Andy Burnham Reportedly Pocketed £18,200 Windfall... Then Allegedly Used Taxpayers' Cash To Buy A Flat

Andy Burnham has often presented himself as a politician whose loyalties lie firmly with the north of England, even reportedly saying that he would continue living there if he ever became Prime Minister instead of moving into the flat above Downing Street. However, his past expenses claims have come under renewed scrutiny over his time as a Labour MP, when he claimed parliamentary allowances for accommodation in London.

At the centre of the controversy is an £18,200 payment he received after leaving Dolphin Square, a well-known apartment complex near Westminster. Rather than handing the money back, as many other MPs reportedly did, Burnham reached an arrangement that allowed the payment to be added to his parliamentary housing allowance. The money was then used alongside taxpayers' funds to help purchase and renovate a London flat that he and his wife still own, with the arrangement later becoming part of the wider debate surrounding MPs' expenses.

The Dolphin Square Payout Stirred Burnham's Controversy.

During his first spell as a Labour MP, Burnham claimed parliamentary expenses to rent a flat at Dolphin Square, a residential complex long associated with politicians and other high-profile residents.

When the building was sold in 2005, tenants were offered payments to end their tenancy agreements and move out. While many MPs reportedly handed those payments back to the Parliamentary authorities, Burnham negotiated a different arrangement.

The deal allowed almost all of his £18,200 payout to be treated as part of his second home allowance. According to the reports, this enabled Burnham and his wife, Marie-France Van Heel, to buy and renovate a £215,000 flat in south London.

When details of MPs' expenses emerged during the 2009 expenses scandal, it was revealed that Burnham had submitted a single claim worth £16,644 covering costs linked to the purchase, including stamp duty, legal fees and the installation of a new kitchen.

The arrangement also meant the windfall was claimed as a parliamentary expense rather than as a personal gain, meaning Burnham did not have to pay capital gains tax on the payment.

Burnham rejected suggestions that he had deliberately avoided tax.

He said: 'It is complete nonsense to suggest that I set out to avoid capital gains tax. My file shows I made arrangements to pay over this money in full to the fees office, and all arrangements were signed off by them. At no stage did I make any personal profit on this transaction.'

The reports also described a difficult relationship between Burnham and the Commons Fees Office, with some claims delayed or rejected. In one letter written in December 2005, Burnham urged officials to process outstanding expenses before the end of the year, writing: 'I would be very grateful if [the expenses] could be paid in the last round of the year on Friday. Otherwise, I might be in line for divorce!'

His wife also became involved in correspondence over renovation claims, telling officials on one occasion: 'I have endeavoured to include the bulk of the invoices, but invariably there are a few missing.'

Burnham Insisted He Followed The Rules

Burnham also faced problems with other accommodation claims. One request covering mortgage interest on both his London property and his constituency home was rejected, while another claim incorrectly included mortgage capital instead of interest.

Even smaller expenses attracted attention. A claim relating to an Ikea purchase was reduced after officials rejected reimbursement for a £19.99 bath robe.

Following publication of his expenses, Burnham defended his record and argued that he had actually claimed less than he was entitled to receive.

He said: 'I wish to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that I resent any suggestion that I have knowingly misused public funds as the public record shows that, in the last five years, I have under-claimed on my ACA [Additional Costs Allowance] by around £40,000.

'I believe this demonstrates quite clearly that I have always sought to work within the rules and the spirit of the parliamentary Green Book, and, during my time in Parliament, have not made claims for expenditure that is either extravagant or luxurious.'

A year later, Burnham faced renewed questions after the Commons watchdog found that several other former Dolphin Square residents had wrongly kept similar payouts and ordered four Liberal Democrat MPs to repay part of the money. Burnham himself was not investigated by the Commissioner for Standards.

His spokesman argued that Burnham's arrangement had actually reduced the amount claimed from the taxpayer.

The spokesman said the payout 'enabled him to avoid making claims on expenses and saved thousands of pounds for the taxpayer,' adding that 'there was no personal gain to Mr Burnham.'

Official figures later showed Burnham continued claiming accommodation expenses after the controversy. In 2010-11, he claimed £10,700 for accommodation, including £6,802 in mortgage interest before the rules changed. The following year he received £14,499 in rent reimbursements, along with £1,100 for council tax. By the time he left Parliament in 2017, his annual rent claim had risen to £18,214.

Former Labour MP Simon Danczuk, who wrote about Dolphin Square, criticised Burnham's past arrangements. He said Burnham had 'enjoyed living at the infamous Dolphin Square' and described the £18,200 payment as a 'personal jackpot' that only became public during the 2009 expenses scandal.

Danczuk added that the payment became 'a bone of contention' with the parliamentary fees office before officials eventually approved the arrangement after earlier rejections. He claimed the money was used towards Burnham's London property and argued that, despite Burnham's more recent preference for Manchester, he had previously benefited from London's property market.