-14272357

 

[Top Cats Hat]

I'm not sure what you are proposing is done about it. All MPs from outside London need a home in London and one in their constituency to do their job properly. If they choose to rent their own private home out for some of the time that it is not being used I can't see how you can stop them.

[geared]

It's not so much renting out their original constituency property, it's they own another property in London, rent it out privately while claiming taxpayer money to pay for rent on another property that they actually live in.

Further claims are the second property in London was part funded by public money through expenses.

 

So essentially the public has helped pay for a second home in London already, but instead of live there it's rented out privately and the public is now paying rent on a third property for the MP to live in.

Edited April 11, 2019 by geared

[Cyclone]

Quote

while letting out ­properties they own in the capital.

So surely it would be fairly trivial to change the rules so that any MP who already owns a home in the capital cannot claim an allowance for one.  It's not supposed to be a way to generate an income for them.

[geared]

1 minute ago, Cyclone said:

So surely it would be fairly trivial to change the rules so that any MP who already owns a home in the capital cannot claim an allowance for one.  It's not supposed to be a way to generate an income for them.

I feel like you're asking the goose to vote for Christmas with that one.

 

 

[Cyclone]

Well obviously, they're all out to feather their own nest and don't give a stuff about anyone else, but to pretend that it's somehow difficult to resolve is disingenuous.

[Guest makapaka]

39 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I'm not sure what you are proposing is done about it. All MPs from outside London need a home in London and one in their constituency to do their job properly. If they choose to rent their own private home out for some of the time that it is not being used I can't see how you can stop them.

Quite easily - their recoverable expenses on the home they rent in London is reduced by the rent recovery they  achieve / could expect to achieve on their own home.

 

Legitmate London Rent is say £750/week, recovery on home rental (whether they rent it out or not) would be £300/week. Expense paid is £450/week. I would also means test the need to rent a house out and not just use hotel accomodation before agreeing to recompense the MP's in the first place. 

 

I can't see any justification for an MP living rent free in London whilst their mortgage is paid for them by tenants.

Edited April 11, 2019 by makapaka

[Top Cats Hat]

19 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Quite easily - their recoverable expenses on the home they rent in London is reduced by the rent recovery they  achieve / could expect to achieve on their own home.

In which case nobody will bother renting their home out at all.

 

Why risk it when you are effectively renting it out for free if any money raised is knocked off your allowance. 

[geared]

Isn't that the point though?  If the tax payer has already funded the purchase of their London home why should they need to rent another one?

[Guest makapaka]

20 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

In which case nobody will bother renting their home out at all.

 

Why risk it when you are effectively renting it out for free if any money raised is knocked off your allowance. 

The money should be deducted regardless of whether you choose to rent it out or not.