Thursday, 21 August 2014

Suspended peer to be let back into Lords

A Labour peer who was suspended from Parliament for claiming second home allowances for a housing association property, will be allowed back in the house in April.

Baroness Uddin was one of three peers suspended last year after an inquiry found that they broke expenses rules and wrongly claimed for thousands of pounds.

Baroness Uddin was ordered to repay £125,000 but as yet has not started any payments.

A spokesperson at the House of Lords told Inside Housing that the house was in discussions with Baroness Uddin on how she would repay the money, but admitted the peer could be back in the house by April 2012.

Baroness Uddin was a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in Wapping and claimed £29,675 in overnight subsistence allowances in 2007/08 for stays at the London property. She named her main residence as a flat in Maidstone, Kent.

But she reportedly lived in her social home as her main place of residence. Neighbours of her flat in Maidstone said it was unoccupied.

Although her expenses claim for 2007/08 was the first in which she gave any entry for the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin had been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 for overnight subsistence since 2001.

Readers' comments (10)

  • One rule for politicians and one for the ordinary people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Rick Campbell

    C233 and I had a brief exchange about this earlier on a different thread headed "Eviction threat for non-working tenants"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • two left foot shoes

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Melvin Bone

    Have Labour ejected her from the party yet?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Baroness appears to have broken several laws and rules. As well as the dishonest expenses claims, it was very much more dishonest and anti social to claim social housing when she had enough money to buy a flat. How can she live with the fact of keeping a needy family out of a home?
    Dishonest, anti social, greedy peers gouging the public purse make a mockery of all the pomp and kow-towing which the House of Lords represents. As for her returning, she should call it quits and count herself extremely fortunate to have escaped a prison sentence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No surprises here-the British Criminal Justice system does not apply to the HoL, City of London etc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Unbelievable! Some reports say she & her husband own *three* properties. Who says crime doesn't pay? Will she have the brass neck to trundle back to the HoL before repaying her fraudulent expenses? She'll then use her £300 daily attendence fee to repay taxpayers with our own money! Shouldn't be allowed to happen. To quote Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott - "If you do not pay your fines, you go to prison".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Alpha One

    She should be given a choice, pay back the £125,000 now, or spend 5 years in Jail for obtaining property by deception, and then pay back the £125,000 PLUS interest and legal costs.

    She has stolen £125,000 from the British tax payer through her dishonesty, that she is not in jail says more about a broken criminal justice system than her culpability.

    Never mind paying us back at £300 per day, she should not be allowed to claim her £300 per day AND have to pay back the £125,000.

    She should also be stripped of her peerage, she is not an honourable person and does not deserve to sit in the HofL.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • F451

    It's a good job she didn't whip a Mars bar from Tesco or she'd be serving a life sentance already, and her family would have been evicted!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To whom it may concern

    The Queen should act to remove criminals from her house - I thought this of Lord Archer, and this individual is another example of absolute deliberate and unashamed criminality.

    How can the government expect law and order on the streets when they can not even police themselves properly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register

Related

Articles

Resources

  • The key to recovery

    25/10/2013

    Can living in general needs homes give drug and alcohol abusers a better chance of recovery? Caroline Thorpe reports on the three-year pilot study in Northamptonshire that tried to find out

  • The apprentice

    17/01/2014

    Faced with thousands of pounds of debt and uncertain job prospects, school leavers are increasingly taking up apprenticeships as an alternative to university. Gwen Smith meets apprentice turned housing officer Jordan McKenna to discover the benefits of learning on the job

  • Precision thinking

    15 January 2014

    Analysis of its lets, voids and tenancy lengths has allowed Adactus Housing Group to cut its planned maintenance bill by millions of pounds a year and plough the savings into developing new homes. Kate Youde finds out how

  • Expert opinion

    15/11/2013

    Too often services are set solely around meeting targets, regardless how much it costs or what the end user needs

  • Home help

    06/09/2013

    Welfare reform has piled financial pressure on tenants and their landlords alike. Alex Turner meets a former housing professional who quit her job to start a business she hopes will reduce rent arrears and improve residents’ lives

IH Subscription