The managing director of the conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of Angela Rayner’s Hove flat has issued a statement to The Telegraph, explaining that the firm did not give tax or trust advice.
Joanna Verrico, of Herne Bay firm Verrico & Associates Ltd, told the newspaper:
“We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used, and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this, and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters, and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
An excerpt from Verrico & Associates’ terms of engagement published by The Telegraph explains the role of a conveyancer and makes it clear the firm does not offer advice on unrelated matters.
The terms state:
2.Non-conveyancing and non-legal advice
A licensed conveyancer is a specialist property lawyer, qualified to advise on conveyancing law, probate and will writing only. If you need advice on other legal or non-legal matters […] you should consult appropriately qualified professionals such as a litigation lawyer, a surveyor or a financial adviser.
Today’s Conveyancer has invited Verrico & Associates to comment.
3 responses
I do not know anything about Verrico & Associates Ltd but they have seemingly been described as a small local conveyancing firm. With the greatest of respect to Verrico & Associates Ltd, what is the deputy Prime Minister, a person of significant influence, a huge Politically Exposed Person and someone who is one of the most senior persons in the Country doing instructing a small local conveyancing firm. We have some huge firms in this country acting for very wealthy and influential people. This is not to disparage Verrico & Associates Ltd at all but surely Angela Rayner’s judgement on the type of firm she has instructed is seemingly incredibly misguided especially given her complex Trust and Tax arrangements not to mention what she does for a living. This is not to disparage Verrico & Associates Ltd certainly not, it is more of a reflection on Angela Rayner and how this whole saga has been dealt with, seemingly, incredibly naively. Surely the bigger law firms in this country will have greater experience in acting for people of the like of Angela Rayner and thus be a more appropriate instruction? No doubt the Government would have been involved in this owing to the relocation of one of the most senior politicians in the Country and the security implications. Someone surely steps in at some point and says we suggest you use a certain type of legal firm to avoid embarrassing situations like this. After all, they’ve used Shoosmiths before for the Trust.
It seems AR would not have known of the firm, unless via personal association’s or professional recommendations?
The entire issue appears highly questionable, as previously said why would such a high profile person, in one of the most senior and influential roles as Deputy PM and a Secretary of State for Housing, use a small family ran ‘conveyancing firm’ some 300 miles from the properties and complex specialist issues being relevant.
AR used a top fight firm of lawyers for ‘trusts’ and other advices… surely any such firm would assist in directing clients to such specialist, if they were unable to assist.
As a solicitor I find it strange that the conveyancers are speaking in public about a client’s affairs, as this is something a solicitor would never do, being bound by our duty of confidentiality. Criticising the client for relying on them doing their job properly (whether or not Ms Rayner gave them permission to do so) is not a good look. A solicitor would have asked the client if the purchase was of his or her only home or a second home. Whether they did so has not been made clear. Funny that, isn’t it.