A former Downing Street chief of staff was last night embroiled in scandal over allegations taxpayers’ money was used for £1,000 of cycling kit.
Dan Rosenfield worked as Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s chief of staff between January 2021 and February 2022, resigning earlier this month during the ‘Partygate’ scandal.
But now the former political advisor has been accused of billing the taxpayer for cycling clothing and a fridge for his Whitehall office.
The allegations were published by the Daily Mail, with a source saying: “There was a row when he billed about £1,000 worth of cycling clothes to the taxpayer and did the same for a fridge, which, given the row over the use of wine fridges for parties in there, was a bit much.”
The Mail used a photo of Mr Rosenfield wearing Rapha kit while arriving at Downing Street in October to illustrate the story.
However, the ex-chief of staff denies the accusations and insisted it was “total nonsense” to say he had claimed back the cost of the kit, but declined to comment when asked if he had used expenses for any type of clothes or a fridge.
In December, The Times alleged Mr Rosenfield was present at a Downing Street Christmas party in December 2020, hosted by head of the civil service — Simon Case.
Number 10 denied rumours but the former chief of staff eventually resigned earlier this month.
It is not the first cycling-related controversy to hit Downing Street during Johnson’s premiership.
Last January, the Prime Minister was accused of breaking lockdown restrictions by going for a bike ride at Stratford’s Olympic Park.
30 thoughts on “Former Downing Street chief of staff denies buying £1,000 cycling kit with taxpayer money”
If he’s spending taxpayer’s
If he’s spending taxpayer’s money, at least he could get his gear at Aldi.
(Let’s hear it for ‘levelling down’.)
pockstone wrote:
How much Rapha kit can you even get for £1,000?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Socks. Really nice socks.
Special edition bib shorts
Special edition bib shorts and a cap.
I get the feeling the jersey
I get the feeling the jersey might have been in the 70% off sale
hawkinspeter wrote:
6.89 sets of the jersey and shorts pictured.
You could get a pair of those
You could get a pair of those nice titanium mudguards reviewed elsewhere.
Not much change for the bike, though.
So utterly typical of the DM;
So utterly typical of the DM; £billions go missing in PPE, hundreds of millions go to the government’s mates, but they are worried about £1,000 in cycling gear.
It is quite possible for both
It is quite possible for both to be wrong, but one is an easy story against a man who is taking the fall for the PM, whilst the massive elephant in the room would need proper investigative journalists willing to go against their paymasters.
He was going to buy the kit
He was going to buy the kit on the cycle to work scheme but realised he wouldn’t be able to hold the job down for long enough.
A few hundred quid on cycle
A few hundred quid on cycle clothing could save the taxpayer thousands in taxi fares. Not to mention time saved, as I’m sure cycling is quicker in London. Certainly easier to justify than a wine fridge, but I suspect not quite within the rules!
You do know that you can wear
You do know that you can wear any clothing to ride a bike on a commute?
And the difference being saving money and fraud?
capedcrusader wrote:
I have grease marks on jeans to prove that!
Pfft. Get yourself a
Pfft. Get yourself a chainguard or you’re not a proper urban commuter!
I end up wearing jeans out in the arse area from riding round town. It quickly gets expensive, not to mention uncomfortable, if you’re going any distance. There is a point where it’s worth using proper cycling clothing on longer commutes.
I appreciate it’s not within the rules, but what is within the rules is sometimes of questionable value.
I went old school fluorescent
I went old school fluorescent cycle clips, LOL. Jeans were fine for the few miles to the train station, but I hear you on anything further. I resisted cycle gear for a while, but it makes sense.
I think we should be more concerned with Liz Truss’ private jet bill TBH.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I wonder if she got her fur hat and coat for the Russia trip on expenses? When I was in the civil service, you could claim a clothing allowance for a business trip that involved a harsh climate!
HoarseMann wrote:
I wonder if she got her fur hat and coat for the Russia trip on expenses? When I was in the civil service, you could claim a clothing allowance for a business trip that involved a harsh climate!— Adam Sutton
Yeesh. When I had to go to Oslo for a week in winter all I got was an economy ticket and had to buy my own thermals ?
I find both bicycle clips or
I find both bicycle clips or a chain guard prevent that. Don’t think I’ve ever ruined any of my clothes over the years. Or are you a member for f the velomati who shun such accoutrements as they demean cycling.
Eh?
Cycle clips work for the most part, but I’m forgetful ?
Socks. Although that doesn’t
Socks. Although that doesn’t help when it comes to locking – that’ll transfer muck to your hands. Particularly if you’ve a chain with a fabric cover to protect the frame from chips and scratches.
The “answer” – if you’re not going too far / fast / up mountains – is something like one of these (or the stepthrough version more likely). (I’ve never tried one but some people rate belt-drives for cleanness too.)
As long as you don’t have a
As long as you don’t have a deraillieur you can also use a much lighter chain case too – keeps your chain (and cogs) going longer too.
Horse spats – much better
Horse spats – much better coverage! Proviz used to sell some.
In the Before Times when I
In the Before Times when I had a cycle commute, I bought any required cycle clothing with my own money. Is that considered hopelessly old school nowadays?
Well I did too! I’m not
Well I did too! I’m not condoning it (if it actually happened), as I suspect it will be against the rules, just stepping back a bit and evaluating it in a broader context.
Encouraging people to cycle to work by providing some cycling clothing might not be a bad idea and could actually save money in the long run. Compared with seasonal train ticket on expenses, taxis, tube, private school education, all no bother, it doesn’t seem as dubious as a wine fridge!
Miller wrote:
No it’s still normal behaviour for most people. Sponging off the state is more a symptom of this current government and the various hangers-on (advisers).
Can’t you claim clothing on
Can’t you claim clothing on the cycle to work scheme?
LastBoyScout wrote:
Should just be cycle and cycle related safety equipment – maybe if the clothing has some hi-viz on it, it could count. Doesn’t appear to cover unicycles.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/845725/cycle-to-work-guidance.pdf
hawkinspeter wrote:
‘Safety’ stretches further than you might expect, though.
In practice, it tends to be anything that could reasonably be considered to be necessary to encourage you to cycle, and isn’t blatantly taking the piss. Our provider has, for instance, included trailers in their ‘roadshows’, even though they’re not specifically covered above.
mdavidford wrote:
Trailer could be considered to be a luggage carrier?
Not sure it meets the
Not sure it meets the emphasis on required for safety, though, particularly for most people working office jobs. That’s kind of the point, though – if it’s likely to persuade you to shift to cycling, it’s probably going to be OK; if you try to use it to buy a whole new high-end cycling wardrobe, they might start questioning it.