Re my legitimate query about councillors claiming expenses already covered by benefit? Nothing 'personal' about it.
Here is the response from the Ch Ex. ELDC.
Nigel Howells
Dear Mr Peat
Thank you for your recent enquiry. I have no information on the personal circumstances of Councillors in relation to disability matters, as raised in your e-mail. This is a personal matter and entirely for them.
Yours sincerely
Sent on behalf of Nigel Howells
So am I just to cease asking? I don't thinks so. Why should these fiddles be allowed at our expense?
Nigel Howells
Dear Mr Peat
Thank you for your recent enquiry. I have no information on the personal circumstances of Councillors in relation to disability matters, as raised in your e-mail. This is a personal matter and entirely for them.
Yours sincerely
Sent on behalf of Nigel Howells
So am I just to cease asking? I don't thinks so. Why should these fiddles be allowed at our expense?
Hi,
This is not personal or about specific councillors it is about the 40p Mileage allowance available to councillors already claiming upper rate mobility. Both come from the tax payer. So this is not a personal matter at all .
Why is this category of official able to claim the full mileage allowance from public funds? Was this ever considered? If not why not? And now it has been raised, what possible justification can there be to continue it?
This is a fair enquiry deserving of a good response; ideally along the lines of thanks for drawing this to our attention and yes something will be done to adjust allowances accordingly or else a detailed explanation as to why this is not deemed appropriate. Only that kind of response addresses this appalling discovery.
On the other hand I can draft a press release of this exchange if Mr Howells would prefer it that way.
Please re-consider the question.
Regards
Keith Peat.
This is not personal or about specific councillors it is about the 40p Mileage allowance available to councillors already claiming upper rate mobility. Both come from the tax payer. So this is not a personal matter at all .
Why is this category of official able to claim the full mileage allowance from public funds? Was this ever considered? If not why not? And now it has been raised, what possible justification can there be to continue it?
This is a fair enquiry deserving of a good response; ideally along the lines of thanks for drawing this to our attention and yes something will be done to adjust allowances accordingly or else a detailed explanation as to why this is not deemed appropriate. Only that kind of response addresses this appalling discovery.
On the other hand I can draft a press release of this exchange if Mr Howells would prefer it that way.
Please re-consider the question.
Regards
Keith Peat.
Watch this space: Well we didn't have to wait long.
To paraphrase the response from Mr Howells: It starts with some waffle about the Inland Revenue rules on what tax should be paid. (Totally irrelevant) But he seems to imagine that it can be justified that these 'poor' disabled council officials have special needs, so it's OK if they get more from the council than other disabled people who are not council officials? He also assumes that these cars are being used by disabled councillors too. No not all of them. So yes there is an element of fraud too or obtaining a pecuniary advantage but that is not for Mr Howells to worry about. Keep Watching this space.
No comments:
Post a Comment