Angela Rayner has been cleared by HMRC of deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness over her tax affairs, removing a potential political distraction as questions continue over Labour’s leadership following the party’s poor local election performance.
The former deputy prime minister and housing secretary agreed to repay around £40,000 in underpaid stamp duty linked to the purchase of an £800,000 flat in Hove, after initially paying the lower rate. However, HMRC is understood not to have imposed any financial penalty and reportedly concluded there was no evidence of tax avoidance.
Rayner stepped down as deputy prime minister and housing secretary in September last year after acknowledging the stamp duty underpayment.
Her position within Labour has remained under scrutiny amid growing pressure on prime minister Sir Keir Starmer following disappointing election results for the party at local level.
In an interview with The Guardian, Rayner did not rule out standing in a future Labour leadership contest, although she said she would not seek to “trigger” one herself.
In a statement Rayner said: “I have always sought to act with integrity, and I believe politicians should be held to high standards – that is why I resigned from government and cooperated fully with HMRC.”
Rayner is currently scheduled to appear as a guest speaker at the Propertymark One conference this summer.
As housing secretary, Rayner oversaw significant changes to legislation affecting the private rented sector, including the Renters’ Rights Act and the Planning and Infrastructure Act, alongside a target to deliver 1.5 million new homes in England during the current parliamentary term.
Her address comes amid ongoing reforms across the housing sector, with regulatory and legislative change remaining a central focus for property professionals.
Propertymark’s decision to invite Rayner as a speaker for this year’s Propertymark One event, to be held on 12 June at ExCeL London, is “without doubt a controversial choice”.
That is according to Nathan Emerson, the CEO of Propertymark, with reports indicating that Rayner will earn a five-figure sum as the speaker
Emerson was responding after Rayner’s invitation prompted criticism from some agents, including comments posted on Property Industry Eye.
Emerson set out the organisation’s rationale behind the decision. Following further negative reaction, he released a video message calling for industry backing and stating that member feedback – contrary to the comments on EYE – indicates agents want to hear from senior political figures involved in housing policy.
Comments (20)
Angela Rayner managed to pay her tax bill from the proceeds she received from Propertymark… which is ironic really, considering plenty of PM members attending the conference where she’s guest speaking are apparently thinking of bringing rotten tomatoes and eggs with them.
Can’t imagine why there might be a frosty reception…
Lets hope she’s booed off stage! You could write what she knows about the property market on the back of a postage stamp and still have space…
Because of this whole fiasco, I’ve heard there’s now a Facebook group called “Boycott Propertymark”, apparently sparked by concerns over them getting too close to Rayner and Rightmove.
Heading for Raynor terror. Her abuse of power & position will be criminal but not sanctioned. Scot free.
To add …. Let’s get this straight any elected individual within local elections or parliament is a public servant supposedly there to “help” the public be it property, education ,health or whatever.
There is no differential between the so-called them and us. These are just self-important Grifters out to make a buck for themselves at the expense of the UK.
A storm in a tea cup. £5,000,000 on the other hand…..
Has this been a politically motivated storm in a teacup?
It would be interesting to know if the HMRC deals with “normal” people in the same manner. Please, anyone who has provably been in a similar situation themselves, I would love to hear how HMRC treated you. No second or third hand stories though…
My guess is that there would be an interest payment due, but from what I can tell this is not considered to be a penalty. I wonder if this has not been reported…
For one of us normies, when we are presented with a completion statement by our solicitor, we look at the figures, raise an eyebrow at how much SDLT we have to pay and then just get on with it. The only time I have ever questioned it was for a lease extension that cost over £40,000 because I thought the amount was too much. Turned out I was the one who was wrong!
Surely, this is the service that we are paying for, and as such, the saying “Why keep a dog and bark yourself?” must figure highly. If the topic is complicated, you have no choice but to rely on advice from suitably qualified people who know what they are doing.
I know that I do. If I feel the advice is “off” then I might do a bit of research to find out more. That is, if I have time, of course. And, typically, when I have done so, I have found that I am the one that has made incorrect assumptions and the advice was correct – see above.
As presented by the Right-Wing press, this looked really bad, but it turned out not to be anything like a provably deliberate attempt to evade paying tax.
Shall we all move along now?
I don’t know how similar it was, but after my grandmother passed away, my mother (who had inherited 50% ownership on the death of her father) sold the property as the sole beneficiary, and was advised that there was no capital gains tax payable. A year or so later, she received a letter telling her that there was a chance she should have paid it, and HMRC were looking into it. After going online and doing various calculators on the gov.uk website, it was concluded that she did not owe any capital gains tax, as the property was sold almost immediately upon her passing, and therefore had not increased in value since she became the sole owner.
She was not cleared she had to pay the SDLT which she self certified was not payable. And why did she get away with no penalty for late payment? Bizarre.
We all need to start praying that this hypocrite does not end up as Prime Minister in a few weeks.
She is rubbish
Rather like Reeves and her licensing ‘mistake’. Always someone else’s fault when you are so influential. But I’ve always understood that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the relevant fine plus interest would follow. Or am I mistaken?
We can now use the Reeves defence and the Rayner defence as appropriate.
One rule for us and one rule for them!!!
the double standards is incredible. I can think of one grifter who might learn from this.
Beware – this woman is poisonous & intends to run for PM. If she ever ever ever gets the keys to No: 10 life in North Korea would seem like the South of France.
Obviously she was caught as had to pay the £40k just no penalties as ‘normal’ people do,.
Maybe she’s got advances on forthcoming speaking engagements-I just love to watch her engagement with Andrew Neil on YouTube every now and then to remind me what a gobsxxx she is.
Interesting timing.
With conveyancers having to register as Tax Advisers, from this coming Monday it would be interesting to know how the mistake was made.
Yes the timing is almost intentional….
The mistake was easily made when the systems conveyancers use, like gov.uk, ask simple questions and give out simple answers. Also it’s not fair on conveyancers to be held responsible for understanding and advising on tax alongside the legal advice. Their workload is already too high and the legal landscape changes all the time, its a full time job just staying on top of that.
The tax advisor changes on Monday as about upping the level of tax advice.
I feel for conveyancing solicitors – your job is unenviable and getting harder by the minute.
This maybe a case of move along now nothing to see here.
In a ITV interview Rayner acknowledged she had not paid enough tax when buying her East Sussex flat and said the “mistake” came about because she believed it was the only property she owned.
However, due to complex arrangements surrounding a trust for her disabled son, the Hove flat should have been considered to be Rayner’s second home – meaning she should have paid an additional £40,000 in stamp duty.
After, Rayner said she had contacted HMRC to work out the additional tax she needed to pay and referred herself for investigation by the prime minister’s standards adviser.