This entry shows some of the futility of part of the debate about expenses claims. Back in 2005 a member of my staff who was an intern put in a claim for handcream. The claim was rejected.
I was phoned by a newspaper about this whilst driving to Devon. My wife spoke to them and we couldn't remember anything about the claim.
I have since arrived in Devon and checked the files. That is how I know the claim was rejected.
I have some difficulty in understanding why such things are stories that don't warrant the time that is needed to get the facts clear.
I have managed to extract (and redact) the letter now:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3b78e/3b78e0321e6fd475a493a6cecb70f0171cb896cc" alt="p257image"
There are some serious issues about the way in which the ACA has been abused. However, by mixing up trivia with the more serious issues it sidetracks the debate.
I was phoned by a newspaper about this whilst driving to Devon. My wife spoke to them and we couldn't remember anything about the claim.
I have since arrived in Devon and checked the files. That is how I know the claim was rejected.
I have some difficulty in understanding why such things are stories that don't warrant the time that is needed to get the facts clear.
I have managed to extract (and redact) the letter now:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3b78e/3b78e0321e6fd475a493a6cecb70f0171cb896cc" alt="p257image"
There are some serious issues about the way in which the ACA has been abused. However, by mixing up trivia with the more serious issues it sidetracks the debate.
Comments