Combining properties.

bobobski

Obvious point but check that merging the premises with other premises is permitted by both leases before starting...

shortcrust

Cardew wrote: »

I don't know the exact details as it is a friend of mine and he is abroad and in conversation he asked if I knew what happens. He can sort out the lease situation with solicitors if the sale goes ahead.

It is the principle of paying the addition stamp duty levy on a second home, when the property will not be a second home, that was the main point. In my rural area there are sometimes two semi-detached cottages that are 'knocked into one' and completely modernised; the same situation will occur in future.

I don't get the objection. The aim of the extra stamp duty is to support first time buyers and wider home ownership. Knocking a wall down doesn't change the fact that an available home has gone to an existing home owner rather than a new one. You could argue that the impact is worse as it permanently reduces housing stock.

eddddy

bobobski wrote: »

Obvious point but check that merging the premises with other premises is permitted by both leases before starting...

The lease won't permit it. That's the whole issue.

Cardew

shortcrust wrote: »

I don't get the objection. The aim of the extra stamp duty is to support first time buyers and wider home ownership. Knocking a wall down doesn't change the fact that an available home has gone to an existing home owner rather than a new one. You could argue that the impact is worse as it permanently reduces housing stock.

Where have I, or my friend, objected to anything?

I merely asked some questions, mainly if the additional stamp duty would apply in this case.

Anyway thank you for explaining the moral issues involved in reducing housing stock; I do hope you feel better for getting that off your chest;)

Cardew

I would add that in many cases - London in particular - it has been common practice to merge two or more flats into a single property; so I suspect the lease aspect is not an insurmountable problem in most cases.

To address the 'moral issue' of reduced housing stock! it is pertinent to point out that many blocks of flats were originally huge single family - mansions(with servant's quarters). The owners doubtless had them converted into flats solely to help with the issue of increasing housing stock.;)

eddddy

Cardew wrote: »

I would add that in many cases - London in particular - it has been common practice to merge two or more flats into a single property; so I suspect the lease aspect is not an insurmountable problem in most cases.

Yes - it's generally negotiating the payment of a lump of cash to the freeholder that makes it surmountable.

Your original question was about 3% SDLT. The payment that the freeholder asks for might dwarf that.

shortcrust

Cardew wrote: »

Where have I, or my friend, objected to anything?

Sorry if I touched a nerve. I thought this...

It is the principle of paying the addition stamp duty levy on a second home, when the property will not be a second home, that was the main point.

...sounded rather like an objection.