A Labour MP has left taxpayers will a £27,000 legal bill - all because he tried to put an ineligible £24 train fare on expenses.
Jim McGovern tried to claim for a train ticket from Dundee to Glasgow to attend a Labour party event, even though purely political events are not covered by the expenses regime.
But the expenses watchdog, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, rejected the claim - saying the detour had been unconnected to his official work as an MP.
Mr McGovern, the MP for Dundee West, appealed the decision - and lost, at huge cost to the taxpayer.
Yesterday it emerged that IPSA's bill for defending its decision added up to more than 1,000 times more than the original cost of the fare.
It is the first case of its kind since new legislation was brought in after the 2009 expenses scandal.
Jonathan Isaby, political director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers will astounded and angry that so much of their cash was spent arguing over a single claim.
'IPSA is a bureaucratic monster of a quango and the rules on diverted journeys have now rightly been amended. But MPs have to accept the rules as they are and abide by them.'
Mr McGovern, 56, tried to claim the fare from his Dundee West seat to a Labour party meeting in Glasgow by saying it was the first leg of a two-part trip to Westminster.
While IPSA's costs will ultimately fall on the taxpayer, McGovern's costs were met by his union, the GMB.
The SNP said McGovern should reimburse IPSA for its legal bill. Mark McDonald, member of the Scottish Parliament, said: 'At a time when many households are struggling to make ends meet it is unbelievable that Mr McGovern has run-up this enormous bill.
'It shows how some MPs have learned absolutely nothing from the expenses scandal, which has done so much reputational damage to Westminster.
'Mr McGovern should now reimburse these legal costs himself, to ensure that the taxpayer does not pick up the five-figure bill as a result of his attendance at a Labour party event.'
The watchdog said it hadn't wanted a tribunal but was glad to have won the test case. IPSA has since changed its rules on diverted journeys, capping the amount MPs can claim to the standard fare between the start and end points of each journey.
Mr McGovern claimed £23.90 for a single rail fare from Dundee to Glasgow in September 2011 to attend a Labour Party meeting. He then claimed £249.45 for a business class flight on to Heathrow to fulfil his parliamentary role.
The MP charged both journeys to a card supplied by IPSA, but the watchdog refused to cover the cost of either leg of the trip.
Mr McGovern asked for a review of the decision from IPSA's compliance officer, who agreed the MP should be covered for the cost of the flight, but not the train fare.
He then appealed against the compliance officer's decision to a tribunal. But tribunal judge Roger Berner rejected McGovern's case.
At the hearing, last month in London, the judge said: 'Having found that the travel from Dundee to Glasgow was a separate journey, the only conclusion we can reach is that, as Mr McGovern has agreed, the purpose of that journey was to enable Mr McGovern to attend the Labour Party meeting.
'The expense of that journey was accordingly not necessarily incurred in (or for) the performance of Mr McGovern's parliamentary duties, and cannot be claimed.'
A spokesman for IPSA said: 'We would rather this hadn't gone to a tribunal, but Mr McGovern made the decision to take it there. We believe the finding upholds the integrity of IPSA rules in what seems to be a test case.'
Mr McGovern told the Sunday Herald newspaper that the GMB union was covering his costs, but he did not know how much they were.
'To be honest, I doubt very much if I could afford it,' he said. 'I imagine it would be expensive. IPSA are using public money. I don't use any public money for representation.'
Despite bringing the appeal, he blamed IPSA for 'digging its heels in' over the fare, and said his lawyer had advised him to appeal.
Mr McGovern described the SNP's call to repay IPSA as 'ridiculous'. He said: 'The SNP trying to make cheap political capital out of this does not bear scrutiny.'
Jim McGovern tried to claim for a train ticket from Dundee to Glasgow to attend a Labour party event, even though purely political events are not covered by the expenses regime.
But the expenses watchdog, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, rejected the claim - saying the detour had been unconnected to his official work as an MP.
Mr McGovern, the MP for Dundee West, appealed the decision - and lost, at huge cost to the taxpayer.
Yesterday it emerged that IPSA's bill for defending its decision added up to more than 1,000 times more than the original cost of the fare.
It is the first case of its kind since new legislation was brought in after the 2009 expenses scandal.
Jonathan Isaby, political director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers will astounded and angry that so much of their cash was spent arguing over a single claim.
'IPSA is a bureaucratic monster of a quango and the rules on diverted journeys have now rightly been amended. But MPs have to accept the rules as they are and abide by them.'
Mr McGovern, 56, tried to claim the fare from his Dundee West seat to a Labour party meeting in Glasgow by saying it was the first leg of a two-part trip to Westminster.
While IPSA's costs will ultimately fall on the taxpayer, McGovern's costs were met by his union, the GMB.
The SNP said McGovern should reimburse IPSA for its legal bill. Mark McDonald, member of the Scottish Parliament, said: 'At a time when many households are struggling to make ends meet it is unbelievable that Mr McGovern has run-up this enormous bill.
'It shows how some MPs have learned absolutely nothing from the expenses scandal, which has done so much reputational damage to Westminster.
'Mr McGovern should now reimburse these legal costs himself, to ensure that the taxpayer does not pick up the five-figure bill as a result of his attendance at a Labour party event.'
The watchdog said it hadn't wanted a tribunal but was glad to have won the test case. IPSA has since changed its rules on diverted journeys, capping the amount MPs can claim to the standard fare between the start and end points of each journey.
Mr McGovern claimed £23.90 for a single rail fare from Dundee to Glasgow in September 2011 to attend a Labour Party meeting. He then claimed £249.45 for a business class flight on to Heathrow to fulfil his parliamentary role.
Constituency: A view of the City of Dundee - the western part of which Jim McGovern is MP for
Mr McGovern asked for a review of the decision from IPSA's compliance officer, who agreed the MP should be covered for the cost of the flight, but not the train fare.
He then appealed against the compliance officer's decision to a tribunal. But tribunal judge Roger Berner rejected McGovern's case.
At the hearing, last month in London, the judge said: 'Having found that the travel from Dundee to Glasgow was a separate journey, the only conclusion we can reach is that, as Mr McGovern has agreed, the purpose of that journey was to enable Mr McGovern to attend the Labour Party meeting.
'The expense of that journey was accordingly not necessarily incurred in (or for) the performance of Mr McGovern's parliamentary duties, and cannot be claimed.'
A spokesman for IPSA said: 'We would rather this hadn't gone to a tribunal, but Mr McGovern made the decision to take it there. We believe the finding upholds the integrity of IPSA rules in what seems to be a test case.'
Mr McGovern told the Sunday Herald newspaper that the GMB union was covering his costs, but he did not know how much they were.
'To be honest, I doubt very much if I could afford it,' he said. 'I imagine it would be expensive. IPSA are using public money. I don't use any public money for representation.'
Despite bringing the appeal, he blamed IPSA for 'digging its heels in' over the fare, and said his lawyer had advised him to appeal.
Mr McGovern described the SNP's call to repay IPSA as 'ridiculous'. He said: 'The SNP trying to make cheap political capital out of this does not bear scrutiny.'