New Boris sleaze row as it is revealed PM DID know Tory donor gave £52k to do up his flat
New Boris sleaze row as it is revealed PM DID know Tory donor gave £52k for revamp of Downing Street flat despite denying it – as Cummings accuses him of LYING and Tories are fined £17,800 after probe
Tories fined £17,800 for failing to properly declare Lord Brownlow moneyHe gave party £67,800, including £52,000 for the PM’s private flat in No11But it was not declared by party or by the PM as a personal donation
<!–
<!–
<!–<!–
<!–
(function (src, d, tag){
var s = d.createElement(tag), prev = d.getElementsByTagName(tag)[0];
s.src = src;
prev.parentNode.insertBefore(s, prev);
}(“https://www.dailymail.co.uk/static/gunther/1.17.0/async_bundle–.js”, document, “script”));
<!–
DM.loadCSS(“https://www.dailymail.co.uk/static/gunther/gunther-2159/video_bundle–.css”);
<!–
Boris Johnson was at the centre of another sleaze row today as he was accused of lying about funding for a lavish renovation of his Downing Street flat.
The Conservatives have been fined £17,800 by the Electoral Commission for failing to register a five-figure cash donation from businessman and Tory peer Lord Brownlow in October last year.
The probe revealed that the payment of £52,000 connected to redecorating the No11 apartment was kept off the books, with worried staff told ‘don’t worry’.
But the investigation also revealed that Mr Johnson was aware the cash was from Lord Brownlow and his firm Huntwood Associates in November last year.
It also showed that the PM successfully tapped him up via WhatsApp for another £60,000. In total the Tory peer gave £112,549.12 towards the renovation of the private flat.
However, in evidence to his adviser on ministerial standards Lord Geidt earlier this year, No10 said the PM was unaware of the source of the money until February.
The peer’s own probe cleared Mr Johnson of wrongdoing, saying there was ‘no evidence that the Prime Minister had been informed by Lord Brownlow that he had personally settled the total costs’.
Mr Johnson’s former top aide Dominic Cummings today said the PM had ‘obviously lied to Geidt’.
Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said: ‘Boris Johnson’s sleaze is corroding the office of Prime Minister.
‘The Paterson scandal, illicit Christmas parties in Number 10 and now dodgy payments from a multimillionaire Conservative Party donor to fund his luxury Downing Street refurb.
‘It is one rule for them, and one rule for the rest of us, and Boris Johnson is at the heart of it.’
The Electoral Commission fined the Conservatives £17,800 for failing to properly declare almost £68,000 mostly used to pay for the refurbishment of the private quarters used by Mr Johnson, his wife Carrie and their son Wilfred.
The commission’s investigation found that decisions relating to the handling and recording of the donation reflected ‘serious failings in the party’s compliance systems’.
The Electoral Commission found that the Conservative Party failed to ‘fully report’ a donation of £67,801.72 from Brownlow made in October 2020, of which £52,801 which was connected to the refurbishment of the 11 Downing Street flat where Boris Johnson lives.
The probe found that when the payment was flagged by a junior member of Conservative staff, they were told the cash was for ‘something else’ and ‘don’t worry’.
It also revealed that the PM personally begged Lord Brownlow for more cash via Whatsapp just weeks after his initial donation.
The result of its investigation is also likely to lead to a new probe by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Kathryn Stone.
The commission’s investigation found that decisions relating to the handling and recording of the donation reflected ‘serious failings in the party’s compliance systems’.
A fine of £17,800 was levied for ‘failing to accurately report a donation and keep a proper accounting record’.
Louise Edwards, director of regulation at the Electoral Commission, said: ‘The party’s decisions and actions reflected serious failings in its compliance systems.
‘As a large and well-resourced political party that employs compliance and finance experts, and that has substantial sums of money going through its accounts, the Conservative Party should have sufficiently robust systems in place to meet its legal reporting requirements.’
The Daily Mail revealed details of the lavish redecoration of the apartment shared by the PM and his then fiancée in March.
The revamp at No11 by upmarket designer Lulu Lytle is said to have included gold wall coverings.
But the funding of the work did not appear in the list of political donations published by the Commission or in Mr Johnson’s Commons register of interests.
It prompted demands from the Labour Party for a full investigation into how the extravagant work was paid for and whether rules were broken.
The Electoral Commission said that Huntswood Associates transferred £67,801.72 to the Conservative Party on October 19, 2020.
Some £15,000 of that amount was for an event, but the commission said he ‘specifically identified the remaining £52,801.72 as a donation to cover an earlier payment of that value made by the party to the Cabinet Office’.
The Cabinet Office had paid three invoices over summer 2020, totalling the same amount, for the refurbishment of the Prime Minister’s flat at 11 Downing Street, and these were made on the agreement that the sum would be repaid by the party.
But the commission said that in donation records submitted on January 27, 2021, while the party reported the £15,000 from Huntswood Associates, it failed to report the £52,801.72.
The commission also concluded that the reference in the party’s financial records to the payment of £52,801.72 made by the party for the refurbishment was not accurate as it was referred to as a ‘blind trust loan’.
However a trust to refurbish the flat had not been created.
The Tories are considering whether to appeal against the Electoral Commission fine over the donation linked to Boris Johnson’s flat refurbishment.
A party spokesman said: ‘The Conservative Party has received notification from the Electoral Commission that, in their judgment, the manner in which a payment was reported represented a technical breach of reporting requirements under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
‘We have been in constant contact with the Electoral Commission with regards to this matter and have sought their advice as to how the transaction should be reported since it was made.
‘We are considering whether to appeal this decision and will make a decision within 28 working days.’