View more on these topics

Editor’s note: Stamp duty plan full of holes


It has been two months since the Chancellor announced the incoming 3 percentage point surcharge on buy-to-let or second properties and yet it continues to dominate debate in the market, which reveals the level of concern that surrounds the proposals.

The Government’s intention is clearly to free up housing stock for the owner-occupied sector but, as the CML argues, it is not certain that the measures imposed will achieve this. Moreover, why should it come at the expense of the private rented sector? As the trade body says: “If the surcharge proposal is designed to promote homeownership, we think there should be better evidence as to why this requires a reversal of growth in the private rented sector.”

It could transpire that landlords retain their portfolios but hike rents to counteract the fact that buy-to-let will be less profitable. If the Government’s policy is to increase homeownership then this is a baffling measure as it would likely mean renters have less money to save for a deposit.

The proposals are in the consultation phase at the moment but there are unlikely to be many changes to the proposed framework.

While it is futile to call for a policy reversal, there are measures the Government could implement to reduce the likelihood of unfavourable and unintended consequences.

As things stand, some borrowers may get caught by the new rates when buying their main residence if there is an overlap between selling their home and buying a new one. The CML suggests this could be avoided by allowing borrowers to defer payment of stamp duty for 18 months, which it says would be “fairer and more efficient”.

A sensible solution, but it goes to show how hastily this policy idea has been cobbled together. It also suggests that the Government does not really understand what effect this will have on other parts of the market.

The holes in the policy are obvious but, worst of all, the Government has given the industry very little time – just a month – to digest the details and offer amendments or alternatives. If this is going to be its approach to all housing issues, we are in for a very bumpy ride.



Cherie Blair set to fight B2L tax relief cut in court

Cherie Blair is set to challenge the Government’s buy-to-let tax relief changes in court, arguing it breaches human rights. A campaign started with by two landlords, Steve Bolton and Chris Cooper, has contacted legal firm Omnia Strategy, which is led by the wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, for legal opinion and has been […]


Peter Curran: Will the headwinds blow the market off course in 2016?

Will the tailwinds outdo the headwinds in 2016? As we kick off a new year, it is slightly unusual to consider that the UK mortgage market is probably facing into several headwinds. I will cover this later in my article, but what I should state now is optimism reigns supreme and, of course all the […]

FCA logo glass 2 620x430

FCA and PRA investigating HBOS managers

The Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority are investigating some former HBOS senior managers about their role in the failure in the bank. The FCA says the investigations will “determine whether or not any prohibition proceedings should be commenced against them”. It adds: “The FCA and PRA continue to review materials with a view […]


Is Andrew Bailey the right man to lead the FCA?

Bank of England deputy governor and Prudential Regulation Authority chief executive Andrew Bailey has been named as the new chief executive of the FCA. Bailey, who has led the PRA for nearly three years, will succeed Tracey McDermott, who has been interim chief executive since Martin Wheatley stepped down in September. He is expected to take up the position […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • Steven Balmer 3rd February 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Could this be our elitist government simply using smoke screens to hide the fact that they are massively reducing tax for the more wealthy, from 12% to 3% for property bought over £750k. Also, does an oligarch or Chinese person buying a property in the UK also have to pay? They are part of the problem but it seems to be OK as long as it benefits the London coffers. How easy it is to check if a foreign buyer has any other property, commercial or residential, anywhere in the world? Very open to abuse and how is it possible to suggest this change creates a fairer tax system assuring those most able pay that little bit more? It is a Tory joke gone wrong and the fact it is to better serve Londoners with Help to Buy London is also insulting as a Scots person. A stately home in the Highlands costs less than a one bed flat in London so why should we prop up this false economy when no one outside the M25 will see any benefit back? At the least it is only likely to increase a need for more London Living Allowance to deal with ever inflated house prices. Government should stay the hell out of this so the market can fix itself and common sense can prevail. U turn Osborne, it will not be your first!

  • Peter Pownall 3rd February 2016 at 8:06 am

    As far as CML is concerns they burden conveyancers enough with Part 1 and Part 2 Handbook requirements. Are they seriously suggesting that conveyancers keep their files open for 18 months where buyers could be caught by the proposed SDLT changes?