x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Are you entitled to a stamp duty rebate following landmark court case?

Primas Law is urging landlords and property developers to seek legal advice about potential stamp duty rebates on ‘uninhabitable’ second properties after a landmark tribunal case.

A recent ground-breaking case, between P N Bewley Ltd and HMRC, held that properties that are not immediately habitable at the time of completion do not constitute as a “dwelling” for the purpose of the Finance Act 2003.
 
This finding could have major implications for the UK housing market, according to Primas Law, as the decision meant that P N Bewley was not liable to pay the additional 3% stamp duty surcharge applicable to second homes. 

It could mean that those who have paid stamp duty on similar uninhabitable properties – including potentially thousands of landlords and developers – may have paid an inappropriate level of tax and could seek to reclaim them.
 
Consequently, Primas Law is being instructed to act for a large and growing number of landlords and developers seeking to recover stamp duty paid for properties that, potentially, should not have attracted the additional tax.
 
Daniel Thomas, Head of Litigation at Primas Law, said: “To provide more context to this particular case, the property that P N Bewley purchased was a bungalow and a plot of land in Western-super-Mare.

“The company’s intention was to demolish the bungalow and build a new dwelling on the land with planning permission already being granted. The bungalow was essentially a derelict building that had been unoccupied for around three years.
 
“The tribunal was provided with photographs of the derelict building and these demonstrated the heating system, radiators, floorboards and pipework had been removed, and that the property – both internally and externally – was in a very poor condition.
 
“It was also provided with reports from surveyors that concluded asbestos was present in the property and urgently needed removing.”
 

icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up