Snugglybear

And has spent years researching the rules and regulations of the EU. He's a Brexiter, always has been, and is in favour of a concept called 'Flexcit' (http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf if you're interested) because he sees it as the only practical way for the UK to leave the EU and not destroy itself. He knows perfectly well that a hard / no deal Brexit will be a disaster.

The 2014 price (£569,000) is listed under 78a Coniston Road, and the 2017 price (£360,000) is under 78b Coniston Road. However, the description under 'Key Features' is identical, down to the spelling mistake (Recepption). Is it possible that the listing has been cocked up? 78a is evidently the ground floor flat and has a cellar, deck and garden. There's been a flat 78b since at least 2003 (sold price £161,000 that year) and a 78c was sold on 14/04/2011 for £388,000. 78c has been a flat since at least 1999. So I suspect the first floor is split into two very small flats. Note, the description of 78c in the Rightmove sold prices is once more identical, down to the spelling error.

A paragraph from the Grauniad story on this - my bolding: "The couple have found themselves in this position after remortgaging with an eight-year interest-only mortgage of £178,500 in late 2007. Santander said the couple had originally agreed that when the loan ended in December 2015, they would sell the property in order to raise the funds to pay back the capital, but shortly before that date the Fitzgeralds got in touch to say they wanted to extend the term. Santander rejected this request on the grounds of their age and “affordability factors”, and they were advised to seek financial advice." This being the case, it's hardly surprising that the Financial Ombudsman ruled in favour of Santander. One thing that I find intriguing... The sum owed is reported to be £180,000, and the current value of the property is supposedly £250,000. Does Santander want its money back now because it fears it won't get the entire sum back if it has to wait until they shuffle off their mortal coils? As well as the possibility of them not maintaining the place properly as they get older and thus reducing its value, does Santander fear a general downturn in house prices?

An anecdote, but telling: On 26th April Dominic Grieve, Tory MP, said in a Commons debate on Customs and Borders "Why is it that the deputy ambassador of Japan has us all in and says, “You do realise that every Japanese company will be gone in 10 years’ time if they cannot have frictionless trade into the European Union.”" Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-04-26/debates/090B0080-E56F-40F3-867A-41D46C14C7AF/CustomsAndBorders#contribution-F5697616-1063-45AF-87FB-1A733D083CE5

Well, no, there wouldn't be any mentions of "customs" and the mentions of "border" likely weren't relevant. You know, given that the agreement was predicated on the two states being members of a single market, with freedom of movement for goods and people. Do you really need reminding that this situation will, if the current UK government has its way, end?

San Marino (et al - Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco) are, as the Wikipedia page linked to notes, microstates. They are, for all that, sovereign states. Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state, it is part of the UK. Ask the party currently propping up the Government. Also, the microstates have special arrangements because of their small size. The largest, Andorra, has a population of 78,115. The 2011 Census put the population of Northern Ireland at 1,810,863. NI won't be getting any special treatment on those grounds.

If your contractual redundancy package is generous, the company would no doubt prefer you to get fed up and beetle off of your own accord. If it were to go bust, though, remember that you wouldn't get all that much. The Government helpfully provides details here https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-if-your-employer-is-insolvent/claiming-money-owed-to-you

It would be nice to think that HMRC will be going after tax-dodging landlords, but the department really doesn't have the capacity to do anything about most of them, currently. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42656739

The Daily Mail is and has always been pro Leave. The Mail on Sunday is and always has been pro Remain. I'm presuming it's because the reader demographics differ significantly. Or that the editors loathe each other. Or both.

The duplication will actually happen after Brexit. And the moment, the MHRA and the EMA work together.* After Brexit, the EMA will license new medicines for the EU. Another body, possibly the MHRA, will have to license them for the UK Thus duplicating the work. *From the MHRA website: "Most new types of medicine are licensed by EMA, to ensure that it is available to, and used in the same way, across all the member states of the European Union (EU). The breast cancer treatment Herceptin and the antiviral medicine Tamiflu are some examples. Any medicine licensed by the EMA is valid across all EU member states whereas a licence issued by the MHRA is valid in the UK only."

Boots normally have one "glass of fizz, extra points" Christmas shopping evening in my city. So far this year they've had two. The fizz was drinkable and the points were very welcome, particularly considering I got them for buying toilet paper, soap and plasters etc to restock the first aid box i.e. things I would have bought anyway.

Doesn't it depend on the exact financial order in that particular divorce? That usually specifies what percentage of the equity each partner should receive once the house has to be sold. But a percentage of any uplift in value is still money for doing naff all.

Indeed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/uk-trade-department-draws-half-its-secondees-from-arms-industry "UK trade department draws half its secondees from arms industry"

I s'pose, unless, as is likely, Northern Ireland becomes a powder keg once more and riots start on the mainland. Oh, and since 2011, the majority of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures and their predecessors, Control Orders, have been issued against British Citizens (see newly published Parliamentary Briefing Paper http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7613/CBP-7613.pdf)

That's just income tax. Then there are the other taxes - NI, VAT and council tax. The lowest tenth of earners pay an average of 42% of their income in the form of income tax, NI, VAT and council tax. The richest 10% only see 34.4% or their earnings go in these taxes. Not to mention untaxed wealth, such as property,

The last question was rather my point. The notion that the EU needs the UK more than the other way round, often touted by Leavers, is mathematical nonsense. Also, who will individual countries or blocs most want to have trade deals with - an island of 66 million or fewer, quite possibly poverty-stricken, people, or a bloc of 444 million people (EU minus UK)?

And 8% or 18% of EU exports go to the UK, depending on how you count them. (Source: FullFacts)

To be pedantic, I didn't say that. I quoted the Guardian, which quoted part of the content of a letter written by Brandon Lewis. Though your point stands. It's what the Government says. In an attempt to frame their own implacable resistance to registering and licensing all landlords as a favour to tenants.

The current Government doesn't care about tenants, despite the occasional bit of lip service to try to make it look as though they do. It's partly psephology - landlords are more likely than tenants to vote Tory - and partly dogma - landlords own property and therefore, per se, matter; tenants, by the same token, don't and don't. Cars and MOT's. One can only think that even the Tories have worked out that a vehicle with clapped out brakes might plough into their car on the open road. They don't see themselves ever renting from a crap landlord and therefore don't give a stuff. Edit: splung

Bit I've bolded. Never going to happen under the current Government. Paragaphs from the Guardian story about the number of landlords Newham Council uncovered who weren't paying tax. "Newham is battling with the Department for Communities and Local Government to have its licensing scheme renewed, following a 2015 clampdown by the government, which said licensing imposes “unnecessary additional costs” on landlords. Neighbouring borough Redbridge has already had its application for landlord licensing rejected. ... Liverpool, Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham, and Croydon have all introduced compulsory licensing schemes following Newham’s success, but other boroughs hoping to match them have run into opposition from central government. Since 2015, local authorities have been forced to apply to the secretary of state for permission to license landlords if the scheme affects more than 20% of the homes in the borough or its geographical area. Housing minister Brandon Lewis wrote to local authorities in March 2015 to warn them of an amendment to licensing rules. He said: “The blanket licensing approach adopted by some local authorities has major drawbacks. This is because it impacts on all landlords and places additional burdens on reputable landlords who are already fully compliant with their obligations, thereby creating additional unnecessary costs for reputable landlords which are generally passed on to tenants through higher rents. “The vast majority of landlords provide a good service and the government does not believe it is right to impose unnecessary additional costs on them, or their tenants. Such an approach is disproportionate and unfairly penalises good landlords.”"

There are very few court cases, as Ah-so rightly says. HMRC's target for prosecutions for tax evasion is 1,000 per year - that's of all kinds and all scales. Most tax evaders get financial penalties, that's all. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/penalties-an-overview-for-agents-and-advisers

I've found some more recent figures for the amount HMRC has collected from LLs. It's on the Property Tribes website, of all places, and dated 18th August 2016. https://www.propertytribes.com/exclusive-results-hmrc-let-property-campaign-t-127626122.html Between the beginning of the Let Property campaign i.e. September 2014, and 30th June 2016, HMRC had collected £92 million from13,000 landlords with undeclared rental profits. Given that HMRC itself believed, at the start of the campaign, that 1 million landlords weren't paying tax, 13,000 in one and a quarter years is hardly stellar. And it works out at just over £7,000 per landlord, on average. Not sure where that leaves the "going after the biggest fish first" theory. I shall look out for another year's figures this month or next.

I'm a cynic. I don't believe there is the political will, throughout the UK, to really go after landlords for tax. moonriver mentions Rent Smart Wales. This is what that scheme's Privacy Policy says re. HMRC "All information provided will be treated in confidence and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. It will only be used for the purposes of the Rent Smart Wales Scheme, however on occasions the Licensing Authority may also share your personal data with regulatory bodies such as HM Revenue and Customs, or the Police, for the purpose of detecting and preventing fraud or for any other purpose permitted by law." My bolding. How often is "on occasions", I wonder. When HMRC asks? If so, how often does HMRC ask? I bet Newham council proactively sent information to HMRC, whereupon it was obliged to act. Is this going to happen anywhere else, particularly given the Government's hostility to landlord registration schemes? I, for one, don't think so.

The previous Government (2010 - 2015) published a policy paper on tax evasion and avoidance.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-tax-evasion-and-avoidance/2010-to-2015-government-policy-tax-evasion-and-avoidance#appendix-9-hmrc-campaigns The Let Property Campaign, which started in September 2013, had, at the date of publication i.e. May 2015,, collected £20,017,365. The current Government publishes no such figures that I can find. So we have no idea how much additional tax the campaign, or any other investigative work, is bringing in.