You may have read about Paul and Nikki Bewley’s case in the nationals, as their tribunal hearing made the newspapers recently, and the result could help future claims for those who have purchased properties that were considered uninhabitable. The couple bought a £200,000 derelict bungalow as a buy-to-let investment back in January 2017. The property had no central heating and was filled with asbestos, so their plan was to demolish the existing building and start afresh with a brand new home, which they would then let to tenants. Thinking they would not be liable to the buy-to-let surcharge, the Bewley’s initially paid the standard rate of stamp duty, £1,500, only to be subsequently told by HMRC that they actually owed £7,500! Under the Housing Act of 1967, to be regarded as habitable a property must have suitable facilities to meet basic needs, such as maintaining hygiene (i.e. a workable bathroom and toilet) and means to be able to cook for oneself (a kitchen). HMRC, however, took the stance of stating that the Bewley’s buy-to-let investment would be fit for habitation in the future. The tribunal thought otherwise and awarded in favour of the Bewley’s, as they deemed the property unfit for immediate habitation, (so) meaning they were not (be) liable for the stamp duty surcharge. This ruling could mean that hundreds of old surcharges could be called into question by landlords who have previously paid the top rate for properties that were in dire need of renovation in order to make them liveable spaces. While it’s still early days, many are speculating that HMRC could face a spate of retrospective claims for stamp duty refunds as a result. Purchased UK property in the past 4 years? You could be owed a stamp duty refund from HMRC. � +447721894808 � Office@tyhclaims.co.uk
