Angela rayner

Legal folks on here. Am I right in thinking that before you can complete a purchase you have to first obtain a (automated) confirmation from HMRC that either the appropriate SDLT has been paid, or that the purchase is exempt? If so, then am I right in thinking that a solicitor/conveyancer would have to first check that the calculation/exemption is correct? Would it pass muster to simply say you had submitted that SDLT certification on the basis of what your client told you?

 

I'm not talking to any reform voters. See brexit. You can't talk to these people with any rational debate. Their minds are made up. Truth and reason are beyond them.

The veil of Fascism is slipping.

To ignore that is deluded. To deny it is complicit. But understandable, we didn't think this was possible, it's not been witnessed for a long time. Being slow to recognise such things only aids it.

I don't know if you saw Farage in the US trying to profess risks to free speech in the UK. Citing the unfair story of a jailed racist who pleaded guilty and is now free. In other news which I've only seen passing mention of, numerous journalists from the centre left have been banned from Farages party conference. But if people don't want to see the signs...

 

The solicitor generates an SDLT calculation based on the information you provide and ask you to check it's correct. Going through conveyancing now so it's very fresh in my mind. The onus is on the individual, not the conveyancer.

 

That makes sense, I suppose. It would be too easy to pass the buck on to your solicitor otherwise. When I think about it, the return has to be filed before registration, rather than before purchase.

AI confirms responsibility for the return remains with the buyer. So no out for Ange there, then.

 

Have to say I disagree on this, you have to be trying to reveal the truth and have to be trying to reason.
Brexit is actually a really good example, Brexit didn’t happen because of a few vocal groups it happened because a large proportion of the population didn’t understand what they were voting for and believed the NHS etc claims.
If people don’t try to reason then this is a good chance we will sleep walk into a Reform govt.
As always the vocal people won’t listen but it’s the general public who own the sway.

 

I'll leave it to you and others then. Because i really can't be arsed with head banging to be honest.

 

In my opinion, It's stereotyping the masses over a small minority of people that annoy folk more than anything I've found.
Plus I have always found that the worst people to try and reason with have been those on the left who almost instantly start with the name calling. It happens on nearly every single political discussion on here just as a mild example of that in action.

Some folk on the left are loony hooligans, some folk on the right are exactly the same. Filter those sections out and on the whole you have the majority of decent people with genuine concerns that feel ignored by our government / lawmakers etc.

 

I agree with the polarities of far left and far right. Though the mainstream demonisation is pretty much left.

I don't concur about genuine concerns though. Perceived concerns that have been whipped into something else by a media, opaque think tanks and dubious advisors, and a political party that is content to lie, stoke hatred, division and fear and blame issues on minorities to target. With authoritarianism, a breaking down of balances and opposition, this activity has a name.

I'm not name calling people, I'm highlighting a party with fascist intent to follow the Trumpian governance model. The people who go along with it can be of any ilk. Misguided like Brexit, their fears preyed on, lies told to them. For power. With an intent we've not seen here.

 

You pay for a solicitor's advice but it's your fault if it's wrong? Must be great being a solicitor.

 

If she’s not accurately informed the solicitor of her personal circumstances then they can’t give her the correct advice. I read somewhere it could well be to do with the fact that she is regarded as retaining an interest in her marital home even though she sold it to a trust, because the child is under 18.

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BAbqDLEzg/

If you've got Facebook of course, can't find it on web.

 

Miss Raynor may have a choice of solicitors she may be able to blame for her predicament, given that it appears as though she had one solicitor firm for the house trust stuff that was set up, and another for her Brighton flat purchase.

When her interest in the house was transferred into the trust, she ought to have been told by her first solicitor that this did not mean that she now was free to consider herself without a residence for Stamp Duty purposes if she went on to purchase another property (because of the trust being for a minor). If they did not do so, I reckon they are negligent.

When she did indeed go on to buy the flat, she should have told the second solicitor of the trust property situation, who then should advise her about the extra Stamp Duty due. If they did not do so I reckon they are negligent.

So there’s no free pass for either solicitor.

It may however be thought that the housing minister, who has been part of a government that has already altered Stamp Duty and is actively considering altering it further, ought to know something about Stamp Duty provisions.

 

Some folk have to go completely OTT. Spray paint outside of her Brighton residence. What is it with spray paints, whether its over statues, monuments, roundabouts, planes. Criminal damage never the answer, let the relevant authorities / standards body handle it without mindless escalation.

 

I can understand it if she was definitively advised that it didn't attract SDLT, but at the same time I can understand why people in her position should be held to the highest of standards on issues such as this.

 

Yep she has done wrong but don't agree with damaging her property.

 

They should evict her and bang her in the stocks and throw cabbages at her.

 

i wonder if it was someone who painted roundabouts

 

I think she'll have to resign. I don't see anything else. Even if you're badly advised, you're still responsible for the stamp duty calculation. She could well have a counterclaim for that advice depending on what she shared, but even still, she's responsible for sharing all information for the advice to be accurately based.

On the flip side, it does seem a complicated set up given the Trust, the break down of her partnership, the sad situation of her son and so desperately wanting to keep that part of her life away from public gaze, which I think should be the case of any family (unless they do wrong accordingly).

I've never particularly warmed to her, but I do have sympathy for her. Her remorse is obvious, something pretty rare in politics. I personally don't think it was her intent to mislead or benefit from paying less. Certainly when you look at other MP's who didn't have to resign for some incredible tax evasion, even when found guilty (Zahawi is the obvious one), she might feel hard done by.

But the end of the day, she didn't do enough to ensure she was on the right side of this and given her role, she very much should have been.

I also think her timing just after summer recess, given the advisor reshuffle, policy plans and PMQ's was probably as badly timed as you could have done it. She certainly hasn't helped her party, irrespective of the outcome.

 

Well deducted Watson..