2nd Property -SDLT Changes - Have Your Say

silvercar

Random scenario: In our last house move we bought out the bottom of the chain as well as buying our current home, selling our previous home at the same time.

So one day we owned one home, the next day we sold one and bought two.

PasturesNew

Ah ... first world, rich people problems.

jennifernil

It seems complicated where a couple are involved.

After reading all the examples, I have a scenario I cannot see precisely covered.

Before the new rules come in.......

2 unmarried people each own a flat, they each live in their own flat as their own main residence.

1 of them then buys a house in his/her sole name and moves into this, retaining their flat to rent out.

About 3 years later they decide to live together in the house. The one who is moving in with the other also retains their flat and rents it out. The house, owned and mortgaged solely by their partner becomes their main residence too. They register on the electoral roll there, change their address with bank, HMRC etc etc, and contribute to the bills, but not directly to the mortgage payments.

2 years later, after the new rules come in, the couple get married, continue to live in the house and continue to rent out their respective flats.

3 or 4 years after getting married they decide to buy a bigger house, in joint names, as they now have 2 children.

They apply for a joint mortgage, sell the smaller house, and buy a new main residence in joint names. The equity from the sale of the smaller house, plus savings from each of them forms the deposit for the new main residence.

They both continue to rent out their original flats.

Between them they still own 3 properties, as before.

What level of SDLT will they pay?

Daniel54

jennifernil wrote: »

2 years later, after the new rules come in, the couple get married, continue to live in the house and continue to rent out their respective flats.

What level of SDLT will they pay?

Booksurr's caveat in post 6 applies

However,from the consultation document the only applicable transaction in your example post 31.3.16 is that a married couple sell their primary residence and buy a replacement primary residence

Replacing your primary residence is free of the 3% surcharge

If you sell the flats you don't live in and rent ,not sell ,your current home, then you will pay the surcharge because you have not sold and replaced your primary residence

It is not apparent from your post why you find this unclear

A married couple can only have one primary residence

carpediemspirit

Daniel54 wrote: »

Booksurr's caveat in post 6 applies

However,from the consultation document the only applicable transaction in your example post 31.3.16 is that a married couple sell their primary residence and buy a replacement primary residence

Replacing your primary residence is free of the 3% surcharge

If you sell the flats you don't live in and rent ,not sell ,your current home, then you will pay the surcharge because you have not sold and replaced your primary residence

It is not apparent from your post why you find this unclear

A married couple can only have one primary residence

This is the problem and inconsistency in the law here, a person who owns a buy to let and their own main home is free of the 3% surcharge when they replace their primary residence.

Yet me who owns a buy to let, lives with parents and wants to buy a property to live in is not exempt from the surcharge.

J_i_m

carpediemspirit wrote: »

This is the problem and inconsistency in the law here, a person who owns a buy to let and their own main home is free of the 3% surcharge when they replace their primary residence.

Yet me who owns a buy to let, lives with parents and wants to buy a property to live in is not exempt from the surcharge.

But the person in your example is not buying an extra property. Then are selling one to buy the other effectively keeping the same number of properties. Hence why it is referred to as 'changing primary residence'.

Your gripe that is that you don't own as many properties as the person in your scenario and would now have to pay a surcharge if you wanted to buy a house and keep ownership of your flat.

Well, I'm sorry but tough luck.

silvercar

carpediemspirit wrote: »

This is the problem and inconsistency in the law here, a person who owns a buy to let and their own main home is free of the 3% surcharge when they replace their primary residence.

Yet me who owns a buy to let, lives with parents and wants to buy a property to live in is not exempt from the surcharge.

I guess that is deliberate, as an encouragement to live in the home you have bought before considering buying more.

I accept that this is not always possible, but that is the way the rules have been written.

Doozergirl

carpediemspirit wrote: »

This is the problem and inconsistency in the law here, a person who owns a buy to let and their own main home is free of the 3% surcharge when they replace their primary residence.

Yet me who owns a buy to let, lives with parents and wants to buy a property to live in is not exempt from the surcharge.

You may not like it, but there is nothing inconsistent about it. Buy an additional property, pay more.

You go from 1 to 2 - you pay. Someone goes from 2 to 2 by moving *home*, they don't. They go from 2 to 3, they pay more. They swap one BTL for another, they pay more.

chanz4

It will stop the greed that landlords seem to of adopted, at the cost of the renters

booksurr

chanz4 wrote: »

It will stop the greed that landlords seem to of adopted, at the cost of the renters

it impacts those who are landlords and it impacts those who own/want to own a second home. If appears your objection is simply driven by the green eyed envy monster per chance?