Ealing Council has confirmed that a £175 payment made at Majestic Wine using a corporate card was fully reimbursed by an external sponsor, following a Freedom of Information request by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS). The council also explained that nearly £1,000 spent on flights and hotels over a 13-month period was for legitimate council business, including a conference and travel for looked-after children.
Details of the Card Payments
Data obtained by the LDRS revealed a series of transactions between April 2025 and April 2026. On November 25, 2025, the £175 wine bill was logged, temporarily charging the public purse. Ealing Council said the payment related to an event fully funded by external sponsorship. The supplier required card payment, so the council card was used, and the cost was then reimbursed from sponsorship funds, meaning no cost fell on taxpayers.
Additional payments included £202 to a debt recovery company and £75 paid to the council itself, though the council did not clarify the reason for these transactions. Over £430 was spent on two flights in August 2025 with British Airways and Aer Lingus, which the council said was in line with statutory obligations to looked-after children, though no further detail was given.
Conference Costs and Hotel Stays
Two payments of £440 were made to Hotel Collingwood, a three-star hotel near Bournemouth seafront, for a senior council officer and Cllr Polly Knewstub, Cabinet Member for Healthy Equal Lives. The stay was for the three-day National Children and Adult Services Conference in November 2025. A separate payment covered the conference itself, with tickets for the 2026 conference priced at £525.
The council was unable to respond to some specific transaction queries because staff members required to assist were on annual leave. Questions had been raised about penalty charges for employees, but the council said its expenses policy makes clear that staff are personally responsible for any parking fines or penalty charge notices, except in rare cases involving council vehicles where decisions are made case-by-case.
Reaction and Transparency Concerns
Anne Strickland, researcher at the TaxPayers' Alliance, told the LDRS: "With household budgets stretched to the limit and council tax going up year after year, the bar for justifying expenditure has never been higher for local authorities. Taxpayers deserve complete confidence that public money is spent with maximum prudence, and that every corporate card transaction delivers clear, undeniable value for money. Councils up and down the country should look to tighten up on spending to pass savings on to taxpayers."
A spokesperson for Ealing Council said: "Use of a corporate credit card is limited to authorised users only for a range of costs that arise when delivering council services, particularly where payment by card is required. Cards must only be used by authorised officers in accordance with procedures issued by the Section 151 Officer, and officers are expected to spend public money carefully, secure value for money and follow the council's rules on expenses and purchasing as outlined in the council's financial regulations. All spending must be for council business, supported by appropriate records and is subject to management checks. We take the use of public money very seriously."
The council also noted that it had not published spending over £250 since November 2025, but said it is scheduled for publication before the end of the month. The spokesperson added: "As with all public bodies, we publish extensive financial information and undertake regular reviews to ensure we continue to meet, and where possible exceed, transparency requirements. This includes the publication of expenditure data and the council's contracts register, while also fulfilling our statutory duty to protect residents' personal data. We have recently reviewed this expenditure to ensure we continue to meet our safeguarding and other statutory obligations."
The LDRS investigation highlights ongoing scrutiny of council spending, with the TaxPayers' Alliance calling for tighter controls. Ealing Council maintains that all spending was legitimate, and the wine bill was reimbursed, ensuring no cost to taxpayers.
