Angela Rayner - 3 homes now

Remind me not to buy a second home.
It's complicated.

Allira

Remind me not to buy a second home.
It's complicated.

No it isn’t really, you just have to be prepared to pay the full second home stamp duty.

In AR’s case this would have been 10% (£250,001 - £950,000)

Thanks!
It's not likely to happen anyway.

Perhaps she needs a better solicitor. I understand her boss was a lawyer.

Growstuff Perhaps she doesn't want to, I'm not party to how she thinks and she's perfectly entitled to buy a flat in Hove if that is where she wants to buy. The issue is not how many homes she has or where they are, it is that she has under paid stamp duty. She says she was given the wrong advice but ignorance is never an excuse so she's paid the bill and referred herself to the Standards committee. None of us know anymore than that do we?

I heard her say her son has life long disabilities, she referred to an accident

It’s simplistic to assume legal advice is always consistent. We don’t know enough to decide if AR should resign. I don’t envy her, a target of class snobbery

Are any ducks or moats involved? Asking for a friend...

I don’t envy her, a target of class snobbery.

No, for her lack of ability.

Wait and see what spin the Standards Committee puts on it. Let’s just remind ourselves that AR is the Secretary of State for housing. Obviously stamp duty on second homes needs very careful clarification. If AR can be confused about what is a second home, when family home is in a trust, then legislation should clarify?

Not necessarily a target of class snobbery, although call accusingly anyone of that is a kind of inverted snobbery in itself.

If I had a boss who was a lawyer I’d want to be certain that any legal advice I was given would pass muster with the boss too.
Or maybe I’d hope he/she was too busy to notice any irregularities.
How come there was no one with the sort of legal advice around that AR apparently got, when DGD was buying her house? That would have been really helpful and she genuinely wouldn’t have know the advice skirted legality.

foxie48

Growstuff Perhaps she doesn't want to, I'm not party to how she thinks and she's perfectly entitled to buy a flat in Hove if that is where she wants to buy. The issue is not how many homes she has or where they are, it is that she has under paid stamp duty. She says she was given the wrong advice but ignorance is never an excuse so she's paid the bill and referred herself to the Standards committee. None of us know anymore than that do we?

No, we don't, but some people seem to think they do.

I was just thinking that it does seem trusts are quite complicated. The original house in Ashton would (I think) have been in joint names with her former husband. Her divorce is possibly quite complicated because it will have involved provision for her disabled son. I honestly don't think the public has the right to know what that involves.

It appears the trust and whatever gagging order was in place was to protect her son.

I do think she's been badly advised.

A target of class snobbery someone above says have you asked the working class what they think or is it presumed they won't understand The prime example of being working class can't work things out The idea it's just people who don't like working class is ridiculous I'm 100 per cent working class and I'm not impressed by the public representation of working class ness

Taxation of Wills and Trusts is extremely complicated. It's why experts can easily earn £100,000 a year or more and why someone shouldn’t rely on what a run-of-the-mill general family solicitor (if that is who she used) might say.

It’s both ludicrous and desperate to assert that because her “boss” is a lawyer she would ask for his advice or that he would give it. Starmer specialised in human rights cases.

What I don't understand is if she put the house in the trust, with her, her husband and the law firm Shoosmiths as trustees, why didn't the well-respected company check everything properly?
That's what you pay them for.

Primrose53

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! 🤣🤣🤣

Which papers are favoured and supported by the Left?

Is the Morning Star still going? Or Socialist Worker? I haven't seen or heard of either for decades, and have no idea what they would report on these days. Of the mainstream press, there is only the Mirror that is remotely left-leaning. The Guardian is Liberal, and the rest are definitely right, probably including the i, which seems to believe it is unbiased. To give it (the i) its due, it gives a platform to a range of views from Kwasi Kwarteng to Yasmin Alibhi-Brown, but none of them pretends to be politically neutral, so readers just get a mixed bag of biased articles and reportage. As there is a Labour government, more than 50% of that appears to be critical, so the paper as a whole leans Right, but that may change if we get a Tory one in next time (who knows if there'd even be a free press at all if Reform take power?)

But I digress from the thread. Like someone unthread, I believe that tax should be uncomplicated, so that nobody can (or can claim to) fall foul of incorrect advice or misunderstanding the rules. It is (IMO) wrong that only those who can afford to employ experts should be able to shelter money from the taxation that everyone else has to contribute.

When it comes to operating close to the margins of legality, I think that advisors who give false advice should be personally liable, whether covered by insurance (in the manner of surveyors etc) or in their own right. Ignorance is not a defence in law, but when someone forks out money for expert advice to mitigate their own ignorance they should be able to use that as a defence.

I'm sure that the vast majority of people (including those on this thread) who take legal advice believe they have acted honestly when they follow that advice. If it turns out that their lawyers were wrong, who should be held to account?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Still trying to make sense of it all.
From what I am reading now it seems the Rayners have compensation from the NHS for the birth of the disabled child, and this money has been put in a trust. The house , jointly owned by A Rayner and her ex-husband has been included in this trust (I think) and Mrs, R had 25%, Mr.R has 25% and the rest belongs to the Trust. AR sold her 25% to raise money for the deposit for the Hove apartment, £160,000, again, I think)
The Rayners 'nest' to share childcare.. in the house, that is , one is there then vacates the property while the other one is resident. Meanwhile, AR has a home in Hove, now her first home.
I think.
What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive.
I just hope Mr. R doesn't lose his share of the house.

I've read your post carefully, escapd, but where is the deception you mention?

Goodness, the knitting needles are out, aren't they.

Doodledog

I've read your post carefully, escapd, but where is the deception you mention?

Same question from me!

Doodledog

I've read your post carefully, escapd, but where is the deception you mention?

Sorry?? Do you mean me? I don't think I mentioned deception?

I think my post was about negligence by the lawyers. They may not be tax experts, but from my experience of setting up a trust, the client is informed at the time by the lawyer that "if you subsequently do X, then you will be liable for Y". It's their job or duty to inform you of all eventualities. Otherwise they are negligent.

LizzieDrip

Doodledog

I've read your post carefully, escapd, but where is the deception you mention?

Same question from me!

Same answer from me!

^What a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive^

Quote from your post escaped.

Will someone please help me here!!!! Argh!!

Sorry - correction. It was eazybee’s post I was referring to.

Apologies escaped.

👍