This is a copy of the letter I have sent to my MP, Oliver Heald, after having looked at his most recently published expenses - available here: http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allo...

If you feel he has case to answer and he is your MP also - please write to him. If your own MP has questionable claims this time - please make them answer for them.

Dear Mr Heald MP

The most recent publication of your expenses claims, yesterday by parliament (in relation to your tax-payer funded second home in London) does raise some genuine concerns for me as a constituent and tax payer.

I would therefore appreciate clarification on these concerns and thank you in anticipation of your response.

1. You mention on 02/05/09 in a letter/"note" included in your expenses documentation that two of your "children" have been living at the tax-payer funded flat and for this reason you deemed it necessary to divide the "utility" bills three ways and claim just one third. I will reasonably assume that the "children" residing at the tax-payer funded flat are, indeed, adults. Please confirm or otherwise?

1.1 As this living arrangement was significant enough to be noted and, at least partially, addressed through your expenses claims - please explain to me the circumstances under which, and detail the periods during which, any adult offspring (either individually or together) have lived at the tax-payer funded flat.

1.2 Does any period of residence at the tax-payer funded flat by any of your adult offspring precede your "note" of 02/05/09?

1.3 Please explain for me how, by your judgement, there was no need to divide the total costs borne by the tax-payer (including mortgage interest and service charges etc.) associated with the flat three ways - instead of only the utility bills - whilst your two offspring where residing at the tax-payer funded flat?

1.4 Please confirm, or otherwise, that the tax-payer funded flat has just two bedrooms?

1.5 Please explain to me how, in your judgement, this living arrangement (three adults sharing a two bedroom flat with the tax payer, seemingly, baring a significantly disproportionate share of the total costs) satisfies MPs' own rules at the time - that all expenses should be incurred "wholly and exclusively" for you to perform your parliamentary duties?

1.6 Is anyone currently residing at the tax-payer funded flat other than yourself?

1.7 Have any other persons, related to you or not, resided at the tax-payer funded flat and if so - who - over what periods - and under what circumstances?

2. Please confirm for me that you own the tax-payer funded flat in London that you claim for as your second home through your parliamentary expenses (the insurance is in the name of Mrs C Heald and some bills are in her name e.g. the £1,950 decorating bill)? If you do not own the flat who or what entity does?

3. How, by your judgement, was/is a "garage" a necessary, additional, public expense - the significant mortgage interest or rent for which has been claimed by you from the tax payer since December 2008 (Royston to central London is a 50 minute commute by rail. Your taxpayer-funded flat is in Lambeth - walking distance to the House of Commons).

3.1 Are the expenses for this garage facility still being borne by the tax payer through your expense claims?

As you are aware, the public position you hold as an MP forms the bedrock of our representative democracy Mr Heald. Confidence in your good judgement in that role is vital generally, but particularly, at present, judgements as to where public funds are best used. I therefore hope that your clarifications on these matters of concern to me will help allay my fears that your judgement here may have been lacking.

I look forward to your response and would ask you to address each of my numbered questions.

FULL NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED