A conservative hereditary companion, who was previously punished for violating House rules, filed a claim on admitting that he “erroneously” demanded travel expenses he did not encounter last year, whether he violated them again.

After the inquiry by the guardian, Earl of Shrewsbury said he offered to repay the taxpayer the travel expenses he requested, and any amounts he had attended in the past for first-class tickets he had attended to the board meetings of the commercial company.

The full name of the companion is Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton-Talbot, who wrote in an email to his companion director that the “government” paid for the meeting trip.

Shrewsbury, 72, a member of the House of Lords since 1981, raised the fee shortly after returning to the House of Lords from a nine-month moratorium, one of the biggest punishments ever received on his peers.

In 1923, he was paid £57,000 in 19 months, a health care company paid £57,000 to ministers and officials, and in the House of Lords judged that it was judged as a "profitable relationship" by the supervisory body of the House of Lords, and he was therefore forbidden.

The House of Lords committee, which monitors peer behavior, ruled that his misconduct was “very serious” and damaged the House of Lords’ reputation.

Now, emails and documents obtained under the leak of free information legislation have raised questions about his compliance with strict rules that govern peers’ use of the House of Lords fees scheme, which covers only travel for parliamentary operations.

He used the scheme to claim the cost of a roaming ticket, which allowed him to travel for 14 days on the British railway network for only Parliamentary work.

On January 17 last year, Shrewsbury used this rail ticket to part of his trip to attend a board meeting of the real estate development company in Cheshire Land. He has been a non-executive director of the business for three years.

A day before the Liverpool board meeting, a director emailed him by email asking if he planned to attend because of the heavy snowfall.

The companion emailed a reply: "I'm all. From London. Government payments! ... Snow doesn't cringe me - hundreds of years of inbreeding have made me harsh."

The peer may have violated the House of Lords rules because he used the ticket to part of his trip, heading to Liverpool's corporate board meetings, and then returning to London on the same day - a trip was not part of his parliamentary work.

Shrewsbury's House of Lords fees claims are issued after the Freedom of Information request, and also shows that he claimed he traveled by car from his home in Derbyshire for three consecutive days at the board meeting.

This includes four trips he couldn't do while in London or Liverpool. The total amount of the claim is £54.

Shrewsbury said he had notified the House of Lords Treasury that he "erroneously requested miles for four trips" and used his taxpayer-funded rail tickets to conduct part of the board meeting.

"Whether I am right or wrong, I ask the finance department to charge what they might think that the amounts could be obtained from the April 2025 attendance allowance," Shrewsbury said.

He added that he believed he "acted sincerely." He said he broke the train trip to Stafford where his wife met him on the way to Liverpool's board meeting.

He said his wife drove from her nearby home to Stafford and sent him his wallet and documents. He then continued his journey from Stafford to Liverpool, then bought a return rail ticket from his pocket himself.

He said his wife’s car trip was a “special situation” and so the House of Lords’ fees policy allowed.

He said: "The directors are fully aware that I was able to ask for the cost of a train trip from my designated station to London in my parliamentary duties, so my comment said the government paid. They also knew that when I traveled from Liverpool in Stafford, I paid my own travel in a strange situation."

Shrewsbury said he used a 14-day first-class roaming ticket to join the House of Lords. He added that he was allowed to buy the ticket because it was cheaper than the same quantity of fully flexible standard-grade fares, and said he had not used non-house tickets from the House of Lords except for his trip last January. He said he needed to travel first-class due to his age and disability.