Angela Rayner - 3 homes now

🤔

I liked GSM. I very much doubt she was banned solely because of her remarks about Angela Raynor

just reading some of the remarks on here and in the media generally makes me realise that (some) people really don’t understand the issues and are prepared to smear people for personal reasons. (Growstuff)

On the Nicky Campbell show this morning, he made the point he’d asked three legal experts the same question, each gave different responses.

Some areas of law are complex. There are significant differences between what a conveyancing solicitor and a KC specialising in Trusts for children with disability may understand.

Raynor referred herself, the investigation is ongoing. Is the internet fuelling this growing need for 24 hour news, updated every half hour. Little wonder anxiety is an increasing problem. Relax and wait for the conclusions of what we can I hope trust to be a thorough, independent report

Allira

^Germanshepherdsmum, who knew her stuff, praised our choice!).^
Shame she isn't here to throw some light.

Isn't it!

But posters took exception to some of her remarks about this particular politician and she was banned.
Strange, as far worse has been posted about politicians and about several subjects.

I could be very wrong, but dont think that was what she got banned for.

Lathyrus3

So all she has to do really is provide evidence that she sought advice from experts in the field and was given totally the wrong information.

It seems so obvious to me.

Yes. I agree.

Unless she sought "good" advice, that was either wrong, she gave them wrong info, or muddled her own info, or didnt explain quite right, or she didnt understand what they were saying[though in this case even DH and I have things in written emails so everyone gets to be chrystal clear].

Personally I would expect "good" advice from all sorts of people. But things dont always quite work out like that.

Yes, that's the crux growstuff.

Rayner has explained this in her statement:

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.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/03/angela-rayners-full-statement-on-her-stamp-duty-underpayment

More information is emerging little by little. Shoosmiths, who I had understood to be co-trustees but perhaps not as they have denied advising her. Someone must have dealt with the conveyance of her residual share of the Ashton home into the trust, the release of funds and the purchase of the Hove apartment. I am wondering who dealt with the SDLT1 return.

I don't think it would be professional to name any firm who may have given advice as we don't know if they were given all the facts regarding the trust. Up to Laurie Magnus now to dig deeper when he considers whether Nolan has been breached.

Allira

^Germanshepherdsmum, who knew her stuff, praised our choice!).^
Shame she isn't here to throw some light.

Isn't it!

But posters took exception to some of her remarks about this particular politician and she was banned.
Strange, as far worse has been posted about politicians and about several subjects.

I was going to post the very same about GSM this morning. She is still greatly missed by so many on here and her take on this would have been very insightful.

Minister for Housing…

I am beginning to think GNet has lost the plot - 0300 200 3510 Mon to Friday 8.30 am to 5 pm. Number to ring for stamp duty queries.
Please don’t tell me that the Housing Secretary couldn’t work this out!!

Germanshepherdsmum, who knew her stuff, praised our choice!).
Shame she isn't here to throw some light.

Isn't it!

But posters took exception to some of her remarks about this particular politician and she was banned.
Strange, as far worse has been posted about politicians and about several subjects.

Lathyrus3

I didn’t think we knew who advised her growstuff so when escaped quoted them I thought maybe au had missed that bit of news.

If she just published the erroneous advice she received I would accept she was understandably mistaken in acting on it.

It would be a wise thing to do, don’t you think.

Yes, Shoosmiths were involved over the AC trust. We know that.
So when AR then decides to acquire the Hove property, those acting on her behalf are required to make enquiries with the previous law firm to ascertain all the necessary details.
I know this speaking from my similar personal experience. So, when we were juggling simultaneous ownership of two domestic properties, plus acquiring a third business one, as well as sorting out a trust for our minor children because we were moving abroad, the law firm checked back over the previous years and requested all documentation from that previous solicitor. (We used Mishcon, - Germanshepherdsmum, who knew her stuff, praised our choice!).
Shame she isn't here to throw some light.

Anyway, It was all very complicated, though luckily, the lawyers did all the communicating , (at a cost). It would have been way beyond our abilities, so like AR we put everything in what we trusted was capable hands. I can understand her dismay at finding things weren't done accurately.

I'm not implicating any firm in AR's subsequent dealings, we dont know who advised her. But just saying things are minutely covered and delved into from all angles, and a decent law firm usually speaks to other lawyers from different firms used in the past.

So all she has to do really is provide evidence that she sought advice from experts in the field and was given totally the wrong information.

It seems so obvious to me.

PaynesGrey Thank you for being the voice of reason on this thread.

Am I right in thinking the last para is the relevant one:

"Where a minor child would be treated as owning an interest in land because they are a beneficiary of a trust, the parents of that child (and, if the parents are not married to one another, the spouses or civil partners, if any, of those parents) are treated for the purposes of Condition C as owners of the interest [Para 12]"

Rayner's two youngest children are minors. Although she no longer owns the property, she and her ex-husband are "treated for the purposes of Condition C as owners of the interest".

Just reading some of the comments on here and in the media generally makes me realise that people really don't understand the issues and are prepared to smear people for personal reasons.

Many of the reports say that Shoosmiths set up the trust for Rayner's son and say they are trustees of it along with Mark and Angela Rayner. Are they? If so, they may not have been consulted over the purchase of the Hove apartment but they must have been party to the transfer of the Ashton property into the trust and release of funds to Rayner. If not who are the current trustees?

I didn’t think we knew who advised her growstuff so when escaped quoted them I thought maybe au had missed that bit of news.

If she just published the erroneous advice she received I would accept she was understandably mistaken in acting on it.

It would be a wise thing to do, don’t you think.

The controversy over the sale of Rayner’s former council home, long before she became an MP, was stirred up deliberately by former Tory Chairman Richard Holden and his deputy James Daly. The latter lost his Bury North seat in 2024 while Holden was parachuted into to stand in Tory stronghold Basildon & BlIlericay but only scraped in by 20 seats, losing a huge majority. Holden was the also the MP who made the Beergate allegations.

Both sets of allegations proved false. Durham police did not consider than an offence had been commited and HMRC said there was no tax to pay.

Now it’s primarily current Tory chairrman Kevin Hollinrake pushing the allegations about Rayner’s SDLT plus Badenoch’s right hand man Alex Burghart claiming that is it Labour MPs who are briefing against Rayner in a bid to oust her now before, if and when Starmer goes. It’s all just grubby politics.

That said, Rayner has admitted she has made a mistake but it’s easy to see why.

Anyway, these are the relevant sections in the HMRC manual:

SDLTM09770 (quoted by David) is concerned only with the chargeable consideration for the purchase of a single dwelling which must be equal to or more than £40,000 for the transaction to be a higher rates transaction.  

SDLTM09812 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: Meaning of 'main residence’

I won’t replicate it all as it’s long and you can read it for yourselves but note:

The rules do not allow an individual to nominate which dwelling is their main residence.

The main residence is not necessarily the residence where the individual spends the majority of their time, although it commonly will be.

If someone lives in two houses the question, which does (s)he use as the principal or more important one, cannot be determined solely by reference to the way in which (s)he divides her/his time between the two.

SDLTM09815 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: interests treated as owned by an individual, trusts, children [including children subject to the Mental Health Acts]

Where a minor child would be treated as owning an interest in land because they are a beneficiary of a trust, the parents of that child (and, if the parents are not married to one another, the spouses or civil partners, if any, of those parents) are treated for the purposes of Condition C as owners of the interest [Para 12].

Lathyrus3

escaped

it was a pretty poor lawyer who advised her
Yet, conversely their website statement reads : ^We are the law firm clients choose for excellent service, incisive thinking and above all for our ability to focus on what matters.^

Which law firm did she use?

The public doesn't know yet.

www.legalcheek.com/2025/09/shoosmiths-distances-itself-as-angela-rayner-tax-row-escalates/

Lathyrus3

Didn’t they issue a statement saying they didn’t advise her on this and that she hadn’t been a client for some time.

I think I read it on BBC. I’ll go back to check.

Shoosmiths have confirmed that they haven't dealt with Rayner since 2020, when the trust for her son was set up.

Yes I thought that was their statement. They set up the trust but “did not advise on the purchase of the Hove flat”.

She really needs to make public the advice

Didn’t they issue a statement saying they didn’t advise her on this and that she hadn’t been a client for some time.

I think I read it on BBC. I’ll go back to check.

Lathyrus3

escaped

it was a pretty poor lawyer who advised her
Yet, conversely their website statement reads : ^We are the law firm clients choose for excellent service, incisive thinking and above all for our ability to focus on what matters.^

Which law firm did she use?

Probably best for me not to say on here, but the one that set up the trust begins with S like you wear on your feet.

This is not the first time there has been confusion over Angela Rayner and the tax paid on her properties.

I am prepared to strain credulity, and say that she has been unfortunate. On the other hand to have confusion the first time, should surely mean you should be extra careful the second time round, to end up with this kind of muddle twice suggests someone who is rather careless in how she conducts her personal financial affairs and the question then arises whether we want someone as slap dash as this on financial issues running any ministry, let alone the Ministry of Housing.

The honourable thing to do, and I do accept that politicians and honour, or personal morality, are mutual opposites, mean that she should resign - and Keir Stramer could bring her back into the cabinet in the next cabinet reshuffle.

escaped

^it was a pretty poor lawyer who advised her^
Yet, conversely their website statement reads : ^We are the law firm clients choose for excellent service, incisive thinking and above all for our ability to focus on what matters.^

Which law firm did she use?

ronib

Hove seems to be where Sam Tarry and his ex wife live with their 2 children. Apparently… Sam Tarry is the new partner or not of AR? Do we care?

Old news, they are no longer together. It didn't last long, apparently.

Any ordinary folk get away with dodging tax because there are not enough resources to check up on who is actually living where, especially unmarried couples.
Politicians get much more scrutiny and are unlikely to get away with much for long.
The lawyers failed to take that into account, they will just blame the client for giving inaccurate information - they always have a disclaimer to protect their own backsides.