I voted for Charlotte Atkins MP and admire the work she has done.

Subject to proper scrutiny I have no problem with Ms Atkins reclaiming the normal day-to-day costs of running a constituency home, such as mortgage interest and minor repairs.

And I don't have a problem with reasonable cleaning and gardening expenses. I would rather Ms Atkins were working on constituency business than cleaning windows.

However, there is a further class of expenditure - on more major repairs, replacement bathrooms etc - which we all know will increase the value of a house which was bought at a price that reflected the need for improvements.

Can Ms Atkins explain why she should benefit from a full refund of this expenditure and benefit again from an increase in the value of the house?

Surely anyone with integrity to act as our representative would recognise that an 'expenses' claim should be limited to the cost of borrowing money to finance this expenditure, which is all she would have been entitled to if she had bought a fully refurbished house in the first place with a larger mortgage.

Perhaps Ms Atkins should accept this and make an appropriate repayment. We can then move on. Until then, I for one find her position indefensible.

David Johnson

Bradnop