Petition: Stamp duty holiday to be triggered upon exchange of contracts

Lavendyr

Grr I posted and then lost the post.

I still don't think the arguments posed are valid and question whether any of them are posed by people who have actually bought or sold in the current market. 

The point re the form is valid, but ulltimately I think there has to be a cost-benefit analysis here. Is there a risk that the housing market will drop off because of people pulling out due to the hard stop? Would that be better with a move to exchange-based SDLT? I've yet to see a compelling argument that a hard stop is better.

To the person who said "moah sweeties" - not really sure what your point is. I am not benefiting from any change in policy. We and our vendors pushed very very hard to get our purchase completed by the original stamp duty deadline. Any change does not affect me in the slightest. It's a fairly childish post, really, isn't it. 

Anyway I accept that the majority of views here differ and while I've yet to hear a good argument, I acknowledge that I'm unlikely to change views. So thanks all for the interesting debate and I hope your next experience in the housing market is smooth and positive.

AdrianC

Lavendyr said:

The point re the form is valid, but ulltimately I think there has to be a cost-benefit analysis here. Is there a risk that the housing market will drop off because of people pulling out due to the hard stop? Would that be better with a move to exchange-based SDLT? I've yet to see a compelling argument that a hard stop is better.

But you're still arguing for a hard stop... just at a ever-so-slightly different point in the process, usually just days earlier, often the exact same day.

One thing I don't think has been mentioned is the situation with off-plan new-builds, where exchange may actually be many months before completion... and exchange may be followed by the contract being rescinded, due to the long-stop being exceeded.

Lavendyr

That's a fair point @AdrianC re new builds. I agree it's complicated. Re same day exchange/completion, I really think that has become far less usual in the current market. Our sellers wanted certainty before they would move out so requested time between exchange and completion. As I've said, the same was true of our removals experience. The market is so rammed right now that people will not commit without certainty. That's what I think the exchange-based SDLT (for a period, i.e. exchange by 30 June) would achieve. But I do appreciate your point and that re the admin.

I just think it needs to be assessed on its merits, i.e. would it be better for the market and for people caught in the process, having spent hundreds on legal fees, searches, etc, to have the opportunity to achieve a certain contractual position which locks in the financial outlay - or is it better to risk that those people get so far in the process and then have to pull out beacuse the slow conveyancing process has meant that it's just too risky? I acknowledge that simultaneous exchange/completion is feasible but personally I have no appetite for that level of risk and if we'd done that we'd have struggled to secure removals. 

I still think that the benefit of allowing people to agree on a contract and be fully comfortable with the costs involved outweighs the cost. Let's face it, the way our house purchasing process works in England is agonising. There could be a better way to do this. Personally I wouldn't begrudge anyone buying in future an easier sale/purchase process if that could be achieved. 

[Deleted User]

A bigger risk in the last 12 months has been for those who do not exchange and complete on the same day. We chose to do so because if the wife was furloughed or made redundant after exchange (travel sector) you'd be back in the hands of the lender.

Exchange and complete on the same day, solves your problem and mine. 

davilown

I am buying and selling. 

I knew the March date well in advance but hadn’t sold by then.

When extended, it gave me an extra period of ‘grace’ to sell which I’m now under offer. Hopefully the buyers will complete prior to the extended period ends.

If not, I’m not reducing the price accordingly. They knew the chance that they would have to pay it.

My purchase hasn’t begun yet because I haven’t found anything to buy so I’ll be paying stamp duty and will factor it in accordingly. 

As I said before, s!?e happens - get over it.

Prior preparation and planning was needed to take advantage of the holiday, even though people are paying well over the odds (2x what they would have paid in stamp duty......).

Nile_E_Coyote

Stampdutyhol said:

Hello, 

So there is a fresh stamp duty petition to hit .Gov. 

Petition:

Stamp duty holiday to be triggered upon exchange of contracts

"People are finding themselves becoming trapped in a scenario whereby house prices are much higher, and at the same time they will now miss out on the stamp duty holiday. People are being financially punished from both sides, this from a policy that was designed to do the exact opposite.

Exchanging contracts is exactly what it says. A contract, a legally binding agreement, to purchase a house often with an immediate 10% deposit being paid. So why shouldn’t you benefit from the stamp duty holiday being triggered at that moment of exchanging contracts, rather than at the point of completion? This will allow in particularly new build buyers, with continuous building delays due to COVID-19, to benefit from this policy."

Do you agree? 

Get a grip.

SpiderLegs

Lavendyr said:

Grr I posted and then lost the post.

I still don't think the arguments posed are valid and question whether any of them are posed by people who have actually bought or sold in the current market. 

The point re the form is valid, but ulltimately I think there has to be a cost-benefit analysis here. Is there a risk that the housing market will drop off because of people pulling out due to the hard stop? Would that be better with a move to exchange-based SDLT? I've yet to see a compelling argument that a hard stop is better.

To the person who said "moah sweeties" - not really sure what your point is. I am not benefiting from any change in policy. We and our vendors pushed very very hard to get our purchase completed by the original stamp duty deadline. Any change does not affect me in the slightest. It's a fairly childish post, really, isn't it. 

Anyway I accept that the majority of views here differ and while I've yet to hear a good argument, I acknowledge that I'm unlikely to change views. So thanks all for the interesting debate and I hope your next experience in the housing market is smooth and positive.

What’s the point of asking for people to give you reasons why what you think should happen is actually a bad idea, if your response to the multitude of replies is then going to be along the lines of ‘I don’t believe any of that and I have bought a house recently’

saajan_12

Lavendyr said:

Grr I posted and then lost the post.

I still don't think the arguments posed are valid and question whether any of them are posed by people who have actually bought or sold in the current market. - people can actually understand the process from the outside. However, I am personally in the process of selling 3 properties on behalf of myself or a family member, if that is the credentials you need. One exchanged, two going through enquiries. 

The point re the form is valid, but ulltimately I think there has to be a cost-benefit analysis here. Is there a risk that the housing market will drop off because of people pulling out due to the hard stop? Would that be better with a move to exchange-based SDLT? - so hundreds of thousands to get legislation changed, vs a 0.5% p.a. increase in how many sales get through? Yeah, cost-benefit wise, your proposal loses. How I get to the 0.5% below. 
I've yet to see a compelling argument that a hard stop is better. - I've yet to see your admission that you're suggesting a different but equally hard stop.  

To the person who said "moah sweeties" - not really sure what your point is. I am not benefiting from any change in policy. We and our vendors pushed very very hard to get our purchase completed by the original stamp duty deadline. Any change does not affect me in the slightest. It's a fairly childish post, really, isn't it. 

Anyway I accept that the majority of views here differ and while I've yet to hear a good argument, I acknowledge that I'm unlikely to change views. So thanks all for the interesting debate and I hope your next experience in the housing market is smooth and positive.

My finger-in-the-air estimate for how many sales would be affected by your proposal:
Say typical 1 week gap between exchange and completion during current times, ie on avg 1/52 of sales this year would exchange before but complete after deadline, ie 1.92%. Thats if they were not concious of a deadline, but most of those would try to adjust things to get completion sped up.. say 1% can't complete in time. A further proportion may choose to go ahead anyway and pay the higher SDLT (because they budgeted for it, or split the cost with the seller, or had a dream house, or had to move).. so say 0.5% % of annual sales failing, which would be saved by your proposal. 

Incidentally, the same benefit could be achieved by just pushing the date back by 1 week, with zero cost in amending the whole basis of how SDLT is calculated. 

The point everyone is trying to explain is that you're only kicking the can down the road, but still creating a hard deadline. Instead of rushing to complete, they'll be rushing to exchange by a certain date, and sales might fall through if they simply can't meet that HARD deadline. There's only so many ways we can try to explain - if you still don't get it, you never will. 

SpiderLegs

saajan_12 said:

Lavendyr said:

Grr I posted and then lost the post.

I still don't think the arguments posed are valid and question whether any of them are posed by people who have actually bought or sold in the current market. - people can actually understand the process from the outside. However, I am personally in the process of selling 3 properties on behalf of myself or a family member, if that is the credentials you need. One exchanged, two going through enquiries. 

The point re the form is valid, but ulltimately I think there has to be a cost-benefit analysis here. Is there a risk that the housing market will drop off because of people pulling out due to the hard stop? Would that be better with a move to exchange-based SDLT? - so hundreds of thousands to get legislation changed, vs a 0.5% p.a. increase in how many sales get through? Yeah, cost-benefit wise, your proposal loses. How I get to the 0.5% below. 
I've yet to see a compelling argument that a hard stop is better. - I've yet to see your admission that you're suggesting a different but equally hard stop.  

To the person who said "moah sweeties" - not really sure what your point is. I am not benefiting from any change in policy. We and our vendors pushed very very hard to get our purchase completed by the original stamp duty deadline. Any change does not affect me in the slightest. It's a fairly childish post, really, isn't it. 

Anyway I accept that the majority of views here differ and while I've yet to hear a good argument, I acknowledge that I'm unlikely to change views. So thanks all for the interesting debate and I hope your next experience in the housing market is smooth and positive.

My finger-in-the-air estimate for how many sales would be affected by your proposal:
Say typical 1 week gap between exchange and completion during current times, ie on avg 1/52 of sales this year would exchange before but complete after deadline, ie 1.92%. Thats if they were not concious of a deadline, but most of those would try to adjust things to get completion sped up.. say 1% can't complete in time. A further proportion may choose to go ahead anyway and pay the higher SDLT (because they budgeted for it, or split the cost with the seller, or had a dream house, or had to move).. so say 0.5% % of annual sales failing, which would be saved by your proposal. 

Incidentally, the same benefit could be achieved by just pushing the date back by 1 week, with zero cost in amending the whole basis of how SDLT is calculated. 

The point everyone is trying to explain is that you're only kicking the can down the road, but still creating a hard deadline. Instead of rushing to complete, they'll be rushing to exchange by a certain date, and sales might fall through if they simply can't meet that HARD deadline. There's only so many ways we can try to explain - if you still don't get it, you never will. 

Well I don’t believe any of that because I have just bought a nice green hat and only people who have got green hats know about stamp duty and stuff.

grumiofoundation

I still don't think the arguments posed are valid and question whether any of them are posed by people who have actually bought or sold in the current market. 

The point re the form is valid, but ulltimately I think there has to be a cost-benefit analysis here. Is there a risk that the housing market will drop off because of people pulling out due to the hard stop? Would that be better with a move to exchange-based SDLT? I've yet to see a compelling argument that a hard stop is better.

To the person who said "moah sweeties" - not really sure what your point is. I am not benefiting from any change in policy. We and our vendors pushed very very hard to get our purchase completed by the original stamp duty deadline. Any change does not affect me in the slightest. It's a fairly childish post, really, isn't it. 

Anyway I accept that the majority of views here differ and while I've yet to hear a good argument, I acknowledge that I'm unlikely to change views. So thanks all for the interesting debate and I hope your next experience in the housing market is smooth and positive.

Ok as someone who has bought and sold during SDLT holiday period, and therefore whose opinion (apparently) carries more weight.

I don't think SDLT holiday should have been a) introduced at all, let alone as it was, b) extended or c) contemplated extendign in any form again.

Offer accepted start of September
Completed (simultaneous exchanged on same day) start of Feb.
Was ready and had prepared to pay tax (LTT in my case, so less relief).

The point re the form is valid, but ulltimately I think there has to be a cost-benefit analysis here. Is there a risk that the housing market will drop off because of people pulling out due to the hard stop? Would that be better with a move to exchange-based SDLT? I've yet to see a compelling argument that a hard stop is better.

As said above you, and the OP, are advocating for a hard stop, just a differently defined hard stop.

Hypothetical - if an exchange based deadline was put in place would you also be in favour of government bailing out those people who exchanged before they were ready and ended up pulling out the purchase but being liable for vendor's costs?

I just think it needs to be assessed on its merits, i.e. would it be better for the market and for people caught in the process, having spent hundreds on legal fees, searches, etc, to have the opportunity to achieve a certain contractual position which locks in the financial outlay - or is it better to risk that those people get so far in the process and then have to pull out beacuse the slow conveyancing process has meant that it's just too risky? I acknowledge that simultaneous exchange/completion is feasible but personally I have no appetite for that level of risk and if we'd done that we'd have struggled to secure removals. 

Anyone who has offered on a property since Jan 2021 (realistically earlier than that) who did not prepare to pay SDLT and cannot afford the property with the relief is frankly a fool.