Yes, hundreds of Tony Blair’s expenses claims were destroyed by Westminster officials in May 2008, just before the full UK parliamentary expenses scandal broke in 2009. 

Officials claimed the documents relating to his Sedgefield constituency home, Myrobella, were shredded “by mistake” because they were unaware the files were the subject of a legal challenge under the Freedom of Information Act.  While the House of Commons initially apologised for the error, a later investigation by Channel 4 revealed in May 2009 that none of Blair’s expenses were actually shredded, contradicting earlier reports. 

The shredded documents were reported to cover claims totaling £43,029 over a three-year period. 

The destruction occurred while a High Court ruling was pending to make these specific expenses public.

Campaigners, including Norman Baker MP, criticised the incident as either incompetence or obstruction of the Freedom of Information Act. 

“Did Blair escape all criticism / accountability regardless?”

No, Tony Blair did not escape criticism, although he largely avoided formal accountability. 

While the claim that his expenses were shredded was later retracted (Channel 4 News reported in 2009 that they were not destroyed), Blair faced significant criticism for his financial dealings:

Expenses & Property: He was heavily criticised for his “flipping” of second home allowances, notably remortgaging his Sedgefield home, Myrobella, for £296,000—far exceeding its purchase price—and using taxpayer allowances to cover the interest, which helped finance his London property purchases. 

Post-PM Earnings: Since leaving office, he has faced ongoing scrutiny and accusations of conflicts of interest due to his highly lucrative roles, such as his £2 million-a-year consultancy with JP Morgan while serving as a Middle East envoy funded by international donors, including the UK taxpayer. 

Tax Affairs: His company, Windrush Ventures, reported £12 million in income but only £1 million in profit, leading to criticism over complex tax structures and high “administrative expenses,” though his affairs were declared legal. 

Blair has consistently defended his actions as legal, but critics, including former colleagues, argue they represent an abuse of the system he once criticised.