MPs are locked in a fierce row with the parliamentary watchdog over fears that it is publishing information that can identify where politicians live, the Guardian can reveal.

Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader, has ordered colleagues to stop submitting mileage expenses in parliament as a result of the controversy, which he claims is unacceptable following the murder of Jo Cox and credible threats aimed at other politicians.

He said data now required to make a claim for mileage, including the locations of journeys travelled to and from on a daily basis, was now being publicised by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).

Ipsa insists the information is not detailed enough to locate a specific property and is not offering to change the rules, but Robertson gave examples of rural MPs for whom a village with as few as four homes was listed.

Labour has also expressed concern, with one senior source asking why the watchdog felt the need to “plough on” over the issue.

Robertson said: “Ipsa have been aware for some time that they are inadvertently confirming the home locations of parliamentarians, which runs contrary to basic security advice. This should be an immediate priority for urgent changes.”

He said he supported journey information being provided to Ipsa for auditing purposes, but was concerned about the decision to publicise it. He claimed that a febrile atmosphere in politics had resulted in a number of colleagues in different parties facing credible death threats.

“Given the tragic case involving Jo Cox, this cannot be right,” he said. “Until Ipsa changes this policy I have urgently told colleagues not to submit claims.”

Robertson, who is a member of the intelligence and security committee, spoke out after the Guardian obtained a leaked letter that exposed the disagreement. It revealed that police figures tasked with providing security for MPs had raised concern.

A representative from the Met wrote that he had contacted Ipsa to express his support of Robertson over the concerns. The officer said: “Any mechanism that might identify the home address of a member should be avoided.”

It is understood that senior security sources have advised Ipsa that MPs may be subject to “hostile reconnaissance” as a result of the method in which they are publicising information.

They warn against any system that advertises the name of a low-density, rural location in which an MP lives, and even argue that anonymising the home location could be insufficient if journeys and distances are published that allow for triangulation.

Ipsa has also been told that identifying regular patterns of travel behaviour could be risky for MPs, who are susceptible to being stalked or attracting the ire of campaigners.

A Labour source said they were concerned that postcode information could identify home locations in rural seats. They said police advice had been to change it, and that had happened in Northern Ireland, “but Ipsa plough on”.

An Ipsa spokesman said the watchdog took the issue seriously but suggested it did not believe the issue was causing a risk, and said it had consulted police. Ipsa argues the information is not specific enough to identify a person’s home or regular travel plans.

“In the interest of transparency and providing assurance to the public, Ipsa regularly publishes information about the public money spent by MPs in performing their parliamentary functions,” the spokesman said.

“But we of course take very seriously MPs’ security and the security of their staff and families. As such, in line with police advice, we redact all sensitive and personal information that might compromise MPs’ safety. We will continue to work in partnership with the police and the House of Commons to help meet the security needs of MPs.”

The Met police refused to comment. It is not clear whether or not they have sanctioned the Ipsa rules.