Starmer's vision quest

[Bromptonaut]

An interesting aside is that the Guardian and the BBC are reporting that for her purchase of a property in Hove, Sussex, Rayner used not a solicitors firm, but a firm of licenced conveyancers based in Herne Bay, Kent.

1. It is unlikely that this firm could give her "expert" tax advice on her situation. If she is relying on advice from them, she has I think shot herself in the foot - however, we do not know if she had tax advice from this firm of licenced conveyancers
2. I'm curious why someone from Manchester area, living also in Central London would use a conveyancing firm based in Kent for a purchase in Sussex. - not that there is on the face of it anything at all wrong with this, but it does raise questions of why she used that firm

This licensed conveyancer set up is a mess.

Both my adult kids, at the insistence of both myself and their partners parents went to proper, well established, solicitors for conveyancing.

Both were massively messed about by vendors doing conveyancing 'on the cheap'.

Daughter was massively messed about with with repeated threats to re-market.

Son had same with added complication that his vendor's conveyancers had not ensured their client understood simultaneous exchange and completion.

He turned up at his home to find she was still in occupation.

As they were moving out of a rental they'd not got their possessions in a Pickfords lorry and it was sorted with relatively little hassle.

 

[Stevo 666]

Two for the price of one 🙂

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Not that you'd know this unless you were on the Bike Radar forum but I was very critical.of the previous Tory government. I also wrote this back in July Post in thread 'Starmer's vision quest' https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/starmers-vision-quest.32/post-129266 In other words if you're including me in your criticism you'd be wrong.

Anyway back on topic, what are you views on the Angie Rayner story?

It was more a general pointing out, but there are a few forum members who struggle to say anything negative about their chosen party, even when there is a clear issue to be critical of. I am a BR member, so to be fair SF I know you are not myopic on the issue!

From my understanding, Rayner says she took advice and this advice was incorrect. Dan Neidle (the tax guy) seems to have a better grasp on this. His view is that if Rayner mentioned her son's trust and was told she had paid enough tax then she was badly advised (if this is the case you could argue she should have double checked, but why would you? If you paid for expert advice you take it at face value, you don't go around paying for a second or third opinion).

If she failed to mention the Trust then Rayner is clearly at fault. That doesn't mean she necessarily lied or deliberately concealed it, but she was negligent. Either way, if she didn't disclose it then it is her fault and in my view she should resign her post as Deputy.

If she was genuinely badly advised and can prove this to be the case then she is within her rights to stay IMO.

 

[Stevo 666]

It was more a general pointing out, but there are a few forum members who struggle to say anything negative about their chosen party, even when there is a clear issue to be critical of. I am a BR member, so to be fair SF I know you are not myopic on the issue!

From my understanding, Rayner says she took advice and this advice was incorrect. Dan Neidle (the tax guy) seems to have a better grasp on this. His view is that if Rayner mentioned her son's trust and was told she had paid enough tax then she was badly advised (if this is the case you could argue she should have double checked, but why would you? If you paid for expert advice you take it at face value, you don't go around paying for a second or third opinion).

If she failed to mention the Trust then Rayner is clearly at fault. That doesn't mean she necessarily lied or deliberately concealed it, but she was negligent. Either way, if she didn't disclose it then it is her fault and in my view she should resign her post as Deputy.

If she was genuinely badly advised and can prove this to be the case then she is within her rights to stay IMO.

There is also the question over her using money from her disabled son's trust to fund her flat purchase.

 

[CXRAndy]

When you undertake dealings involving tax, you normally sign that you are responsible for said tax.

She will have signed documents stating the amount she is paying is true and accurate.

HMRC should levy a penalty for incorrectly submitted tax.

 

[CXRAndy]

There is also the question over her using money from her disabled son's trust to fund her flat purchase.

Thats just scumbag manoeuvre

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

There is also the question over her using money from her disabled son's trust to fund her flat purchase.

I am not 100% sure which bit this is Stevo? Do you mean Rayner selling the 25% stake in the family home back to the Trust?

If so, it appears the Trust owned 50% and she and her husband owned the other 50% split between them. My honest personal opinion is that this is a family matter, and it must have been agreed legally between her and her ex husband. I don't think for a minute the two of them would have disadvantaged their son in any way.

Would I have personally done it? No. Do I think it is in the public interest what she and her family decided (as long as it was all legal)? No.

 

[Stevo 666]

I am not 100% sure which bit this is Stevo? Do you mean Rayner selling the 25% stake in the family home back to the Trust?

If so, it appears the Trust owned 50% and she and her husband owned the other 50% split between them. My honest personal opinion is that this is a family matter, and it must have been agreed legally between her and her ex husband. I don't think for a minute the two of them would have disadvantaged their son in any way.

Would I have personally done it? No. Do I think it is in the public interest what she and her family decided (as long as it was all legal)? No.

Optical aside, as a trustee she is legally obliged to act in her sons best interests. It's hard to see how transferring £162k of cash from the trust fund n return for a quarter share of a property is in the child's best interests. Although maybe I've missed something there?

 

[Stevo 666]

It was more a general pointing out, but there are a few forum members who struggle to say anything negative about their chosen party, even when there is a clear issue to be critical of. I am a BR member, so to be fair SF I know you are not myopic on the issue!

From my understanding, Rayner says she took advice and this advice was incorrect. Dan Neidle (the tax guy) seems to have a better grasp on this. His view is that if Rayner mentioned her son's trust and was told she had paid enough tax then she was badly advised (if this is the case you could argue she should have double checked, but why would you? If you paid for expert advice you take it at face value, you don't go around paying for a second or third opinion).

If she failed to mention the Trust then Rayner is clearly at fault. That doesn't mean she necessarily lied or deliberately concealed it, but she was negligent. Either way, if she didn't disclose it then it is her fault and in my view she should resign her post as Deputy.

If she was genuinely badly advised and can prove this to be the case then she is within her rights to stay IMO.

About her taking advice, looks like her lawyers have a slightly different view on this 😉
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/04/rayner-small-family-firm-stamp-duty/

Quote in case.its paywalled:
"Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.

The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong."

“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner."

“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be."

Oh dear...

 

[briantrumpet]

Maybe if the previous constant attacks on Rayner hadn't been so relentless and with little foundation, the current attacks would have been met with less resistance and more acceptance. As it is, supporters' instinct will be to defend her till the point she just has to go, given what she's had to put up with. If she's broken the law, sure, she'll have to go, as Johnson should have (for instance) over his covid law-breaking.

 

[Stevo 666]

Maybe if the previous constant attacks on Rayner hadn't been so relentless and with little foundation, the current attacks would have been met with less resistance and more acceptance. As it is, supporters' instinct will be to defend her till the point she just has to go, given what she's had to put up with. If she's broken the law, sure, she'll have to go, as Johnson should have (for instance) over his covid law-breaking.

Maybe if she hadn't underpaid tax she might not be under so much pressure?

Especially having gone after anyone who was accused of doing the same with incredible gusto the past.

 

[First Aspect]

Optical aside, as a trustee she is legally obliged to act in her sons best interests. It's hard to see how transferring £162k of cash from the trust fund n return for a quarter share of a property is in the child's best interests. Although maybe I've missed something there?

Is that not just a decent property investment?

 

[Stevo 666]

Is that not just a decent property investment?

I don't know, but that's not the point here.

 

[briantrumpet]

Maybe if she hadn't underpaid tax she might not be under so much pressure?

I've no idea if it was deliberate or advertent. Do you? Even HMRC make mistakes over tax, as you will be aware of, not least as you got a seven-figure judgement against them.

FWIW, in France there is a constitutional right to correct honest tax mistakes without penalty.

Bottom line is, as I say, if she's broken the law, she should go. If she hasn't, I'd expect her to fight her corner, in the same way Jeremy Hunt did over his property portfolio, which wasn't illegal either, IIRC.

 

[spen666]

Is that not just a decent property investment?

Is the sum of £162,500 really for a 25% stake of a property in Ashton?, not sure the property in Ashton is worth £650k