FSA directors stayed at five-star Canary Wharf hotel
Share
Three FSA directors have claimed for five-star hotel stays within walking distance of the regulator’s Canary Wharf office at a cost of more than £100 per night over its handbook guidelines.
The handbook states hotel stays in the UK are subject to a maximum VAT-inclusive cost of £150 a night, excluding breakfast. This rises to £170 including tax for foreign hotels and £250 for North America.
In July, Money Marketing revealed, through a freedom of information request, that FSA chairman Adair Turner claimed £811.77 for two nights’ hotel accommodation.
A further FoI request, submitted by Highclere Financial Services partner Alan Lakey, shows that Jon Pain, Carolyn Fairbairn and Michael Slack all claimed for stays at the Marriott Hotel, in West India Quay, at a cost of more than £250 per night. Pain spent £545 on a two-night stay in October 2008 and £474 for another two nights in December 2008.
Lakey says: “The FSA is taking liberties with our money. The regulator has an obligation to ensure it makes best use of its resources and it is clear that some of these hotel costs are unnecessarily high.”
An FSA spokesman says: “The hotel in question is within walking distance of the FSA and while generally we have access to preferred rates, if bookings were short notice or resulted from extended business, then these preferential rates might not have been available.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (68)
Anonymous | 1 Apr 2010 8:50 am
I do wish people would act responsibly when they are spending other peoples money. That message goes out to all in so called power positions from the Government downwards.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Apr 2010 8:52 am
A disgusting disregard for the Handbook. I wonder how much they will fine themselves?
There are plenty of other hotels in and around Canary Wharf, within the budget, which are a short walk or a short DLR ride away from their offices, there is NO excuse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Malcolm | 1 Apr 2010 8:53 am
My wife and I earned a total of £579 for the month of January 2010!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Allan Smith | 1 Apr 2010 8:54 am
More horrendous hypocracy from the Labour sponsored FSA!
The more often these abuses are highlighted the less credible they look as an organisation fit to regulate the Financial Services sector!
Bring on May 6th so the Conservatives can rid us of this ridiculously expensive waste of taxpayer's money!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 1 Apr 2010 8:55 am
I have already raised this issue with my MP who says he is asking both the FSA and the Treasury for their comments.
I would suggest/ask everybody else takes a similar course of action
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Apr 2010 8:55 am
!!! IS there no end to this? This time the excuse is that it was within walking distance!!!!! Are these people not capable of thinking of booking a £10 taxi for a 10 minute ride to get to a hotel that might cost £100 less per night?!?!...
Im sure that if expenses above the approved level were disallowed they would have found a solution. We've all been in similar situations, and when its your own money at stake, or you care about what youre spending, lo and behold you find a cheaper solution.
Disgusting.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Curnow | 1 Apr 2010 8:55 am
Ermmm, Just remind me. Why are the FSA staff staying at a hotel just round the corner from where they are based ? If I was working for a company - any company - I can't immagine that they would pay hundreds of pounds for me to stay in a hotel within walking distance of where I was supposed to be working. They would expect me to live within travel distance of where I was supposed to be based and pay for my living costs out of my income. Makes you wonder just how much more waste of public (our) money goes on in these organisations ! ! !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
clive foulkes | 1 Apr 2010 8:56 am
Yet another example of official profligacy. Let them earn their corn and see how profligate they might need to be when it hits their own damned pocket.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Apr 2010 8:56 am
The FSA have been critical of 'fat cat bankers', yet they claim expenses which put the so called fat cat bankers to shame! This is clearly a case of do what I say not as I do! These unelected civil servants are the ones who are bankrupting this Nation by contributing nothing but taking a lot. why does this present Government continue to allow this to happen?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Apr 2010 8:57 am
What do you really expect from the mumpties running Britains most unsuccessful "Quango"? The FSA has just been another easy ride for the people running it so they can take a nice pension one day. The irony is that they are doing everything in their power to make sure no one else gets a good pension by destroying the advisers that could help achieve this goal. RIP OFF Britain has got to end.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment