MPs' expenses that have not been reimbursed


With regards to the 1,574 claim lines that have been refused for the period to September 9:

  1. How many of these claimants requested IPSA review its determination?

  2. On what grounds did the claimant request review?

  3. What was the outcome of each review?

  4. On how many separate occasions, was the amount under consideration altered, a) upwards b) downwards?

  5. On how many separate occasions, did claimants request a review by the Compliance Officer?


I will answer your questions in turn:

  1. IPSA has received 244 requests for review of the original determinations. We have completed 223 reviews.

  2. Paragraph 3.6 of the Scheme allows claimants to request a review of a decision not to pay a claim where they believe that the decision was incorrect on the grounds that IPSA a) made an administrative error or b) incorrectly applied the rules of the Scheme. The 244 requests, however, include requests to review claim determinations where their original submission was incomplete, for example insufficient evidence was provided in support of the claim. These do not count as reviews under the rules of the Scheme.

  3. Of the 223 completed reviews, 83 were cases where claimants had provided insufficient evidence in the first instance. These cases were not, therefore, technically reviews, leaving 140 which were. Of these 160:

    1. in 23 cases, the original determination was upheld;

    2. in 9 cases, the original determination was overturned in part and claims were partially reimbursed;

    3. in 57 cases, administrative errors by IPSA were identified in the reviews and resulted in the original determination being overturned and payment being made;

    4. in 51 cases, the reviews found that the rules had been applied incorrectly by IPSA and resulted in the original determination being overturned and payment being made.

  4. In the nine cases where claims were partially reimbursed following reviews of the original determinations, the amounts reimbursed were lower than the total amount claimed, but higher than the original determination.

  5. We do not hold this information. The Compliance Officer may have the information you are seeking. If you have not already done so, then you may wish to write to the Compliance Officer.

16 November 2010
Exemptions Applied: