Angela Rayner

[Dyson Fury]

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

I am not sure where the not entitled to discount is coming from as if it is Right to Buy again not heard any evidence she was not entitled.

It's in the Terms and Conditions of the Right to Buy scheme.  To retain the full discount, you must live in the property as your residence for 5 years before letting out or selling.  Them's the Rules.

[Timm]

16 minutes ago, Dyson Fury said:

It's in the Terms and Conditions of the Right to Buy scheme.  To retain the full discount, you must live in the property as your residence for 5 years before letting out or selling.  Them's the Rules.

Is it?

Where can I find these terms and conditions?

[Dyson Fury]

1 hour ago, Timm said:

Where can I find these terms and conditions?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/your-right-to-buy-your-home-summary--2/right-to-buy-summary-booklet

Quote

5.4 Selling or transferring your home later

Once you buy your home through the Right to Buy, you can sell it whenever you want. But there are some things you need to know:

• if you sell within 10 years – you first have to ask your former landlord if they want to buy your home back at market value. If they say ‘no’ then you can sell it on the open market

In addition:

• if you sell within 5 years – you will usually have to repay some or all of the Right to Buy discount – the amount depends on the price you sell at and how long you have been the owner. This also applies if you agree to transfer ownership to somebody else

• if you live in a rural area – you may only be allowed to sell your home to somebody who lives or works locally. Ask your landlord about this

 

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, Timm said:

Is it?

Where can I find these terms and conditions?

It isn't, 5 yr rule  is only about disposal at that time.

Guido Fawkes tried this angle and was shredded by Dan Neidle and housing lawyers

Rules are here

https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/selling-your-home

No requirements match it

[Timm]

2 hours ago, Dyson Fury said:

It's in the Terms and Conditions of the Right to Buy scheme.  To retain the full discount, you must live in the property as your residence for 5 years before letting out or selling.  Them's the Rules.

 

58 minutes ago, Dyson Fury said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/your-right-to-buy-your-home-summary--2/right-to-buy-summary-booklet

if you sell within 5 years – you will usually have to repay some or all of the Right to Buy discount – the amount depends on the price you sell at and how long you have been the owner. 

I think those might be different things.

 

[Timm]

I'm reasonably sure that the house in question is 80 Vicarage Road in Stockport, SK3 8HL.

If you are logged into zoopla, you can see the sale in 2015 @ 127,500.

You can also see the marketing prior to that sale. Whilst most of us would agree that most of the house needs a bit of attention, it is also clear that it has been given a new kitchen and new bathroom quite recently. There are also replacement floor coverings to some rooms and some rooms are freshly decorated. Finally, what few details are shown of the electrics look as if it might have been rewired (modern switches, signs of recent chasing into the wall in the green room that still has its old wallpaper. I have no idea when the GCH was installed, but a Worchester Combi might suggest it was at the same time as the kitchen.

On balance, I think it is likely that she spent enough during the time she owned it to avoid a CG tax bill.

[MARTINX9]

1 hour ago, Timm said:

I'm reasonably sure that the house in question is 80 Vicarage Road in Stockport, SK3 8HL.

If you are logged into zoopla, you can see the sale in 2015 @ 127,500.

You can also see the marketing prior to that sale. Whilst most of us would agree that most of the house needs a bit of attention, it is also clear that it has been given a new kitchen and new bathroom quite recently. There are also replacement floor coverings to some rooms and some rooms are freshly decorated. Finally, what few details are shown of the electrics look as if it might have been rewired (modern switches, signs of recent chasing into the wall in the green room that still has its old wallpaper. I have no idea when the GCH was installed, but a Worchester Combi might suggest it was at the same time as the kitchen.

On balance, I think it is likely that she spent enough during the time she owned it to avoid a CG tax bill.

Surely she should be aware of all that?

Seems the latest area of focus is on single person discount for council tax - at least according to the Telegraph. No evidence as yet she claimed SPD at her own or her husband's house - so its merely speculative. Should take half an hour with the Stockport council tax team to investigate that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/17/angela-rayner-council-tax-fraud-claims-manchester-police/

 

 

 

[Timm]

42 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Surely she should be aware of all that?

I would assume so.

But she got it wrong when she said she was not liable for Capital Gains tax because it was her home.

I'm guessing she now wants HMRC to confirm that there was nothing to pay.

[Bruce Banner]

11 minutes ago, Timm said:

I would assume so.

But she got it wrong when she said she was not liable for Capital Gains tax because it was her home.

I'm guessing she now wants HMRC to confirm that there was nothing to pay.

It's all a bit irrelevant as far as the GE is concerned because however much fuss Sunak makes about it, if she is found guilty of an offence she will resign and Labour will probably form the next government, unless enough people vote tactically against the "Tories", wiping them out and spreading their seats amongst the opposition parties.

[Si1]

12 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

It's all a bit irrelevant as far as the GE is concerned because however much fuss Sunak makes about it, if she is found guilty of an offence she will resign and Labour will probably form the next government, unless enough people vote tactically against the "Tories", wiping them out and spreading their seats amongst the opposition parties.

Rayner's a normal flawed human being who may or may not have broken some rules but wasn't doing it disingenuously rather than just a bit of a c0ck up.

A far cry from the corrupt evil rent boy rapists and wannabe slavers in the Tories. Jesus.

[Si1]

On 06/01/2022 at 10:01, Odysseus said:

Labour made her shadow education secretary when she left school at 16 with no qualifications. Says it all really.

I'd have thought being failed by the education system and then having the gumption to return to it as a young single mother is a fantastic qualification myself. These sh#tty attacks on her background just make me hate Tories even more.

[andrewwk]

13 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I'd have thought being failed by the education system and then having the gumption to return to it as a young single mother is a fantastic qualification myself. These sh#tty attacks on her background just make me hate Tories even more.

that is laudable, but honestly too much discussion around individuals, doubt very many on this forum could name any policies espoused by Rayner in any of her cabinet positions. 

[Si1]

4 minutes ago, andrewwk said:

that is laudable, but honestly too much discussion around individuals, doubt very many on this forum could name any policies espoused by Rayner in any of her cabinet positions. 

They haven't had to announce a manifesto yet. So that's kinda what you'd expect. Plus as deputy party leader her role may well be more party management than politics. Like Heseltine was under Major and Prescott under Blair.

Basically, given the need just for some principled reasonable people to replace this current Tory sh#t show. So f#cking what.

[winkie]

29 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I'd have thought being failed by the education system and then having the gumption to return to it as a young single mother is a fantastic qualification myself. These sh#tty attacks on her background just make me hate Tories even more.

Playing a dirty childish game is not endearing.......just makes them look desperate and a bit of a bully, they should concentrate on the promoting of all the good things they have achieved to improve quality of life and prosperity of the people of our nation over the last 14 years......then Labour or any other party wouldn't be so much of a threat.

 

 

 

[Huggy]

33 minutes ago, Si1 said:

A far cry from the corrupt evil rent boy rapists and wannabe slavers in the Tories. Jesus.

It's just a little bit of work to persuade undecided voters like yourself, and Rishi will be sorted.

[Huggy]

7 minutes ago, winkie said:

Playing a dirty childish game is not endearing.......just makes them look desperate and a bit of a bully, they should concentrate on the promoting of all the good things they have achieved to improve quality of life and prosperity of the people of our nation over the last 14 years......then Labour or any other party wouldn't be so much of a threat.

 

 

 

Lol. Did you not see what happened in the months (perhaps years?) after Boris had a beer in his garden?

Edited April 18 by Huggy

[Si1]

1 minute ago, Huggy said:

Lol. Did you not see what happened in the months (perhaps years?) after Boris had a beer in his garden?

You mean during a 100-year pandemic when 'normal' people were banned from seeing their loved ones in hospital?

It's this patronising Tory cr#p that makes them so unelectable. Just more and more.

[Si1]

5 minutes ago, Huggy said:

It's just a little bit of work to persuade undecided voters like yourself, and Rishi will be sorted.

😁

[Brendan110_0]

6 minutes ago, Huggy said:

Lol. Did you not see what happened in the months (perhaps years?) after Boris had a beer in his garden?

Yes, I remember him breaking multiple rules enforced on the nation, that's why most people ignored them where possible. 

[winkie]

10 minutes ago, Huggy said:

Lol. Did you not see what happened in the months (perhaps years?) after Boris had a beer in his garden?

We were living through a pandemic, it was his policy that people should be locked down, couldn't see loved ones at Christmas, couldn't attend funerals of loved ones or those dying in care homes......he made the rules that he broke, so should be called out imo.....else looks like special people get special favours.

[Pebbles]

1 hour ago, Si1 said:

I'd have thought being failed by the education system and then having the gumption to return to it as a young single mother is a fantastic qualification myself. These sh#tty attacks on her background just make me hate Tories even more.

Yes let's have the uneducated as education secretary someone who has the least education. Her failure to get an education isn't something to be lauded and celebrated. I remember when Britain was great and we celebrated achievement not just someone getting promoted above their ability.

[winkie]

9 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Yes let's have the uneducated as education secretary someone who has the least education. Her failure to get an education isn't something to be lauded and celebrated. I remember when Britain was great and we celebrated achievement not just someone getting promoted above their ability.

Very many cabinet ministers are not educated in the role they undertake, they have educated people behind them to advise them......they have been changing ministers every five minutes, how can anything ever get done?.......how many housing ministers have there been?....

[Bruce Banner]

13 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Yes let's have the uneducated as education secretary someone who has the least education. Her failure to get an education isn't something to be lauded and celebrated. I remember when Britain was great and we celebrated achievement not just someone getting promoted above their ability.

And then we left the EU and became isolated and insignificant.

 

[winkie]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

And then we left the EU and became isolated and insignificant.

 

Ireland is doing well.....their people can move within the EU freely and the UK freely, best of both worlds.....

[Bob8]

On 15/04/2024 at 18:11, Dyson Fury said:

There are several issues at stake here.  Including:

- moral issue of having bought her council house under right-to-buy, but now holding a senior position in a Party which is opposed in principle to the scheme.

- Possible CGT liability (as discussed above).  A married couple can legally have only one "principal residence" for CGT purposes, regardless of their actual living arrangements.

- Possible liability to repay a proportion of the profit made selling the house, if it had not been her sole residence for 5 years after purchase, which is a condition of the RTB scheme.

- Electoral register fraud (this is the criminal investigation).  Not very serious in my view, just shifting her possible vote from one constituency to an adjacent one.

- The things nobody has mentioned yet.  If she was letting out the house to her brother, as has been alleged, there are a number of legal and financial issues.  Eloquently summarised by a 118er here:

https://www.property118.com/angela-rayner-police-reveal-investigation-into-council-house-row/#comment-173878

Most of those objections are contrived. 

I think tax should be higher on earned income and less on earned, but I do not volunteer more tax on the earned.

There is an issue if she specifically lied to avoid it which would have to show she did so knowingly.