Reform UK has denied claims Nigel Farage falsely reported local campaign expenses at last year’s General Election.

The Clacton MP has been accused of falsifying election expenses by a former Reform UK councillor.

Richard Everett has submitted documents to the Metropolitan Police that he claims show an overspend.

The documents show Reform UK came within £400 of the legal spending limit of £20,660 in the Essex seaside town where Mr Farage won his first ever parliamentary seat, reports The Telegraph.

However, Mr Everett claims that figure excludes some costs, including leaflets, banners, utility bills and the refurbishment of a blue and teal Reform-themed bar in the campaign office.

If these claims are found to be accurate, Mr Farage and his election agent Peter Harris could be found personally liable in court for a breach of electoral law.

Mr Everett’s role within Reform is said to have included the monitoring of election expenses and personally escorting Mr Farage around the Essex constituency during the campaign.

In total Mr Everett believes Reform UK exceeded the spending limit by around £9,000, but that Mr Farage was “blissfully unaware” of these omissions

A spokesman for Reform UK told GB News: “These inaccurate claims come from a disgruntled former councillor.

“The party denies breaking electoral law. We look forward to clearing our name.”

Mr Everett, a former election agent, had The Telegraph: “Because of my experience as an agent, I’ve done many of these returns myself, so I know what is meant to be on them.

“In this particular case, there was a spending limit of £20,660.72. So that’s the amount you’re allowed to spend on the election. In this return that Peter Harris has produced, he says that we spent £20,299.80.”

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Labour’s Islamophobia definition risks ‘harming women’s rights’, ex-equality watchdog chief warns
• Met Police issues update on Heathrow ‘pepper spray’ attack as three-year-old treated for injuries
• Elon Musk says EU ‘must be abolished’ after £105m fine for transparency breaches

Mr Everett continued: “I do not think that that is an accurate figure.

“In fact, I think the £20,660 was exceeded, and the reason why I think that is because of a number of items that were either missing on the return or wrong on the return.”