Angela Rayner

Iam64

It’s part of the campaign to force AR out.

Prime minister in waiting

Around and block come to mind

It’s part of the campaign to force AR out.

I'm sorry that we even know about the the sad private dealings of this woman. It's a complicated storm in a teacup whipped up by the media looking for a nice nasty story.

My son had a query over Stamp duty. He phoned the helpline and got advice. Later some doubts were raised as to whether the advice he was given was correct. He phoned the Government helpline again and was told the opposite advice! It is clearly complicated that even the people who advise don't always get it right.

I am not a Labour (or Tory) voter but nor am I daft enough to imagine that MPs of any party are all knowledgable about areas such as tax law. Even Accountants (of which I am one) have areas of knowledge which are not in their everyday repetoire - and as they say "a bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

However, I would think and believe that a legal adviser, advising on the taxation (of which Stamp Duty is one area) of a property purchase would be well versed in such details, and if I consulted one regarding the tax due on a property purchase would be entitled to believe their statement that only the standard rate of Stamp Duty would apply in this case. In fact my DH and I have today had an appointment with a local solicitor to discuss our wills which may or may not involve the transfer of the assets of the spouse who dies first into a Discretionary Trust and would assume that her advice re taxes thereon is correct.

That advice may eventually prove to be incorrect, but that is not my first assumption.

We are all entitled to arrange our financial affairs in any legal manner which minimises the amount of tax payable. That is perfectly legal - indeed it is sensible. It is not only NOT Tax Evasion (which is basically lying) and not even Tax Avoidance (which is legal but employs little-known, devious and complex transactions that were never intended to provide people with a way of paying less tax. But selling a portion of the ownership of a property to the trust that supports the home of a disabled child is neither Evasion nor Avoidance.

Angela Rayner was perfectly entitled to do that and had sound personal reasons for doing so - and that transaction itself would presumably have no effect on the rate of stamp duty on a separate purchase of a new home.

Therefore I cannot see that she has done anything wrong, but my knowledge of Stamp Duty is not bang up to date and was never a part of my working experience as an Accountant.

Re council tax on her Ashton residence, if she lives there she pays council tax, unless regarded merely as a temporary visitor. I imagine she will also pay council tax on the new flat - but that isn't my area either.

Yes, the law re stamp duty on second homes is not straightforward but I have worked for several solicitors over my life who specialised in both trusts and property purchase who would have full and detailed knowledge of this area - and therefore would be trusted to advise correctly.

Leave the poor woman alone, FGS. Her "crime" (if any) is small fry compared to some of the millions of pounds of unpaid tax by some MPs who "forgot" to declare taxable transactions and still retained their jobs. And these were people with access to top lawyers and accountants, not relatively uneducated (though not stupid by a long chalk) young women who have seen life when it was really hard.

Allsorts

I would have thought even the worst lawyer would know about stamp duty. They could have googled it first or ask any estate agent.

They would know about stamp duty, but not necessarily about trusts.

Have we got anyone trustworthy in our Government? Week after week, we hear about someone being ‘unaware of the law’, ‘ignorant of certain legislation’ etc. etc.
If ministers are so unaware of the law that they can cheat and act illegally, how on earth can they hold their heads up in front of their constituents? And how did they get elected if they are so ignorant?

By attempting to avoid paying the correct amount of stamp duty.
Poor behaviour. From the Deputy Prime Minister : shocking.

Why don't people read threads before commenting?

Had you read my post at 20:39:16 you would understand this is not a simply matter.

Let me repeat:

Experts say however that the piece of property law in question is so rarely invoked that a conveyancer might not have thought to ask about it.

James Liffen, a partner at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, said: “It should have been picked up, but it is something that requires a degree of specialist expertise beyond the average conveyancing solicitor.”

I would have thought even the worst lawyer would know about stamp duty. They could have googled it first or ask any estate agent.

Bixiboo

Apparently so karmalady. It was reported on the news earlier. It seems to be a total mess and to me what she has done to her sons life care is 100% worse than the issue of whether she should remain as an MP.

What a vile comment!

She is NOT saying she was ignorant of the law, She is saying she was advised she need only pay the standard rate of SDLT.

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.

Are you saying she didn’t have it explained to her by her advisor? Like I said, for the rest of us ignorance of the law is not a defence!

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I don’t hate Angela Rayner.
I do hate being taken for a fool though.

Angela Rayner has stated quite clearly that for council tax purposes her constituency house is her main residence. She has also stated quite clearly that for stamp duty purposes her new apartment in Hove is her principal residence.

What legal advice could she possibly need to know that this is impossible?

No, it's not impossible. You don't have to own a home to pay council tax on it.

Bixiboo

Apparently so karmalady. It was reported on the news earlier. It seems to be a total mess and to me what she has done to her sons life care is 100% worse than the issue of whether she should remain as an MP.

This is libellous. No, she hasn't. She has ensured that he has a roof over his head for life.

rosyposy50

Tge first thing I was taught in legal studies is that ignorance is no defence. She knew the law and flouted it. No excuse, just like the rest of us!

How do you know that she knew the law? When she bought the Hove property, she didn't own any other property. She would have had to have some knowledge of trust law, which she possibly didn't.

Karmalady Oh dear. Has she really used her son’s nhs compensation to help her buy the flat?

No. The trust which administers Angela Rayner’s son’s award, has quite properly used some of the funds to buy a property in which he can live, in financial security.

Another fly on the wall, party to whatever exchanges took place.

How do you know she knew the law? She is neither a lawyer nor a tax expert. She has explained in her statement:

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.

Tge first thing I was taught in legal studies is that ignorance is no defence. She knew the law and flouted it. No excuse, just like the rest of us!

Nonsense.

The trustees managing the award have bought Rayner’s share of the house so that the trust now owns it for the benefit of her children. That would have been a joint decision of the trustees which include Shoosmiths law firm and not Rayner’s alone.

From Rayner’s statement:

In 2023 my ex-husband and I divorced … Some of the interest in our family home was transferred to the trust in 2023. In January 2025, I sold the remaining interest in the property to my son’s trust. This will give him the security of knowing the home is his, allowing him to continue to live in the home he feels safe in and grew up in. We transferred the property because it was in the best interests of our child.

She has used the proceeds (with the addition of a mortgage) to buy the Hove property.

I cannot see what there is to object to over the property arrangements.

Apparently so karmalady. It was reported on the news earlier. It seems to be a total mess and to me what she has done to her sons life care is 100% worse than the issue of whether she should remain as an MP.

Oh dear. Has she really used her sons nhs compensation to help her buy the flat?

Nothing to see here, then. Move along please.

Oh wait.
Maybe the firm she took advice from have something interesting to say about all this?

I’m expecting more on this story in the newspapers tomorrow.

Good point janeainsworth. That would make sense. The child's compensation trust fund used to buy the house that has been adapted for his use. That has now been confirmed:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/03/angela-rayner-flat-controversy-how-did-it-happen-and-how-damaging-is-it

A spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday that the cash used to buy the Hove flat originally came from that payout. The trust now holds equity in the Ashton house instead.

It's worth repeating what else The Guardian has published about this:

When she bought the £800,000 property in May, she paid the standard rate of stamp duty, estimated to be £30,000, rather than the higher rate for second homes, which would have been as much as £70,000.

She says the reason she did so was that she had in January put her stake in her constituency home in Greater Manchester into a trust, with her children as the beneficiaries. Because she had removed her name from the deed of the house, she was advised that she no longer counted as the owner of the property and therefore could classify the Hove flat as her only dwelling.

Tax experts say, however, that stamp duty law is more complicated than that. If the terms of the trust were such that she or her children could live in the Greater Manchester property for the rest of their lives, it still would be likely to count as her main home for tax reasons.

Questions remain over who gave her the initial legal advice, what she told them and what the advice said. Experts say however that the piece of property law in question is so rarely invoked that a conveyancer might not have thought to ask about it.

James Liffen, a partner at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, said: “It should have been picked up, but it is something that requires a degree of specialist expertise beyond the average conveyancing solicitor.”

I don’t want her to do anything or than provide transparency over the mess/oversight/bad advice

That’s exactly what she has done in her statement and interview🤷‍♀️