A member of the public complained about the use of chauffeur-driven cars at County Hall

by political editor Paul Francis

An investigation into county councillors' expenses has accepted some made claims they should not have - but says administrative errors were to blame.

The inquiry was triggered by a complaint about the use of chauffeur-driven cars and private taxis at County Hall that alleged some members, including deputy leader Alex King, had made unlawful and duplicate expenses claims.

It was alleged councillors had claimed travel expenses for journeys in their own cars that had actually been made in KCC's own chauffeur-driven cars.

Claims were also made that taxis and chauffeur-driven cars were wrongly used for private engagements and meetings - something KCC has now stopped.

A report published by the District Auditor says there are weaknesses in the authority's arrangements but where mistakes were made, it was largely down to administrative errors.

However, auditor Darren Wells found there were "a small number of occassions where the deputy leader... and other councillors, submitted a claim for use of private cars for a number of journeys where a County Car or taxi was provided and separately paid for by the council".

"The council has stated these are administrative errors and I have no evidence to suggest otherwise," says Mr Wells.

These claims amounted to £430, but the money has now been repaid by Mr King and others - including the then KCC chairman.

Mr Wells also says he accepts KCC's explanation that the use of taxis and chauffeur-driven cars by the deputy leader for visits to St Stephen's Club, a private members club, as well as to a London restaurant near Westminster - the Atrium - were connected with council business.

"I have raised this with the deputy leader who has confirmed these journeys relate to meetings he has held in connection with council business... I have no evidence to suggest this explanation is untrue."

But he says the true costs of Mr King's use of private cars and taxis were more than £10,000 more than when KCC produced a report detailing the costs.

An initial report that was withdrawn put Mr King's costs at £19,541, but was then replaced in a public report by a figure of £1,515.

"the council has stated these are administrative errors and i have no evidence to suggest otherwise…” – auditor darren wells

Mr Wells says that while the costs "are not straightforward" he was advised by the council that "a more appropriate calculation would be in the region of £12,000".

However, he says he is unable to rule on the complaint - brought by a member of the public - that the overall costs of chauffeur-driven cars were excessive, saying the additional work he would need to do would be disproportionate.

He defended the use of county cars, saying that if councillors had to make their own way to certain events or meetings, the cost to the taxpayer might be higher.

Asked if he had full confidence in Mr King as deputy leader, he said: "The Audit Commission has said everything is above board. It will be for Alex to explain why his medical condition meant he had to use county cars and taxis."

In a statement, KCC said: "The letter from the audit commission makes it absolutely clear that there has been no intentional wrongdoing. We believe we have a robust system in place to monitor these claims, but will now review it to ensure taxpayers money continues to be well managed and spent appropriately."

The auditor has back-tracked on a claim the leader of KCC needed to pay back an additional £390 to account for using county cars to stop off at his businesses during council trips.

Paul Carter (pictured left) has already paid back £600 to account for the costs of trips where he stopped off at his own business in Surbiton either en route to or returning from council-related meetings in London.

In his report, the auditor says the council "is seeking from the leader the net difference for the total of these journeys which amounts to £390".

Clrr Carter challenged the figure saying it was based on calculations made by officers that did not take into account all the relevant factors.

"I have been determined to do everything above board," he said.

The auditor this week accepted that challenge and says he accepts KCC's contention that the leader, based on the council's revised estimates, was owed £80 to account for overpayments.

The auditor's report says Cllr Carter's initial failure to reimburse the money was due to "an administrative and communication misunderstanding between staff in the leader's office and member services...that meant these payments were not initially made as intended".

As soon as it became clear they had not been paid, Cllr Carter reimbursed the money.