Property Reporter



Conveyancing Association responds to Treasury stamp duty consultation

Line Spacing+- AFont Size+- Print Forward to a friend Property
Conveyancing Association responds to Treasury stamp duty consultation

The Conveyancing Association (CA), the leading trade body for the conveyancing industry, has today issued its response to the HM Treasury's open consultation on higher rates of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) on purchases of additional properties.

The consultation paper was published by the Treasury on the 28th December last year and its aim is to clarify the details around the new higher rates of stamp duty and to seek views in key areas of its design. Responses were requested by the 1st February.

Covering off a number of the questions raised by the consultation, the CA stresses the importance of ensuring conveyancers are not held responsible for determining when an individual already owns a main residence, and that the individual purchaser themselves be responsible for providing the correct information, which is to be relied upon by all parties.

The Association is keen to ensure the purchaser is provided with specific questions to answer in relation to determining whether the extra 3% charge should be payable. It wants to see purchasers signing a form relating to this and declaring those answers to be correct – the CA does not want it to be the responsibility of the conveyancer to have to ‘cross examine their clients’ in this area.

In other areas of the consultation, specifically around the potential circumstances where the extra charge will be applied, the CA wants the rules to be ‘clear and easily comprehensible to ensure certainty’.


In specific cases, the CA is also keen to ensure the introduction of this policy does not impinge on the ability of individuals to purchase their own homes. For example, in the case of separated couples who have not formally divorced. At present those who are in such a situation who may wish to buy a home - which would undoubtedly be their main residence - may still be on the title deeds of their previous home.

The Association believes the new stamp duty policy does not match-up with recent divorce legislation which encourages ‘no fault divorce’ – it believes that if one of the parties ‘can’t buy another property without a punitive rate of tax being charged because they are not formally divorced that desirable outcome is effectively discouraged’.

Other areas which the CA believe need greater clarity is around parents jointly purchasing a home for their children – it suggests that the additional rates should ‘not apply if it is a residential home for any of the joint buyers’.  The Association would also like to ensure trustees, who may be the legal owner of the property but have no beneficial interest in it, do not have to pay higher rates of stamp duty in such a situation.

Finally, in relation to the potential for companies or individuals already owning (or buying in bulk) 15 properties being exempt from the stamp duty increases, the CA is keen that the overall policy does not ‘discourage investors who help the rental market’. It says that the decision to introduce such an exemption at 15 properties is ‘arbitrary with no scientific basis’. If such an arbitrary figure is going to be set, the CA has suggested a lower figure of 10 however stresses that the arbitrary nature of such a decision appears to be made without reason.

Eddie Goldsmith, Chairman of the Conveyancing Association, commented: “It’s clearly very important that the Association responds to this open consultation and it has been drafted following consultation with our member firms. The large number of potential issues and examples raised in the paper itself showed how difficult this increase on stamp duty for secondary purchasers will be to introduce, particularly in areas such as separated couples, purchasing first and selling the main residence at a later date, and the over-riding issue of who might be have exemption.

In our response we have aimed to outline the unintended consequences in a number of areas, as well as stressing the fact that conveyancing firms should not be thought of as the police force in this area. The information, regarding a purchaser’s liability, has to come from the purchaser themselves and having answered the relevant questions and make a declaration, it is reasonable for the conveyancer involved to rely on that information when filling out the stamp duty form.

The CA, and its members, are concerned across a number of levels. Firstly, in terms of the clarity provided but, secondly, because the final policy design will only be announced in the Budget on the 16th March. This leaves conveyancers, and indeed the entire market, with only a very small amount of time to implement these changes before the stamp duty increases are due to be introduced on the 1st April.

One might therefore suggest that the Government seek to defer implementation of the final rules to allow all stakeholders, particularly conveyancers, to ensure they have the appropriate amount of time to comply with these new rules.”

Got something to say? Leave a comment below:

You must be logged in to leave a comment

More articles from Property

How much would you pay to live near a outstanding primary school?

House hunters at lowest levels for 2 years

How many properties in the capital are priced at the average or below?

Have we neared the limit in house price rises?

How do you pick the right estate agent?

'Planning pessimists' slammed by land agent



Latest from Financial Reporter

FTB sales soar 50% as landlord demand eases

Brexit could cause a 10% drop in housing transactions

TenetLime adds four new lenders to panel

Don't be inventive about compliant incentives: FCA issues guidance on inducements


Latest from Commercial Reporter

New funders and commercial property

ASTL: Upward trend for bridging continues

Fleet makes criteria changes for limited company transfers

Are SME overdrafts dying out?


Latest Comments

Paul
Paul 25 May 2016

Estate agents are pathetic when it comes to fees. They have this 'I had to do it at 1% because that's what the others were quoting' mentality. We are the most expensive agents in our area, charging double...

view article
HMO Midlands Landlady
HMO Midlands Landlady 24 May 2016

Tenants disappearing into the night is common from shared houses ( licensed and un-licensed HMO's) often when they owe considerable rent- they remove all their possessions, leave key in room and tell other...

view article
CommercialTrust
CommercialTrust 20 May 2016

With the bulk of the market controlled by large developers, profit rather than necessity determine the pace at which homes are built. There are hundreds of thousands of plots that have planning permission...

view article
Johna
Johna 20 May 2016

"Easier said than done" is what I would say. Of course, it would be more than great to have more in quality and affordability, but I do not trust talk anymore.. What is said is not what is happening.

view article
Johna
Johna 20 May 2016

in my humble opinion being fair like THE most important! I myself have had bad experience with unfair landlords... not to mention that I know how to do a proper end of tenancy cleaning since I am a fantastic...

view article
richardrawlings
richardrawlings 18 May 2016

NB - even if we doubled our commission levels in the UK, we'd still be by far the cheapest agents in the entire world.

view article
Agent_PeeBee
Agent_PeeBee 18 May 2016

Clueless. Someone needs to take these people's computers away from them so they can do no more harm than they already have.

view article
richardrawlings
richardrawlings 18 May 2016

Nonsense! The cost of selling a house nowadays has little bearing on the fees charged. Don't believe your own spin on this. Fees have spiralled down to pathetic levels in areas where weak agents have allowed...

view article
Simon Oliver
Simon Oliver 16 May 2016

The best solution is to buy a property that has built-in income generating potential: a nice house with a couple of gites in the grounds is a good start. In France, the rune of thumb is that one 2-bedroomed...

view article
WPD
WPD 12 May 2016

I suggest the answer is to have the notary system being one legal person who represents both parties. Having experienced it a couple of times in France it was a dream compared to our dysfunctional system....

view article
warren
warren 03 May 2016

It's enough to make me weep into my Pimm's :(

view article
james anderson
james anderson 03 May 2016

The sad demise of the croquet lawn...

view article

Latest Tweets