FarageExposed Investigation: Why the Public Cannot Rely on the Parliamentary Register of Interests
The Register of Members’ Financial Interests is intended to help the public understand MPs’ financial interests and scrutinise them. However, during a detailed investigation into Nigel Farage’s Category 6 property declarations, FarageExposed found that this system does not operate as a meaningful transparency mechanism.
This report does not allege wrongdoing. Instead, it exposes a systemic flaw. The public is expected to scrutinise declarations, yet is denied the tools necessary to verify them. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards refuses to investigate unless the public provides evidence they cannot legally obtain. This leaves the Register unable to fulfil its stated purpose.
Last updated: 5 December, 2015
1. What the Register Declares
Nigel Farage’s Register entries state that he personally owns:
- One residential property in Folkestone and Hythe
- One residential property in Tandridge
Evidence: Nigel Farage Land & Property Register
Both entries list no registrable rental income. Both were first registered in August 2024.
These entries appear simple. In reality, they cannot be verified by any member of the public.
2. FarageExposed Attempts to Verify the Declarations
FarageExposed attempted to identify the declared properties using the only legally available tools. The Land Registry cannot be searched by name. It can only be searched by full address or postcode, which the Register does not provide to the public.
We explained this directly to the Commissioner, writing:
“I have not been able to identify any Land Registry title in Mr Farage’s name corresponding to the two locations recorded in the Register. I am not asserting that no such properties exist, only that I cannot establish which specific properties the two Category 6 entries refer to.”
We then asked whether these entries satisfied the Register’s own location requirements or whether clarification would be appropriate.
However, the Commissioner declined to investigate.
3. What the Commissioner Said
The Commissioner’s response contained several decisive statements that reveal the limitations of the transparency system.
a. They refused to examine two rules of the Code
The Commissioner wrote:
“As you have not explained how Mr Farage has allegedly breached Rules 6 and 11, we will not be able to progress these elements of your complaint.”
They then added a broader statement indicating that even if further material were provided, an inquiry was unlikely:
“I think it is therefore very unlikely that the Commissioner would open an inquiry into this part of your complaint.”
b. They confirmed that company owned assets are not declarable
When FarageExposed pointed out that two identifiable properties linked to Farage are held by his company Thorn In The Side Limited, the Commissioner stated:
“The Commissioner has recently ruled that assets of Thorn in the Side Limited are not registerable interests.”
c. They refused to verify whether the Tandridge entry corresponds to a real property
The Commissioner responded to concerns about the Tandridge declaration by stating:
“The evidence you have supplied on this point relates to the existence of a property in Westerham which does not discount the possibility of Mr Farage also owning a property in the district of Tandridge.”
In other words, unless the public proves a property does not exist, the declaration stands without review. The public cannot legally obtain such proof.
4. The Folkestone and Hythe Contradiction
FarageExposed identified two properties in the Folkestone and Hythe district that are owned by Thorn In The Side Limited.
Since the Commissioner insists that company owned assets cannot be declared, the Folkestone and Hythe entry cannot refer to either of these.
This leaves three unresolved options:
- The entry refers to a personal property which cannot be identified using public tools
- The entry refers to a company owned property despite the Commissioner’s ruling
- The entry refers to a past or mislabelled asset which has not been updated
FarageExposed makes no allegation about which applies. The problem is that the public cannot determine which is correct.
5. The Tandridge Gap
FarageExposed attempted to identify the personally owned property Farage declares in Tandridge. No such property can be located using any publicly accessible method.
We explained this directly to the Commissioner, noting:
“A member of the public cannot obtain such evidence. This leaves a declared property that cannot currently be identified through publicly available records.”
The Commissioner maintained their stance and declined to investigate.
This leaves the public with a declaration that cannot be verified and cannot be challenged.
6. The Rental Property Claim
Farage has publicly described himself as owning a rental property. Yet:
- No rental income appears on the Register
- No rental property is identifiable under Category 6
- Company owned assets are excluded by the Commissioner’s own ruling
Again, the public cannot determine whether the Register aligns with these statements because the Register contains no verifiable detail.
7. A Member of Parliament Opens a Case
FarageExposed raised these concerns with our own Member of Parliament, whose name is redacted. The MP acknowledged the issue and confirmed that a case had been opened for further investigation.
The MP wrote:
“Please be assured, I will liaise with my casework team in relation to this and investigate this matter.”
A formal case reference number has been issued. This confirms that the matter is now being reviewed at a parliamentary level and that the concerns raised are regarded as legitimate.
8. A Transparency Mechanism That Cannot Be Verified
This investigation shows that:
- The Register does not contain sufficient detail for the public to verify entries
- The public cannot legally access the information needed to challenge unclear or contradictory declarations
- The Commissioner declines to investigate unless the public supplies evidence they cannot obtain
- Declarations remain in place even when they cannot be matched to any identifiable property
- The system relies on trust, yet provides no means to test that trust
FarageExposed does not allege that Nigel Farage’s declarations are inaccurate. He may indeed own exactly the properties he has registered. The problem is that the public has no way to know.
A transparency register that cannot be scrutinised is not a transparency register in any meaningful sense.