To think that surely Rayner has to go.

[Blankscreen]

Well well well.

So now it emerges that Rayner rearranged her property affairs and declared to HMRC that her new flat in Brighton is her main residence and saved £40k on the SDLT bill as a result.

She has then apparently declared to the local councils the complete opposite.

I'm sure slimeball Kier will defend and say it was perfectly legal blah blah blah.

Not to mention she has a grace and favour house funded by tax payers in London as her constituency office is so far away. Yet she 'lives' in Brighton - surely she could just commute that distance like may others do every day.

Surely she has to go.

This is what chatgpt advised on this complex issue in a few seconds:

Good question — and a tricky area of UK tax and property law. Here’s the position in plain terms:

1.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) “3% surcharge” rules

• The additional 3% SDLT surcharge applies if, at the time you buy another property, you already own (or are deemed to own) another residential property.
• “Ownership” for SDLT includes property held in trusts where you (or your spouse/civil partner) have a beneficial interest.

2.
Putting your home into a trust

• If you put your existing home into a trust but still retain a right to live there, or benefit from it, HMRC will usually treat you as still owning it for SDLT purposes.
• That means the 3% surcharge would still apply when you buy a second home.

3.
When it might not count

• If you transfer your home into an irreversible (bare) trust for your children and you give up all rights to live there or benefit, then you may no longer be treated as owning it.
• However:
• You’d be making a gift of the house, which has inheritance tax (IHT) and capital gains tax (CGT) consequences.
• If you continue to live there, it becomes a “gift with reservation of benefit” — so still counted as yours for IHT, and HMRC may also argue ownership remains for SDLT.
• If there’s a mortgage, you’d need lender consent to transfer it into trust.

4.
Anti-avoidance

HMRC is very alert to people trying to move homes into trusts or family members’ names to avoid the 3% SDLT surcharge. Unless you genuinely divest yourself of all rights/benefits, it won’t work.

✅ Bottom line

• Simply putting your house into trust for your kids won’t avoid the SDLT surcharge unless you give it away completely (with no right to live in it), which creates bigger tax and legal issues.
• If your plan is mainly SDLT-driven, HMRC will almost certainly still treat you as owning the first property.

I think she will be gone as Labour simply cannot afford this type of additional headache and problem on top of everything they are facing.

The forthcoming budget is going to be extremely painful for them and they really do not need distractions of this nature. She's blown it big time.

It's magnified that she's been writing to Rachel Reeves wanting higher taxes on loads of things including property. It has deep irony that she's The Secretary of State for Housing as well as the DPM. One would have thought that the wealth of experience within her own department could potentially have put her on the right track when it comes to taxation on housing.

I do believe her when she says she took advice from lawyers who made mistakes. Most people would struggle with the legalities of trusts and property purchase and rely on the professionals to guide them and ensure everything was compliant. BUT the Housing Minister, the Deputy Leader! Come on you would have to question, double check. Triple check! There won't be many politicians criticising her though as how many others have also been up to no good and have been busy flipping homes here and there to benefit from fat cat expenses, council tax reductions and lower stamp duty rates? All the while demonising disabled people, universal credit and pip claimants.

It’s not that complex and daily stuff as the pp have said.

Yeah but she says she cashed in her share within the trust.... if it were so clear cut, her legal advice would have been pay the extra.

Re ChatGpt, it cannot even get the correct 5% value.

I doubt anyone on here knew if you occasionally lived in a house, you re deemed to "own" it..... for tax purposes.

'I doubt anyone on here knew if you occasionally lived in a house, you re deemed to "own" it..... for tax purposes.'

Surely when your dc lives there, a dc under 18 that would make you think as a parent and it being a trust that you are in some way financially responsible/tied even if you only occasional live in it?

Yes but she says she cashed in her share... what appears to be the issue here is despite no longer having a financial interest in the house, she was still deemed to have some sort of ownership by HMRC for taxation purposes.

Like you say, any conveyancing agent would know the basics, so her arrangement must be significantly different.

I'm just trying to be fair to her ..... btw i never called for Tories to resign over tax affairs either, judge someone on their abilities to do the job.

Taxation is incredibly complicated in the UK - for ref i used to go out with a tax account & have done IT stuff for HMRC, its a nightmare.

However, when one’s listed on the Land Registry along with the Trust and her ex husband as co-proprietors of the property one ought to perhaps stop and think twice about answering the question ‘do you have any interest in another residential property’. And as it’s also common knowledge that under 18s can’t own property in the UK, even via a trust, perhaps a little flag should have been raised. Let’s not forget, the Trusts lawyers act for the Trust. Not for Rayner the individual buying a house.

As a lifeline, and I don’t know how old her children are, but there is a two (I think) year window for reclaiming the second home SDLT surcharge if you do then dispose of the first. So there’s that…

She’s not a socialist. She is a mefirstist.

I did what the lawyers told me. Give the fuck over mate. If you’re the DPM we can all presume you can read and ask questions.

It’s such a shame when a person who has the talent to effect change and good can’t piss past their own feet.

Yep. The lawyers bit is a lie right? So what next

Time to write her book now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/03/rayner-used-disabled-son-nhs-compensation-buy-second-home/

She used £160k of her son's NHS compensation to buy the flat in Hove.

Hey Katie!! Here’s your way out of your financial hole.

I’m not buying that she’s taken any ‘advice’ at all. Any lawyer/accountant working with her, will know that under anti money laundering regulations, Raynor is a Politically Exposed Person - or PEP. There are additional layers of due diligence that professional firms have to go through when dealing with PEP’s. No reputable firm has given her advice without being absolutely 100% certain that it’s correct, or they risk their own licence. I suspect her initial ‘advice’ was a quick Google.

That isn't quite right? She sold her share of the house to the trust. She didn't directly use the compensation awarded to her son?

Eta: the article is behing a paywall. Does anyone have a link to the full text, please?

Yes I think you’re right.

Shoosmiths have out put a statement saying they did not advise on her property transaction. It’s in The Lawyer, but that’s paywalled and I am not a subscriber.

https://archive.ph/

For reading paywall articles.

As I understand it she sold her share to the Trust. But, because the child(ren?) is under 18 they cannot own property, even in a Trust. That’s basic property law. So she was always going to remain on the Land Registry, until the child is 18 at least.

I’ve had to block out a lot of the Johnson years but I don’t recall any criticism of him for being posh. For lying, being incompetent, sexually incontinent, foolish, blundering etc. But not posh.

Given the PEP info in pp which makes sense why should the ‘I was given bad advice’ lie stand?

There’s no excuse for making stuff up.

There’s a tax lawyer on ‘X’ who has commented that Disabled Persons Trusts are a ‘thing’. They are rare and complex (I’m paraphrasing a bit here), but he says they do have some special SDLT exemptions provided certain conditions are met. He’s suggesting most lawyers would recognise this sort of structure needs specialist advice - even in the legal world. So it comes down to whether the lawyers AR allegedly used, recognised this specialist area of law. Interesting Shoosmiths have moved quickly to distance themselves, it will remain to be seen if other firms follow suit.

No you missed the point. Thr union man suggested that Rayner received more scrutiny than others because she was working class. Posh MPs recieve the same amount of scrutiny.

The issue is the role not the accent, if you put yourself up there and make rules then fall short yourself you will be judged.

I see. Then your example was an odd one. Johnson received an inordinate amount of criticism because of some strikingly dreadful things that he did. Many of which involved dodgy deals and dishonesty.

Try again.

They all get scrutiny whether they're posh or not.