Angela Rayner - 3 homes now

Of course it is sleaze.

^Nadhim Zahawi's story about his tax affairs doesn't add up. After months of denials, the truth emerges.
His position is untenable. Rishi Sunak must dismiss him from his cabinet^.21.01.2023: Angela Rayner
He was sacked as Conservative Party Chairman in January 2024 because he had failed to disclose HMRC was investigating his tax affairs.

She cannot retain any credibility now, but some people clearly think one rule for, and another for Labour.

Good old telegraph, never misses the opportunity of dishing the dirt. Along with most of the rest of the Tory newspaper media.
We live in precarious times, people are angry, even me and I have never been an angry person.
I worry for our future, so much division, so much hatred, the world is going mad.

'one rule for one, and another for Labour.'

The Daily Telegraph reports the truth and you cannot ignore the facts. If they were untrue they would be sued.

The thing with giving away/selling/transferring your ownership is that you have to do it and then not receive benefit from it such as residing/staying there. If she paid the market rent during her stays at her son's house, she would probably been able to avoid the extra tax but she doesn't. I suspect the advice she was given didn't take into account that she still had to stay there.
I thought that the Grace and Favour home has to be used for Ministerial business so she can't just use it willy nilly for constituency or personal financial reasons. I might be wrong on that but that was what I was told by a former Councillor the other day.
Fancythat is quite right, Trusts should not be so complicated. People set them up in good faith for a great fee and then find that it doesn't allow them to do what they want it to do. They are a minefield.
I don't support Angela Raynor's politics but can see how difficult this is and do feel slightly sorry for her but having made a similar mistake before, she should have been more careful really.

eazybee

The Daily Telegraph reports the truth and you cannot ignore the facts. If they were untrue they would be sued.

Pure as the driven snow. Oh how short are some memories. This was the biggest defamation payout in UK media history.

www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/23/daily-telegraph-loses-bid-to-have-judge-removed-in-geoffrey-rush-case

Thanks GrannyGravy for posting your experience. Legal advice on complex areas of law is rarely straightforward. From work, I’ve more experience in areas other than trusts and housing. In my personal life we needed expert advice on investing in a home for one of our adult children who was in a difficult situation. We paid a large sum to the expert in a good local legal firm. Different opinions and we needed further independent advice.
I’ve discussed trusts and will only say everyone talks about how complicated it is.

I don’t know if Angela Raynor will have to resign. I don’t envy her, being the focus of a campaign to humiliate and shame her for vaping and swigging wine, as someone said earlier. There’s a lot of snobbery about her. I appreciate GrannyGravy pointing out that trusts etc operate on the edges of what is legally allowed,

And the report from Media Bias/Factcheck
mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/
I’m not suggesting don’t read the Telegraph, just know it for what it is, as with every other media outlet.

Casdon

And the report from Media Bias/Factcheck
mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/
I’m not suggesting don’t read the Telegraph, just know it for what it is, as with every other media outlet.

And all the newspapers favoured and supported by the Left are absolutely perfect, unbiased and honest?

Yeah, right! 🤣🤣🤣

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

growstuff we have spoken to three different IFA’s one of which is a very close family friend, and they have all given different advice and warnings

I am in two minds as to whether she should resign, do we expect our MP’s to be our betters or do we except them to have flaws like the rest of the population.

I do think that the PM is on a rather sticky wicket due to the Labour Party’s election promises of no more sleaze , could this come under the sleaze umbrella I am not sure 🤷‍♀️

I've also come across that kind of thing in the past. Two very reputable lawyers gave different advice, so it could be that AR had every reason to trust her first lawyer.

I'm sorry she received bad advice.

We now know details, as many as are necessary.

Hopefully this will resolve well for her children's sake.

FWIW if she has to resign she will lose her ministerial home. Perhaps she needed to buy the place in Hove to give her somewhere to live if she had to leave her grace and favour home and to give her some degree of security. Hove is a perfect place to live for anyone working in London. tbh I think it makes perfect sense and it's what I would do in her place as it's a bit cheaper than London.

Casdon

eazybee

The Daily Telegraph reports the truth and you cannot ignore the facts. If they were untrue they would be sued.

Pure as the driven snow. Oh how short are some memories. This was the biggest defamation payout in UK media history.

www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/23/daily-telegraph-loses-bid-to-have-judge-removed-in-geoffrey-rush-case

I don't think Sydney's Daily Telegraph has anything to do with The Telegraph.

AR could always have just read her own Govt.’s website regarding Trusts. It’s in plain English.

www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/trusts-for-vulnerable-people

It is so obvious that, as I said before, if she, as Deputy PM cannot get the top advice on this, then what hope do the rest of us have?

We have set up a Trust for a family member to secure their future when we pop our clogs. I found an excellent young solicitor who explained everything, did not rush us and answered all our questions. She specialises in Trusts. We spoke to a solicitor prior to this and she pointed us to her. It is a weight off our minds knowing we have done all we can to ensure a trouble free future with no financial problems.

This was done not for any dodgy tax dealings but to make sure they can enjoy the same level of comfort and security they have now.
I did read up a lot before we went ahead, eg Govt site, Mencap and a few others.

eazybee

For the benefit of people who can't be bothered to do their own research I refer you to the DT, probably tomorrow's edition although accessible now to subscribers, The article is by Madeleine Ross and will probably be in the financial section.

AR sold her 25% stake of the family home to a trust in January (2025?)to provide for her children. As her children are under 18 and are beneficiaries of the Trust and she is an executor, she retains an interest in the property- and should have paid the second home stamp duty.
She now faces paying the £40,000she avoided, plus 8% interest of £1,000. Possibly also another £12,00o'carelessness' penalties
. "Given all the publicity HMRC will want to make an example of her and avoid taxpayers using the DPM's behaviour as a justification to dodge tax."
There is no doubt the intention was to deceive.

I leave you to discover why she wants a home in Hove.

AFAIK her children are not under 18. One is in his 20s and a father himself and the other two are at College.

foxie48

FWIW if she has to resign she will lose her ministerial home. Perhaps she needed to buy the place in Hove to give her somewhere to live if she had to leave her grace and favour home and to give her some degree of security. Hove is a perfect place to live for anyone working in London. tbh I think it makes perfect sense and it's what I would do in her place as it's a bit cheaper than London.

Wouldn't expenses cover the rent on any second home needed to attend Parliament in London?

Kemi Badenoch claims £2,700 a month from the taxpayer to rent a grade II-listed farmhouse with six bedrooms in her constituency, which is within commutable distance of London.

Presumably AR doesn't claim rent.

growstuff

Casdon

eazybee

The Daily Telegraph reports the truth and you cannot ignore the facts. If they were untrue they would be sued.

Pure as the driven snow. Oh how short are some memories. This was the biggest defamation payout in UK media history.

www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/23/daily-telegraph-loses-bid-to-have-judge-removed-in-geoffrey-rush-case

I don't think Sydney's Daily Telegraph has anything to do with The Telegraph.

Sorry, there are cases against the UK Daily Telegraph, eg
pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/zia-chishti-telegraph-libel/
The point I was trying to make though is that media outlets often get facts wrong, and report in a biased way too. To say any outlet ‘tells the truth’ needs tempering based on its reliability and bias.

Primrose53

eazybee

For the benefit of people who can't be bothered to do their own research I refer you to the DT, probably tomorrow's edition although accessible now to subscribers, The article is by Madeleine Ross and will probably be in the financial section.

AR sold her 25% stake of the family home to a trust in January (2025?)to provide for her children. As her children are under 18 and are beneficiaries of the Trust and she is an executor, she retains an interest in the property- and should have paid the second home stamp duty.
She now faces paying the £40,000she avoided, plus 8% interest of £1,000. Possibly also another £12,00o'carelessness' penalties
. "Given all the publicity HMRC will want to make an example of her and avoid taxpayers using the DPM's behaviour as a justification to dodge tax."
There is no doubt the intention was to deceive.

I leave you to discover why she wants a home in Hove.

AFAIK her children are not under 18. One is in his 20s and a father himself and the other two are at College.

Her two youngest sons were 16 and 17 in July of this year.

She wouldn't claim rent if she is provided with a ministerial home but if the house in Ashton is subject to a trust, perhaps like many of us she wants to own her own place. I don't pretend to know anything other than what is available to read in the media but a ministerial place is a fairly insecure tenancy. So the heading of this thread is incorrect. She has a ministerial home subject to her retaining her position in the government, her previous home in Ashton is subject to a trust for her children, one of whom is disabled and she recently bought a flat in Hove.

As her children are under 18 and are beneficiaries of the Trust and she is an executor, she retains an interest in the property- and should have paid the second home stamp duty.
She now faces paying the £40,000she avoided, plus 8% interest of £1,000

What exactly was the £40,000 for?
Surely not stamp duty? If so, it's legal extortion! And where can anyone get 8% interest?

foxie48 The house in Ashton has now been sold to the trust and I understand AR's name is no longer on the title deeds. I understand the trust is money her son received in compensation for something (don't know what). AR is entitled to a home in her constituency, so why doesn't she rent the share of her former home back from the trust? She could then claim the rent and council tax on expenses - which would cost the "taxpayer" a lot more than the lost stamp duty. Simples! (Or have I got it all wrong? ).

Allira 8% is HMRC’s interest rate for late payment of taxes (27/08/25)

Allira

^As her children are under 18 and are beneficiaries of the Trust and she is an executor, she retains an interest in the property- and should have paid the second home stamp duty.^
She now faces paying the £40,000she avoided, plus 8% interest of £1,000

What exactly was the £40,000 for?
Surely not stamp duty? If so, it's legal extortion! And where can anyone get 8% interest?

Yes, I think it was stamp duty on second homes. She paid the standard stamp duty.

growstuff

Allira

As her children are under 18 and are beneficiaries of the Trust and she is an executor, she retains an interest in the property- and should have paid the second home stamp duty.
She now faces paying the £40,000she avoided, plus 8% interest of £1,000

What exactly was the £40,000 for?
Surely not stamp duty? If so, it's legal extortion! And where can anyone get 8% interest?

Yes, I think it was stamp duty on second homes. She paid the standard stamp duty.

Ah!
Excuse me, I'm nearly nodding off and not concentrating.

Must keep up at the back.

As her children are under 18 and are beneficiaries of the Trust and she is an executor, she retains an interest in the property- and should have paid the second home stamp duty.

Aha! So that's why.

Sorry I posted too soon, HMRC also charge 8% interest on late payment of duties which I guess could cover Stamp Duty.