My 40-year struggle for justice against Dover District Council, who unlawfully demolished my home

Dover District Council acted dishonestly and unlawfully when they destroyed my home. And that is a fact which is confirmed by the outcome of their own investigation.

My property has been in continuous lawful residential use for 96 years!

And to put into perspective how long my personal dispute with DDC has endured, I was 34 years old when I purchased my home, and I’m now 74. Throughout that period of time Dover District Council officials have lied, manipulated the regulations, deceived successive planning committees and systematically done its best to wreck my life. They continue to do so to this day. And it’s all done to cover up the vindictive actions of the original administration, which was corrupt to the core.

I purchased my property through an estate agent in June 1984 and employed the services of a local solicitor who carried out all the necessary searches and enquiries.

At the time of purchase the bungalow had been in lawful residential use since 1928.

Yet, at a meeting less than 4 weeks later David Sturt, the Council’s Director of Planning, deceived the planning Committee by presenting incorrect and misleading information to support his recommendation that my home be demolished.

Criminal Damage By DDC

Dover District Council demolished my home even though it had been a lawful residence for over 60 years, and therefore had  permission for residential use

Evidence proves that the decision to demolish the bungalow was based on a combination of confusion, half-truths, manufactured evidence  and downright lies from Dover District Council officers.

Dishonesty, corruption and covert manipulation of the rules by Council officials has ruined many lives. None more so than in the case of the notorious killer Albert Dryden.

There are certain individuals controlling Dover District Council who don’t give a jot about the impact that their perverse decisions have on peoples lives. These disreputable ‘people’ are not concerned with the truth and continue to suppress the evidence that supports the long-standing residential use of my… more

Hopefully this web site will enlighten people as to the unsavoury tactics used by district council officials. It appears that council corruption may be widespread in this country and consequently the number of web sites exposing maladministration and injustice is increasing.

To find out more you can read about How it all started

RIP The Truth web

Councillor Admits Deception

It seems to be an unwritten policy of Dover District Council DDC that Councillors must not question the advice of the paid officials and clearly the Planning Committee did not have a clue as to what was going on when they took the decision to demolish my home.

It appears that the paid officials lied to Dover District Council planning committee members when telling them that I had built a new bungalow on a site that had a bungalow on many years ago but which was no longer in existence. They weren’t aware that I had properly purchased a bungalow with long-standing, established residential user rights and that the actual bungalow was still in existence.

Councillors were led to believe that demolition was the only course of action and they were not informed of the correct procedure, as determined by the Town and Country Planning Act, which required me as the owner to return the property to what it was before any alleged breach took place.

A Councillor has admitted that Dover District Council officials deceived the Planning Committee leading up to the demolition of my home. It was also revealed that the Council instigated a crude ‘smear campaign’ against me in order to unfairly influence Councillors to vote for the demolition of my home.

This reinforces the findings of the Council’s own Professional Standards Investigator and Accredited Mediator who also concluded that the Dover District Council Planning Committee were deceived when they reached the decision to demolish my home based on inaccurate and misleading advice.

In a statement, dated May 2009, the Councillor wrote:

“We were misled about the demolition of your bungalow…but at the time I was new to the council and naive enough to believe that officers don’t lie!!!!! 

As I was new to the council, I naively believed that the officers would always tell us the truth; something that I came to realise in later years just was not true, as some of them would mislead the council with half-truths or by omissions.

I had a falling out with John Clayton (who was then the Director of Planning and Technical Services) over the way that he misled councillors, and the galling thing is that he professes to be a ‘Christian’ and I understand is very devout when he carries the cross at the church whilst he was involved in misleading the council.

I remember John Clayton stating that: “Mr. Moulder was not married to the woman that he was living with” At the time I did not take much notice of this statement as it would not influence me either way, but I now realise that this was character assassination obviously designed to persuade certain sections of the council to support his view that the property should be demolished, even though this could not even be considered as a planning consideration.

I also remember, and I must admit I was taken in by, Mr Clayton’s statement to the Planning Committee that this was not the first time that such enforcement action had been taken against Mr. Moulder as he had been involved in something similar with another local authority.

As I have stated, I was new to the Council and was very naïve and did believe that the advice given to us by officers would be true and unbiased. In subsequent years I came to realise that some of the officers could not be trusted and would mislead by the use of half truths and omissions to get their own way”.

It is evident that the Director of Planning lied when he told the Planning Committee that I had been involved in a dispute of a similar nature with another local authority. I can state categorically that I have never before been the subject of enforcement action nor, at any time, had even the slightest dispute with any other local authority.

I can only assume the Dover District Council’s Director of Planning made such a false statement in order to unfairly influence the Planning Committee to reach a decision that accorded with his desires.

There is irrefutable evidence that the Council’s action was founded on deceit and incorrect and misleading advice. The present administration is aware of this but continue their persecution in an attempt to cover-up the corruption while at the same time Councillors are protecting the wrongdoings of the paid officials. It appears that the more evidence I collect the more it points to a criminal aspect.

When I contacted Conservative District Councillor Frayne, he replied:

“I have now read again your letter and am struck by your composure. By now I would have been throwing things around. From what I’ve heard you have at very least been diddled by DDC and it seems there is an impenetrable wall around their actions.”

“I cannot abide all this deviousness and naturally cannot put my true thoughts in writing.”

I’m not certain why he couldn’t put his true thoughts in writing, but it seems this is a big part of the problem within Dover District Council DDC. There are many good councillors who are kept in check by the ‘dishonest’ ones running the show. Consequently those who do become aware of incidences of corruption do nothing.


Nadeem Aziz

Nadeem Aziz the Chief Executive of Dover District Council is a dishonest scum bag devoid of any integrity whatsoever, and it beggars belief how he is able to stay in his privileged position, with its inflated salary of approaching £200,000 per annum. He ‘earns’ more than five times the average UK salary, and was given the country’s 10th highest sum in benefits and expenses. No surprise he struts around with a permanent smirk on his face.

When he opened the investigation into my case he made it clear that I would have to abide by the findings of his personally chosen investigator and there would be no further recourse for my complaints. What he didn’t say was that he would not abide by his investigators findings. Unfortunately for him the investigator that looked into my case was a man of integrity and severely exposed the Council, finding them guilty on numerous counts of maladministration with injustice.



Misfeasance in Public Office

‘Misfeasance in Public Office’ is a term frequently used when a public official does his job in a way that is not technically illegal, but nevertheless he is mistaken or wrong.

Parliament intended that statutory powers were exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred.

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences.

The offence of ‘Malfeasance’ takes the reckless element a stage further and is when a public official intentionally does something either legally or morally wrong which he had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. It is conduct in violation of the law.

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is an intentional tort that can be committed only by a public official and the core concept is abuse of power. This in turn involves other concepts, such as dishonesty, bad faith, and improper purpose.

Power is granted to a public official for a public purpose. It is an abuse of that power for him to exercise it for his own private purposes, whether out of spite, malice, revenge, or merely self-advancement.

If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences the official cannot argue that he did not intend the consequences of his actions or that they were not aimed at the person who he knew would suffer loss.

In a legal system underpinned by the rule of law, administrative power must be exercised in good faith and not for ulterior or improper purposes. Where it can be shown that a body or official was not acting in good faith, liability in the tort of misfeasance in public office might exist.

The constituent elements of the tort of misfeasance are as follows:

  • That the act or conduct has been committed by a public officer.
  • The act or conduct must have been done by him in the purported exercise of his power as a public officer.
  • That the act or conduct must have been done either:

a) maliciously; or

b) knowing that the impugned act or conduct is invalid/unauthorised and knowing that it will probably injure the claimant.

  • The act or conduct must cause loss or harm to the claimant.

There are two forms of liability for misfeasance. The first form of the tort involves targeted malice by a public officer, or in other words, conduct specifically intended to injure a person. Where a public officer had this intention, it is irrelevant whether the public officer exceeded his powers or acted within the letter of the law.

The second form of liability applies where the public officer acts knowing he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act will probably injure a person or persons. The element of bad faith arises, as the public officer does not have an honest belief that his conduct is lawful. In this scenario, it is not necessary to show that the public officer acted with the purpose or object of inflicting harm on the claimant.

Misfeasance does not require a claimant to identify a legal right that is being infringed or a particular duty owed to him, beyond the right not to be damaged or injured by a deliberate or reckless abuse of power by a public officer.

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is concerned with preventing public officials from acting beyond their powers to the injury of the citizen, not with compelling them to exercise the powers they do have, particularly when they have a discretion whether to exercise them or not.


Procedural Fairness

Lord Justice Muskill, Greater London Council (1985) identified four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely:

  1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.
  2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.
  3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example, taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.
  4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit, for example, where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance.


Proposed Demolition

Paul FrancisA few days before Christmas, 2008, four representatives from Dover District Council DDC visited me at my home. Their manner was aggressive and intimidating when they made it absolutely clear that the purpose of their visit was to put in place arrangements for the complete destruction and removal of my home, garden shed and greenhouse.

They also stated that they would return my property to ‘rough grassland’ and in the process make me homeless.Don Gale

Return to ‘rough grassland’ is an extraordinary statement to make because it has never been rough grassland. Research indicates, that if anything, the land was woodland prior to the construction of the bungalow in 1928.

Since that time I have had no contact from Dover District Council DDC and if there was reasonable excuse for the delay then they should have stated this in a timely way. Otherwise what was the point of them coming just prior to Christmas, other than to cause harassment?

Certain Dover District Council DDC personnel are specifically employed to tell lies for a living and they become a law unto themselves. They’re an arrogant bunch that naturally assumes that what they say is gospel and expect everyone to kowtow to their demands. Paul Francis is the typical arrogant, bully-boy ‘Enforcement Officer’. I found him to be rude, aggressive and unconcerned with the true facts. He enjoys following Council orders even though he is aware of the evidence proving their action is wrong. Thank God he’s no longer a police officer.

vandals in suits


Council Vendetta

I do accept that if there has been a breach of planning regulations then it is the Council’s duty to regularise it. But it should only be done if necessary and in an open, honest and fair manner. The Town & Country Planning Act provides clear and precise steps for remedying any alleged breach but it does not give Dover District Council DDC the authority to go beyond what is necessary.

It is not the Council’s duty to deceive, employ dubious tactics or punish people.

Various people who have taken an interest in my case have suggested that Dover District Council DDC must be waging a vendetta against me. That could be the case but I’m not sure, as it may merely be a need to cover up the original unlawful action carried out by the previous administration. I can think of no other reason why the Council would pursue an action that is so disproportionate and blatantly unjustified.

If Dover District Council DDC is waging a vendetta against me then it might have started as far back as June 1984 when I purchased my bungalow. Within days Mr Richards, an Area Planning Officer with Dover District Council, visited me. He was an extremely abusive and aggressive little man who made veiled threats before leaving. It was impossible to engage in a civil conversation with him so I immediately wrote a letter to David Sturt, the Chief Planning Officer, requesting a meeting in order to discuss the matter. He did not grant me a meeting but merely referred me back to Richards. Things did not get off to a good start!

There is overwhelming evidence to prove that DDC acted unlawfully when they demolished my bungalow and that may explain why their various reports and press releases have more to do with trickery than they do with the truth.

It does seem strange that Dover Council are not concerned with the truth, but seem more interested in being adversarial in order to disguise their original, unlawful action. They continually suppress any evidence that supports my case while their various reports are written in a biased, prejudicial way with their evidence being tainted as a result.

There are numerous examples of the Council’s ongoing deceit and dubious tactics and I have listed a few, as follows:

Dover District Council was hell-bent on destroying my home and in 1989 they succeeded. To achieve that, the Planning Department deceived the Planning Committee by falsely stating that I had erected a new bungalow. Evidence proves that the Planning Committee’s decision to demolish my home was based on false information presented to them by the planning department. This is confirmed by the findings of the Council’s own Professional Standards Investigator. In his report into my complaint he states:

6.10     After careful consideration of all the files and documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice.

6.11 This was maladministration.

Before Dover District Council DDC demolished my bungalow I legally sited a mobile home adjacent to it. This made it exempt from enforcement action because it was ancillary to the primary use of the land and continued, uninterrupted, the lawful residential use of the land. Despite that the Council unlawfully issued an enforcement notice on the 27 February 1990, ordering its removal.

In 2001 I submitted a planning application and whilst this planning application was being processed I sent a letter, dated 8 May 2001, to the case officer Mr J. Peall, informing him that I wanted my representative to attend the forthcoming planning meeting. I also requested a copy of his planning report. I did not receive a reply to this letter, thus both requests were ignored. I wrote again on 21 May 2001 and sent this letter by recorded delivery but this letter was also ignored. On Friday 25 May 2001 I telephoned DDC planning department to request answers to my enquiry. I explained my concerns to Mr Wallace and he stated that my planning application didn’t go to planning committee but had been refused by delegated decision. Mr Peall knew full well, when I wrote to him, that he had no intention of presenting my application to the Planning Committee and chose not to inform me but to blatantly ignore my letters.

During the course of events between 2002 and 2004 Dover District Council DDC Planning Officer, Mark Mortimer, prepared a ‘report’. Tim Flisher, the Council’s Development Control Officer, instigated the saga of the ‘Mortimer report’ and I requested a copy because he placed great emphasis on its importance and explicitly gave that as a reason why he could not progress matters. There were no less than fifteen letters exchanged with the Council relating to Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’ and in view of such extensive correspondence over this specific document it is reasonable to assume that it did in fact exist. If it did not exist why did Tim Flisher refuse to release the document to me and why did Lee May (Council solicitor) quote relevant sections and subsections of the Freedom of Information Act in order to support his refusal to release this document to me? It didn’t make sense for the Council to go to such great lengths to refuse something that didn’t exist. Why did such a critical document never materialise? It might lead one to conclude that the document has been suppressed or destroyed because it contained information, which if released, could compromise the Council’s position.

In 2005 I submitted a planning application and Dover District Council DDC started their dirty tricks again. The planning department tampered with the wording of my application and their planning report contained incorrect statements, misleading information and was written in a biased way designed to ensure a refusal. I withdrew my application for those reasons and submitted a formal complaint to the Council’s Professional Standards Department.

The Professional Standards Investigator upheld my complaint and found Dover District Council DDC guilty of maladministration with injustice on a number of counts. The Council’s Chief Executive, Nadeem Aziz, refused to accept his Investigator’s findings and informed me that that no further action would be taken in connection with the investigation or, indeed, in connection with my complaint, probably because of the calamitous implications its acceptance would have for the Council. The Professional Standards Investigator has not worked for the Council since.


Judge Blasts Council

Judge blasts Council for ‘nonsense’ garden case

“Unwise prosecution is an appalling waste of money”

A CROWN court judge has slammed Thanet council for an “appalling waste of public money” after prosecuting a Ramsgate man for breaching an enforcement notice over unauthorised development in his garden.

Judge Timothy Nash described the case as a nonsense and refused to fine Bernard Baldwin because it had cost him enough already.

He added that if there was a way he could order the council to pay Baldwin’s costs, he would.

The judge made his comments as he sentenced 64-year-old Bald­win who had admitted two offences relating to land at Pegwell Road, Ramsgate.

Sentence had, in fact, been brought forward because Bald­win is due to go into hospital for major surgery and Judge Nash commented that he did not want to add to Baldwin’s anxieties.

He said: “When the case was opened to me it passed through my mind that those people who seek to complain about the bureaucracy and red tape in Brussels, should look no further than Thanet District Council’s plan­ning authority.”

He added that ironically one of the photos used as an exhibit in the case showed two donkeys looking over a fence. “It is sometimes said the law is an ass, I say no more,” he said.

“You are in the dock because some well-intending person made a complaint to the council and the council then embarked on a course which wisdom and hindsight, aided by even the vaguest objectivity, would have revealed to them was unwise. “I hesitate to think what this case has cost the taxpayers of Thanet.”

“It is all an appalling waste of public and private money. All because your paddock was a matter of feet too high at one end and five feet or so high at the other. This case is a nonsense.”

“I have to deal with you in a way that is sensible and fair. Your counsel says I should fine you. No, I am not going to do that. You have paid enough of a price already. I could conditionally discharge you, I am not going to do that either because that means you are a hostage to any action the council may hereafter take. You have heard what Thanet District Council is asking by way of costs, you are not paying costs to anybody.”

He then wished Baldwin well saying he hoped the news from his surgery was good.



The Director of the Serious Fraud Squad has stated:

“When two or more people agree to deprive a person of something that belongs to him, or in the alternative ignore his proper rights, the law allows a charge of conspiracy to defraud based on dishonesty and suppression of evidence and a custodial sentence would follow”

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to do something illegal, or to do something legal by illegal means. It is not even necessary to establish that the act they contemplated was criminal.

There are two categories of conspiracy which are criminal even though the agreed object would not be criminal if done by one person alone.

  1. Conspiracy to commit a civil wrong.
  2. Conspiracy to commit an act which is neither a crime nor a civil wrong, but which can be calculated to ‘injure the public’.

The penalties for conspiracy are a fine or imprisonment. There is no limit. A court can pass a heavier sentence for conspiracy to commit an offence than for the offence itself.

The fact that a person doesn’t have to commit an offence or break a law before he can be charged with conspiracy has not been overlooked by the police.

The statutory offence of criminal conspiracy:The Criminal Law Act 1977 redefined conspiracy and put it on a statutory footing. The offence-creating provision is section 1(1). So far as material for present purposes section 1(1), as substituted by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, provides:

‘…if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions … (a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement …he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.’

The offence therefore lies in making an agreement. Implicitly, the subsection requires also that the parties intend to carry out their agreement. The offence is complete at that stage. The offence is complete even if the parties do not carry out their agreement.


Common Sense

An Obituary printed in the London Times; Interesting and sadly rather true.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

  • Knowing when to come in out of the rain
  • Why the early bird gets the worm
  • Life isn’t always fair
  • And, maybe it was my fault

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I’m A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.


Gwyn Prosser

Ex New Labour Member of Parliament for Dover & Deal

Gwyn Prosser has three homes paid for by the state yet he was a member of a planning committee which voted to enter my property and destroy my home. This action not only breached two sections of the Town and Country Planning Act but made a family with two children homeless.

In 2004 I wrote to Gwyn Prosser, when he was New Labour MP for Dover, asking for his assistance in resolving my dispute with the council and explained that my letters to the Planning Department and various District Councillors had been ignored. I asked him if he would allow me time to discuss this matter further at his next available surgery.

He wrote back informing me that he was a Member of the Opposition Group on the Council at the time my home was demolished and he had a recollection of the course of events that led to demolition. He didn’t agree to meet me but said that he would write to Dover Council’s Chief Executive.

Mr Prosser wrote back to me some time later advising me that there was little he could do at this stage. We exchanged a few more letters and I provided him with more factual information but no progress was made. I got the impression that he was not concerned about the Council’s wrongdoing.

During 2006, whilst gathering evidence against Dover District Council DDC, I discovered that at the time the order was given to demolish my home, not only was Mr Prosser a Member of the Opposition Group on the Council, he was also a Member of the Planning Committee that gave the demolition order.

When I discovered that fact I wrote to him and asked the specific question:

“Are you aware that Council Officials misled the Planning Committee and the Planning Inspectorate in order to achieve their aim to demolish my home?”

I explained to him that this had been confirmed following an investigation commissioned by the Chief Executive and the subsequent report highlighted serious failings of both the Planning and Legal departments.

He didn’t answer my question so I wrote and asked him again. Once more he refused to answer! It makes me wonder why. Perhaps the planning committee were fully aware of what they were doing and were not being misled. If so that makes them complicit in the criminal act of demolishing my home.

We exchanged a few more letters but Mr Prosser didn’t seem very helpful. In fact he told me that he wouldn’t help pursue protracted grievances that were the responsibility of the constituent. He added that if I did attend a ‘surgery’ he would allow me fifteen minutes of his time but not time to re-visit the ‘unfortunate events of the past twenty two years’.

  • Mr Prosser obviously realises there has been a wrongdoing and a criminal act committed, so why does he want to ignore it?
  • Was our local Member of Parliament content that Dover District Council DDC acts above the law and should it be asked, is he part of the problem?
  • When he was on the planning committee was he deceived or was he in fact an active, knowing part of the wrong and the public deception that followed?
  • If it was an ‘unfortunate event’ but a genuine mistake, what is he afraid of in helping to put it right?

It is important to emphasise that Dover District Council DDC were found guilty of maladministration with injustice regarding the demolition of my home by the outcome of their own investigation.

Whilst Mr Prosser appears to be genuinely concerned about Dover town he isn’t willing to help remedy a proven issue of maladministration and injustice within Dover District Council.

Is it naive for a constituent to expect their MP to abhor a proven wrong carried out by a public funded body?

In connection with the much publicised MPs’ expenses scandal This Is Kent reported:


Dover and Deal MP Gwyn Prosser’s expenses revealed

Thursday, June 25, 2009 – This is Kent

    • A PANASONIC TV costing £718
    • A £200 TV stand
    • A £330 bed
    • A £170 armchair 

They are just some of the items Dover and Deal MP Gwyn Prosser has paid for with YOUR cash.

Using the second homes allowance, covering the cost of having somewhere to live in London while carrying out Parliamentary work, the Labour backbencher also used taxpayers cash to buy £229 light fittings, £199.50 blinds and pot plants worth £49.99.

The claims were made between 2005 and 2007.

The former seaman, who has two flats in the capital and a family home in River, also racked up £11,118.66 in food bills from April 2004 to March 2008 and claimed £3,334.13 in January 2006 for items which have been blacked out by the Commons authorities on expenses documents made public last week.

On top of Mr Prosser’s salary, which was upped from £61,820 a year to £64,766 on April 1, the father-of-three has also claimed for items including £32.50 for Fairtrade coffee and hot chocolate for his Dover office, £24 for a toaster, £229.99 for a washing machine, £219 for flooring, £35 for kitchen utensils and £44 for a fan.

This is in addition to monthly mortgage interest payments ranging from £765 to £913, £650 of public money he used to pay his brother Huw to lay flooring at one of his London properties in 2006, £375 of incidental expenses for office costs towards a wifi laptop bought from ebay and a whopping £769 to have his yearly tax returns done. Regular claims were also made for utilities bills and for BT and two mobile phone service providers.

In March Mr Prosser slammed attempts to keep expense claims under wraps saying secrecy shattered the public trust in MP’s. He told the Express:

“There is the impression that we are all crooks.”

Mr Prosser, elected in 1997, has defended the claims, saying: “When my washing machine at home blows up I pay for that and all other things for my house in Dover I pay for but there are additional costs for having a home in London and if I didn’t have to live away I wouldn’t have those costs.”

The father-of-three has expressed dismay at the huge swathes of information blacked out by Parliamentary authorities and has offered to show the Express unredacted copies of the documents at the end of this week.

He said: “The Clerk of the House and Chief Executive gave written warning to all MPs in all parties that publishing their accounts in their raw condition could make us liable for prosecution under the Data Protection Act. In my view they have been over protective and the whole-scale redaction of documents has only served to reinforce people’s views that there’s a big cover-up going on.

“Like most of my colleagues I have got nothing to cover up and as long as I can protect the privacy of my staff’s personal details and bank account numbers, I am more than willing to invite the local press to my office to examine my unredacted accounts. Once I have assurances of the legal position I’ll be pleased to publish the lot – without redaction – on my website.”

Tory parliamentary hopeful Charlie Elphicke said items such as food should not be claimed for. He said: “We are in a deep recession and hard-working families struggle to buy basic food, knives and forks, toasters and a TV licence. Many families can’t afford to replace a washing machine. They will be asking how it can be right that an MP should be able to claim these things on the public ticket. I struggle to understand how it can be appropriate under any circumstances to claim for food but rather than commenting on Mr Prosser I am more interested in reform and rebuilding trust. We need to move forward.”


And The Daily Telegraph carried the following report:


Gwyn Prosser paid his brother, from his taxpayer-funded expenses, to carry out work on his London flat – despite the fact that he lived almost 200 miles away.

His brother, Huw Prosser, who lived near Swansea, was paid £650 of public money to lay flooring at the flat in 2006.

The same year, Gwyn Prosser also made claims totalling £2,782 for work at another flat he owned in London, even though it had not been his designated second home for three years and he was renting it out.

The MP bought his first London flat in Elephant and Castle upon his election in 1997. It was his designated second home until 2003, when he bought a second flat a 10-minute walk away and rented out the first property.

He changed his second home designation to the new flat, but in March 2006 Mr Prosser attempted to recoup the costs of work on his first flat three years previously.


In the local newspaper, dated 23 April 2009, it was reported that Dover’s MP, ‘Three Homes’ Gwyn Prosser had claimed £91,463 in expenses on his second home while earning income from letting out his third home. Mr Prosser owns his home in his constituency and two London flats.

The following is an extract from a report in the Dover Express of 14 February 2008:


‘Three homes’ Gwyn wants property reform

DOVER and Deal MP Gwyn Prosser has called for a reform of the system that allows MPs to build up property portfolios using taxpayers’ cash despite buying two London homes using cash from a parliamentary housing allowance himself.

The Labour MP was revealed as one of 43 MPs declaring rental income from properties in London or their constituencies while claiming the additional cost allowance. This allowance should be used for mortgage interest and not for capital repayments. The maximum pay out is £23,083 a year. Mr Prosser has claimed £17,713 from the allowance.

He owns two London properties, a two-bed flat which he stays in while in London and a one-bed flat near the Elephant and Castle, which he rents to tenants. He also owns a family home in the affluent River area of Dover.

But Mr Prosser said his allowance has only been used for interest payments although he agrees the system is open to abuse. He said: “I would really welcome a complete reform of the system. There has been much discussion about MPs and some have been abusing the system to a severe degree and that tars us all with the same brush. I was elected in 1997 and I started to buy a one-bed flat in London to live in. I didn’t know if I could afford it and I paid a deposit out of my own savings. I started paying the mortgage with my own money but was drawing the interest element from the fees office. It was no longer fit for purpose so in 2003 I put it on the market and looked for a two-bed flat. It did not sell but I needed to go ahead with my purchase and the estate agent suggested I let it. I have just continued letting it since then.”

Mr Prosser said the rent payments offer little profit and mainly cover the mortgage repayments although he admitted the property is a capital asset.

He added: “It’s all completely within the rules.”


If you would like to know more about Gwyn Prosser, his Parliamentary work including questions he raises, plus where he features in the expenses table then go to…