'We probably are being made scapegoats,' says lawyer
Verrico & Associates, the Kent conveyancing firm that handled Angela Rayner’s £800,000 flat purchase in Hove, has rejected suggestions that it advised on the Deputy Prime Minister’s stamp duty position, insisting it merely processed the transaction using figures supplied by the client.
“We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for,” Joanna Verrico, the firm’s managing director told The Times. She added: “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.”
The purchase completed in May. Rayner initially paid about £30,000 in stamp duty before commissioning fresh counsel’s advice amid mounting scrutiny of her arrangements. She has since accepted that more tax is due because of the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne, 75 per cent of which is held in a trust for her disabled son. “Subsequently to that, with all of the media reports that have been coming out, I took expert counsel advice on all of my affairs to ensure that everything was done proper and that expert counsel said that the advice that I received was inaccurate because of the trust,” Rayner said.
Verrico said her firm is being unfairly blamed for a liability that turns on trust law rather than routine conveyancing. “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,” she said. “We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
Specialists have questioned whether the right advisers were engaged at the outset, and HM Revenue & Customs will doubtlessly be going through all of Rayner’s correspondence with any advisers with a fine tooth comb. HMRC can impose penalties where an underpayment is considered “careless”.
The row has energised commentary across the mortgage market. Anthony Emmerson, of Trinity Financial, told Mortgage Introducer: “We find it hard to believe that the deputy PM who is in charge of housing and surrounded by the amount of high-level advisers and lawyers could not obtain the correct tax advice on the amount of stamp duty to pay… Her mantra of asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay their share clearly does not apply to herself, and she should be removed from government for it.”
Other brokers have highlighted the technical traps facing buyers where trusts and additional-property rules intersect. Adam McGrath, of Mortgage Search, said: “This case really underlines how complex and open to interpretation the current stamp duty rules can be — even experienced professionals can reach different conclusions.” Nicholas Mendes, of John Charcol, said: “Stamp duty is notorious for being complex, particularly when additional properties or trusts are involved. Even with expert legal advice, it’s not uncommon for buyers to end up paying the wrong rate.”
For intermediaries, the dispute centres on professional boundaries. Verrico’s position is that the firm processed a standard conveyance and relied on HMRC’s calculator; the tax analysis, it says, belonged elsewhere. Whether HMRC agrees will depend on the paper trail of instructions, disclosures and referrals—and on who, if anyone, assumed responsibility for advice beyond conveyancing.
