Senior FSA staff broke guidelines on hotel costs
Share
Senior FSA staff have broken the maximum cash limits set out in the regulator’s staff handbook.
In July Money Marketing revealed, through a Freedom of Information request, that in February FSA chairman Adair Turner (pictured) claimed £811.77 for two nights’ hotel accommodation.
He spent an average of £265 per night on hotels while FSA chief executive Hector Sants’ average bill was £225 per night.
Managing director Jon Pain claimed £545 for a two-night hotel stay and managing director Sally Dewar claimed £358 for one night’s hotel stay.
The average amount spent per night by all directors was £259.
The handbook states that hotel stays in the UK are subject to a maximum VAT-inclusive cost of £150 a night, excluding breakfast. This maximum rises to £170 including tax for foreign hotels and £250 for North America.
An FSA spokeswoman says: “All FSA staff are expected to follow the expenses policy and we will always try to get the best deal available, but we may not always be able to meet that limit due to exceptional circumstances that may arise.
On the £811.77 claimed by Turner, an FSA spokesman adds: “This particular expense relates to an overseas engagement the FSA requested Adair to attend prior to him joining the organisation.”
Highclere Financial Services partner Alan Lakey says: “The FSA is industry-funded and it is essential that they don’t take liberties with our funds.”
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 (85)
Chris F | 20 Jan 2010 10:05 am
Oh look, the unnacountable FSA - which has singularly failed in every major task it has been set - is also failing to control its expenses bill.
In the "real world" an employee would be told to find a cheaper hotel - perhaps it might mean having to WALK somewhere or - God forbid - catch the tube.
As it isn't their money and no one calls them to account, it's no problem though. Is it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:13 am
Whaaat?....The limit is £150 ?!?!?!...have they not heard of Premier Inns??..more than adequate for a nights kip...they arent there to party after all..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:14 am
If they can't follow their own rule book what moral authority do they have to insist that the financial community they regulate follow theirs?
I would suggets that with all recent publicity about MPs expenses this is a little more serious than "taking liberties".
Who regulates the regulator?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:15 am
Good to see that the FSA employ fit and proper people
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:20 am
Presumably they have taken their lead from politicians, this is a disgrace, and they should be made to repay this excessive expense claim.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:20 am
Absolutely disgusting...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:20 am
This just goes to show that the FSA really is not in touch with our reality. It beggars belief that in America there was not accomodation available at the right price, presumably the mini bar at lesser accomodation lacked Dom Perignon.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
How funny!! | 20 Jan 2010 10:20 am
.. I'm sure Etap/TravelLodge would have welcomed them with open arms!?!?!?
One rule for one, etc (esp with bonus issue in back of mind)!!
Sadly I can't see them (the FSA) being as tolerant for minor 'indiscretions' by the IFA community.
Once we're (IFAs) all out of a job, who's gonna pay their bonuses, expensive hotel bills, etc ... ... oh, silly me, I forgot ... the banks!!
:-)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:21 am
Once again we see public sector employee's abusing the Brokers payments towards the FSA. Does this smell like another blatant abuse of public money, just like all those MP's who also decided to abuse their position in public office.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2010 10:22 am
Not surprising but totally uneccessary - but like the MP's, when someone else is paying.......refunds on the way I presume?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment