What evidence and documents were cited to support the allegations about Nigel Farage's expense claims?
Executive summary
Former Reform UK councillor and campaign aide Richard Everett has submitted documents to police alleging Reform UK failed to declare and/or falsified spending on Nigel Farage’s 2024 Clacton campaign — including leaflets, banners, utility bills and office refurbishment — and claims the constituency exceeded the £20,660 legal limit; Essex/Met police are “assessing” the allegations while Reform UK denies wrongdoing [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What documents are reported to have been handed to police
Reporting identifies a package of internal campaign records and financial paperwork reportedly submitted by Richard Everett to the police. Media summaries say the documents allegedly show undeclared spending on leaflets, banners, utility bills and the refurbishment of a bar used as a campaign office, and that those items were not included in the official returns for the Clacton campaign [1] [2] [5]. Independent outlets and the Daily Telegraph (as cited by other papers) are named as the origin of the claims about the specific categories of spending [1].
2. Who is the source of the documents and what is their standing
The claims and documents come from Richard Everett, identified in reporting as a former Reform councillor and member of Farage’s campaign team who was later expelled or left the party; Reform UK describes him as a “disgruntled former councillor” and disputes his motives [1] [6] [7]. Coverage notes Everett was once part of the campaign apparatus, which gives him proximity to internal records, but the party disputes his credibility [1] [2].
3. What specific allegations do the papers support — the scale and legal trigger
Sources say the documents are intended to show the Clacton campaign reported less than it actually spent and therefore may have exceeded the statutory constituency spending limit (reported as £20,660 for that contest in some coverage), which would trigger inquiries by police and potentially the Electoral Commission [3] [1]. Journalists report the central allegation as either false reporting of expenses or omission of local campaign costs from the return [6] [4].
4. Official responses and procedural status
Essex Police (and in some pieces the Metropolitan Police is mentioned) have acknowledged they are assessing the allegations; coverage frames this as an initial assessment rather than an opened criminal investigation at scale [4] [6]. Reform UK has strongly denied breaking electoral law and says it looks forward to clearing its name, and has characterised the complainant as expelled and disgruntled [1] [7]. Labour and Conservative figures are quoted as demanding full transparency and an Electoral Commission probe [1] [3].
5. What is explicitly shown — and what current reporting does not confirm
Available sources report that documents were submitted and list categories of alleged undeclared spending, but they do not reproduce the underlying line-by-line ledgers, invoices or receipts in full in the public reporting cited here; outlets summarise Everett’s claims rather than publishing exhaustive primary documents [1] [2] [5]. Available sources do not mention publication of the raw invoices, bank transfers or audited reconciliation that would definitively prove an overspend in public reporting so far [1] [2].
6. Competing narratives and likely motivations in play
Media coverage presents two competing narratives: Everett asserts the paperwork proves falsified or incomplete returns; Reform UK says the allegations come from an expelled, disgruntled former member and denies wrongdoing [1] [2]. Political opponents have called for investigations, which both advances public interest scrutiny and serves partisan aims; papers note Labour and Conservatives using the story to press for Electoral Commission or police action [3] [4].
7. What next — evidentiary thresholds and possible outcomes
If police or the Electoral Commission proceed, investigators would need the underlying invoices, bank records, supplier confirmations and campaign returns to establish whether spending was omitted or misattributed. Current reporting describes only that documents have been submitted to police and that authorities are “assessing” the material — not that charges have been brought or that a formal probe has necessarily started [4] [6]. Reform UK’s denial and calls to “clear our name” indicate the party expects to dispute any inference of criminality [1].
Limitations: this briefing uses only the cited reporting; the primary accounting records and full documentary evidence are not reproduced in these sources and so cannot be independently verified here [1] [2].