The position of Angela Rayner is in doubt today after she admitted to underpaying stamp duty by up to £40,000. But while Sir Keir Starmer defended his deputy, conveyancers were up in arms about the reason the deputy prime minister gave for what she insisted was a mistake.
In a lengthy statement, Rayner outlined her ‘complicated’ family life and domestic arrangements, and said she had taken the difficult decision to explain the circumstances surrounding her property arrangements.
After explaining her Ashton home had been placed into a court-instructed trust following ‘a deeply personal and distressing incident’ involving her son, Rayner then went on to attribute the stamp duty error to advice she had received from lawyers.
The deputy prime minister explained:
“When purchasing the property my understanding, on advice from lawyers, was that my circumstances meant I was liable for the standard rate of stamp duty.
“However, given the recent allegations in the press I have subsequently sought further advice from a leading tax counsel to review that position and to ensure I am fully compliant with all tax provisions.
“I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities.
“I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase. I am working with expert lawyers and with HMRC to resolve the matter and pay what is due.”
The statement was quickly condemned by property lawyers, with consultant property solicitor Sarah Thomson commenting:
“Interesting to see Angela Rayner somewhat throwing her conveyancer under the bus. Did she make them aware of her ‘complex family arrangements’ with regard to the other property? I cannot help but feel that, if she had, they would have advised her to take specialist advice. Indeed, given her position, did it not occur to her to check the tax situation more carefully rather than wait for the media to pick it up?”
‘I think this is going to rumble on for a while’, licensed conveyancer Dave James Lavery responded. ‘Optics not good for the Housing Secretary though’.
‘Blaming us lawyers who always make it clear we are not tax specialists or qualified to give tax advice’, Leah Leach pointed out. ‘I hope her conveyancer has some evidence that backs them up so she takes ownership that it’s her own fault!’
Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates Ltd, suggested there is a simple way to discover who was at fault.
“A key question to ask Ms Rayner: when she obtained the stamp duty advice, did she tell the adviser about the trust?It’s an easy yes/no question.”
John Manis, partner at audit, tax, advisory and consulting firm Crowe UK, questioned whether the deputy PM had been asked about interests in other properties but pointed out it was reasonable to question the circumstances surrounding the transaction given her seniority.
“I wonder if she was asked whether she had an interest in any other property and, understandably, replied that she didn’t. If so, it doesn’t seem like a question of ethics and/or hypocrisy. However, if any of the advice she received mentioned the SDLT deeming rules and she failed to read/ understand it, I think it would be reasonable to ask questions about her competence, given how senior she is.”
Neil Fletcher, ex partner at PWC, called the move ‘a mind melting dive into SDLT anti avoidance’.
“This all seems very complicated and you can see how a “slip from cup to lip” could easily happen. It’s a mind melting dive into SDLT anti avoidance. Simply based on various press clippings and being sympathetic to the family circumstances, the trust scenario seems a bit complicated. It appears the Ashton property was bought in 2016 and then not too long afterwards (?) part of it gifted to the Trust (?) and at some point AR sold another 25% at a fairly high market value for cash. Not sure who owned what along the way and what lenders were involved and at what level any debt was used or repaid. It does seem that the relevant Trust had surplus cash to pay AR £160k or so as it seems to be the source of the deposit for Hove (??). Just a lot going on and in this tangle some key facts seem to have been overlooked.”
Many other commenters were less charitable, with one claiming ‘she got caught out and now wants to blame her conveyancers’, another saying Rayner is ‘yet another greedy MP’ who ‘thought they could get away with it’, and one berating all politicians as ‘not knowing what yes/no is’.
Charlie Davidson, senior associate solicitor (property) at at Bishop Sewell LLP simply said:
“Conveyancing never in the news – until someone forgets the surcharge.”
During PMQs, with a glum-looking Rayner at his side, Sir Keir Starmer said he was proud to sit alongside a deputy MP who has risen from a working class background. In response to Kemi Badenoch’s asking why Rayner is still in office, Starmer said she had gone ‘over and above’ in explaining her personal circumstances.
Rayner has referred herself to the standards watchdog.
13 responses
Strange
I can only see that our Housing Secretary said she sought tax advice from her lawyer.
I haven’t seen her use ‘Conveyancer’ in relation to this. Certainly not in the quoted text above.
Indeed it’s more than possible she consulted a tax lawyer and then told her conveyancer exactly what she wanted to happen.
Attention, seeking, much?
If what you say is the case Matt, she should make it clear.
Which law firm advised her to pay the lower stamp duty rate?
Were they property tax experts? If not, why not.
Was this original legal team in possession of the full facts to offer the correct advice?Will she now publish the inaccurate advice so the public can see how she was misadvised?
Rob, you’re absolutely right that SDLT has become increasingly complex over the past 20 years, and this situation is anything but straightforward.
The issue of “retainer creep” really highlights how many additional areas of advice conveyancers are expected to cover during a transaction—the building safety act being another good example. It doesn’t seem fair to place so many advisory responsibilities on conveyancers simply because of their gold-plated PII and the high level of regulation in the profession.
Outsourcing SDLT advice and verification helps reduce that risk, ensures clients receive the correct guidance, and allows conveyancers to focus on the work they’re trained to do—while enjoying their role rather than worrying about hidden pitfalls.
The challenge, of course, is that qualified tax advice can often be prohibitively expensive for most purchasers. That’s exactly where 4Stamp.co.uk steps in. Our aim is to make qualified SDLT advice accessible and affordable—not just for clients, but for conveyancers too—so everyone has the protection they deserve.
Matt and Rob both make valid points.
I think the problem here are the optics.
A radical MP who in the past lectured others on the need for integrity has sought to pay the least possible tax.
For such a high profile politician integrity not creative tax planning should have been her priority
all i have seen is her say she got incorrect tax advise from an accountant…
I don’t follow how a working class background is somehow a defence for Tax Evasion, integrity evasion and classic hypocrisy.
As a property magnate, is she lobbying Ms Reeves for a dispensation against any new landlord taxes she is considering?
Angela Rayner is one of the biggest PEP’s in the Country. The due diligence required over that Conveyancing file will be insane and no doubt Partner’s will be in charge of that matter. I certainly would not put that through without Partner’s approval, compliance approval etc. A lot of people are quick to blame Conveyancers but I bet the Conveyancing file will be absolutely water tight but Conveyancer’s are the easiest to blame and to deflect certainly at first instant. She already has professional people employed to deal with her affairs so I would be absolutely staggered if SDLT did not come up during the process and was considered by a proper expert.
lets hope none of fascist farage’s legal blunders come into play
Pleased to see this morning that the conveyancing firm has come out and said that they do not and did not provide tax advice. This should be standard amongst conveyancing firms. The Guardian article states “The stamp duty land tax was calculated using the HMRC calculator and was strictly based on the facts and information provided to us.” Interesting comment to make.
What this really shows is that SDLT rarely goes wrong because of the obvious details. It is the hidden factors like trust interests or family arrangements that change the outcome and those are easy to miss unless the right questions are asked at the start.
It also feels unfair to simply blame either the client or the conveyancer. Clients often do not know what is relevant to mention. Conveyancers cannot work with facts that were never shared. The only real safeguard is a process that draws these issues out every single time.
From our side at Compass we see time and again that the cases which appear straightforward are often the ones that hold the biggest surprises. And ultimately if the solicitor was a customer of ours this would never have occurred.
It’s all about asking the right questions of the client. The firm needs to make sure that they are asking the right questions at the outset. Because SDLT is so complex I am sure a lot of firms are not asking the right questions or all of the questions. If the client answers the questions given but they are not the right questions or all of the questions then the client has a defense stating that they were provided the information that they were asked for. The firm will have a defense because no doubt most firms limit their retainer when it comes to tax advise. It goes to highlight the problems with the current system. It does strike me that Angela Rayner may not have fully understood the Trust that was set up in the first place and she needs to take responsibility for that.
If the conveyancer is not giving tax advice, why are they computing the amount of stamp duty land TAX on the transaction, telling their client how much to pay, and completing and submitting the forms to HMRC?!
For the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK and Housing Minister to use a small conveyancing firm ( and that is no disrespect by the way to Verrico and Associates ) located in a pleasant small town, seems an odd choice to make.
As a Very High Profile Politician , anybody , regardless of origin, class, orientation, etc etc needs to have any legal stuff concerning any subject covered by the best advice.
No short cuts, no save save a couple of bob here or there…..no excuses.
These people have the money.
So buy the best advice and get on with your mission…..
Complete failure of judgement by Angela Rayner – meaning that Verrico should stand absolved from any implication of mis-advice and Ms Rayner needs to own her failings.