I'm sorry but I don't understand

Could someone please explain how Baroness Uddin was not prosecuted because it could not be proved that she had not visited her 'main' home once a month yet Lord Paul is not prosecuted despite admitting that he had never spent a single night at his 'main' home?

The Telegraph's latest report on Lord Paul confuses me. First we are told that:

"Lord Paul, a major party donor, was told by Scotland Yard last week that he will not face charges over his expenses claims. "

Second we are told that:

"The peer has admitted that he never spent a single night at an Oxfordshire flat that he registered as his main home while claiming money in overnight expenses for a London property. "

How does that work> Earlier this week I reported that:

"Baroness Uddin will not be prosecuted as... threshold that peers must visit their "main home" at least once a month."