Kate Garraway suffers another blow as she's forced to sell her flat amid devastating £800,000 debt battle
Although the pad in North London recently sold for £1.5m it was already heavily mortgaged and what's left over will barely touch the sides of the huge sum she still owes.
Good Morning Britain host Kate, 58, wanted the property to be a long-term investment that she could turn to over the coming decade but had no choice but to sell it.
An insider said: "Kate takes paying off the debts very seriously and she's always said she'd go to any lengths to achieve that.
"This is just part of that commitment, even if it does mean she's had to lose the flat which she actually purchased years ago before meeting Derek and before they bought a family home together.
"Like many people, she was keeping it as a financial safety net which she thought she wouldn't have to use so soon."
Derek died last year - aged just 56 - after being crippled by an extreme case of long Covid after he caught the disease in March 2020.
She says she already had debts of between £600,000 and £800,000 as a result of caring for Derek. Kate claimed that the £16,000 monthly cost of her late husband's care was more than her salary from ITV.
Then in May a recent liquidator's report highlighted the significant tax liabilities still outstanding from Derek's defunct psychotherapeutic company, Astra Aspera.
The latest claim demand from the taxman resulting from the business was just over £288,000.
At the time a spokesman for Kate said: 'Caring for Derek and supporting her family when Derek could no longer run his own businesses has taken a huge financial toll on her but she's determined to put things right.
"She is in constant contact with HMRC to make sure she honours what's required from Derek's now-defunct company.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
11 minutes ago
- Times
Bureaucracy is a spoke in wheel of e-bike revolution
Every day, thousands of Londoners choose to travel by e-bike. Whether for commuting, meeting friends or exploring the capital, e-bikes are opening up green, affordable and accessible cycling to a much wider audience. This demand is borne out in the data. Just last month Forest, the e-bike company I co-founded in 2021, reached a record-breaking 1.5 million rides across London, a 60 per cent increase from last year. While the upsides of getting more people cycling are obvious — it promotes healthier lifestyles, eases congestion and is better for the environment — we are acutely aware of the challenges that come with rising demand. No one benefits from e-bikes cluttering pavements or being parked irresponsibly. We know that. E-bikes should complement London's streets, not complicate them. So, what is the issue? Cities like Oxford and Bristol have one coherent operating area, but London has a tangled web of conflicting rules across different boroughs. One council bans parking in certain areas, another permits it freely. Some impose strict fines, others barely enforce regulations at all. This patchwork means riders are often confused about what they can and can't do. And it undermines public confidence in an otherwise transformative mode of transport. • Cut parking for second cars to make room for e-bikes, says rental firm We need consistency across all boroughs. Without it, we're opening the door to operators more focused on market share than street harmony. We're not advocating for fewer rules, in fact we're calling for more of them. London urgently needs a single regulatory framework. One set of parking standards, one enforcement model, and one operational rulebook should apply from Brent to Bromley. A coherent approach would allow riders to enjoy the benefits of cycling without worrying how to end their journey. Part of the challenge lies in Whitehall. The stalled English Devolution Bill has left London, not to mention other major British cities, without the powers to govern its mobility infrastructure effectively. That must change. Transport for London needs the authority to plan and implement a city-wide strategy across borough boundaries. • Chris Hoy joins e-bike revolution . . . but can 'weekend warriors' catch up? Forest is ready to work with regulators, not around them. We want higher standards, better accountability and smarter city planning. But that future cannot be built one borough at a time. Londoners are ready for a change. Let's give them the infrastructure and clarity they need to use e-bikes safely, confidently and responsibly. One city. One set of rules. Agustin Guilisasti is co-founder and CEO of Forest
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has driven Britain to the brink. Full-blown crisis will soon be upon us
Britain's fiscal reckoning has arrived. The £20bn 'black hole' has, according to one new estimate, doubled in size under Rachel Reeves's dubious stewardship. Most of the money we are now borrowing is going not towards servicing our debt, but the interest on that debt. Colossal off-the-book liabilities, such as public sector pensions, have been hidden from voters by successive governments. They are now falling due. For years, the country has behaved like a household hooked on payday loans. Now, the bills have come through the letterbox and we've no cash left to cover them. Even the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, traditionally Left-leaning, is warning that if the Chancellor is to remain within her fiscal rules, she must raise taxes or cut spending by £51bn. Not even the Office for Budget Responsibility can maintain the fiction that the current trajectory is sustainable. Reductions in spending are out of the question, as the ludicrous welfare row exposed. What many may not realise is that around 75 per cent of government expenditure is mandated – benefits, pensions, for instance – and cannot be avoided in the short-run. Only a quarter is discretionary – areas such as transport, or defence. This means that major spending cuts would require primary legislation, which feckless Labour backbenchers will never swallow. It also means that further tax rises, which Reeves in January insisted would not be necessary, are inevitable. No wonder asset managers are telling clients to prepare for 'very real, very targeted moves on people with portfolios, pensions and property'. Keir Starmer has refused to rule out further tax increases in the autumn Budget. Be afraid, be very afraid. How did we get into this mess? Not since 2001 has a chancellor presented a balanced Budget. Despite lip-service to fiscal probity, the desire to splurge has consistently outweighed the need for restraint. Lord, give me continence, but not yet. Politicians, of whatever stripe, have engaged in a collective delusion: that the Treasury is so awash with cash it is scrambling to find things to spend it on. Pay rises across the public sector? Green subsidies? A pointless railway to Birmingham? Bring it on. But the overall state of the public finances tells a grim story. In 2024-25, the state is projected to spend £1.2tn. Some £450bn of this will go on welfare, health and pensions – more than the entire take from income tax, National Insurance and VAT combined. The UK entered this century with debt at around 30 per cent of GDP; it's now pushing 100 per cent. The tax burden is at a post-War high, set to be around 37.5 per cent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament, yet core public services are crumbling and the crowd yells out for more. Polling suggests the public are closer to grasping our fiscal reality than politicians, with economic optimism now half what it was in July 2024. But even growing pessimism isn't enough to slake their thirst for more spending. Some 9.1 million people of working age are currently economically inactive. Over half of households are taking more from the state than they are putting in. As the number of net contributors shrinks, who, exactly, do people believe is footing the bill? More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote: 'Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence... but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice.' Peace is uncertain, the administration of our increasingly wonky justice has time lags measured in years, and taxes increasingly drag us down. Council tax on our homes. The licence fee. VAT on virtually every product we consume. Vehicle Excise Duty. Congestion charges, tolls, Ulez. The sugar tax. A Digital Services tax on any online orders or subscriptions. Income tax. National Insurance Contributions raised for employers, but which in the end the employee will pay. It's enough to drive us to – massively taxed, of course – drink. And the more convoluted the system becomes, the easier it is for governments to mask the scale of the extraction and the harder it is to scrutinise – or object. Taxes should be visible and just. Currently, they are neither. This is not by accident, but design. Worse still, the public has been fed a series of monstrous lies about tax-and-spend. That it is not only necessary for the state to plunder our earnings and assets, but moral. That squeezing the private sector to fund the public mysteriously delivers growth. That the 'rich' aren't paying their 'fair share', despite all the evidence to the contrary. That we could tax the 'wealthy' without punishing the middle classes. Of all Labour's pledges, none has unravelled faster than the self-defeating promise to shield 'working people' from tax hikes. They punished businesses, and since the start of the year, employment is down, unemployment is up, wage growth has stalled and vacancies are falling. They waged war on independent schools, and since January 50 have closed, with all the job casualties that brings. The affluent, as the Telegraph this week reports, have paid their fees in advance – a luxury poorer parents, those who strain every sinew to privately educate their children, cannot afford. The list goes on. Reeves's inheritance tax assault on family farms has triggered the worst collapse in rural businesses since 2017. Non-doms are fleeing almost as fast as small boats are arriving, taking with them billions in tax receipts, spending and investment. Labour said they would deliver the kind of 'growth' that would haul us out of the post-lockdown economic crisis, but are giving us stagnation. Even if they renege their manifesto pledge not to hike income tax, VAT or National Insurance, it might not be enough. There are major structural problems in our economy – a broken planning system, suffocating regulation – to which this Government has no answer. And, at some point, tax takes begin to destroy growth, with one study suggesting each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent. We are completely boxed in. Politically, of course, breaking their tax triple lock would be a disaster. As Professor John Curtice tells me, it could prompt a tuition-fees moment – a betrayal that would be forever etched in the public's memory. Our overall approach to the public finances is self-evidently unsustainable. A retrenchment of state expenditure is coming at some point and the longer we wait the more painful it will be. We've lived in Neverland for too long. It's time to say no, we don't believe in fairies.
Times
11 minutes ago
- Times
Bain & Company given £24m of state contracts after UK ban lifted
Bain & Company has been awarded almost £24 million of state contracts since the British government backed down on a ban on the consultancy over alleged state corruption in South Africa. Bain, based in Boston, Massachusetts, and one of the world's biggest management consultancy firms, was given a three-year ban in August 2022 by the Cabinet Office from bidding for government contracts. It was barred over what Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Cabinet Office minister at the time, alleged was 'grave professional misconduct, which renders its integrity questionable'. • Big three consultancies 'rarely worth hiring', say executives The British government's decision followed an inquiry in South Africa into so-called 'state capture' during the presidency of Jacob Zuma, which criticised the role of international firms, including Bain. The company made a legal challenge against the decision of Boris Johnson's government, which it argued was 'based on a flawed process', and pledged to improve its corporate governance. The ban was abruptly lifted in March 2023 after less than eight months; Whitehall sources said a legal challenge could have left the taxpayer with a large bill. An analysis of state contracts by Tussell, the data company, for The Times shows that Bain has since been awarded nine state contracts worth a combined £23.9 million, including with the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. Lord Hain, a former Labour minister and anti-apartheid campaigner, who lobbied the Johnson administration and current government over Bain, said he was 'very disappointed' it had received any British state contracts. 'I trust that there will be no more. Just because it's apparently legally not possible to ban them is no reason to award them any government work.' Bain was approached for comment on the UK contracts. A government spokesman said: 'Bain colluded with the former government of South Africa to damage state organisations. Whilst decisions on the exclusion of Bain from bidding for UK government contracts were made by the previous government, the government will take strong action against any future supplier misconduct wherever it is found.' Sources said the MoD contracts were awarded through an existing central government management consultancy framework. The government has new powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action against suppliers involved in misconduct but they are not retrospective. In October Hain wrote to Pat McFadden, minister for intergovernmental relations, urging a fresh ban on contracts. In his response in January, McFadden said that he had requested legal advice on options to extend a ban but was told 'no legal route existed'. Bain was accused of undermining the South African Revenue Service (Sars) through consultancy work that allegedly benefited Mr Zuma's allies. The management consultancy firm, which was founded in 1973 and operates in 40 countries, has said that it has taken 'significant measures' to strengthen its governance for public sector contracts. 'While there were no findings from two official commissions of inquiry of any illegal actions by Bain, we accepted responsibility for the events at that time and repaid all fees, with interest, to Sars.' Earlier this month, Bain said that it was 'winding down' consulting operations in South Africa and that its Johannesburg office will become a services hub supporting Bain's global operations.
