
JEFF PRESTRIDGE: There's now an utterly compelling case for scrapping stamp duty on downsizers
Ensuring more of us have the means to enjoy later life devoid of financial struggle is the thrust of a new report by consumer group Fairer Finance. It's timely research which I trust attracts the attention of regulators and politicians.
The report suggests ways in which people could be encouraged to access wealth tied up in their homes to boost income in retirement.
Many homeowners have more wealth in bricks and mortar than they do in pensions, but do nothing with it. Sometimes as a result of not wanting to, but often because they can't.
Without better prompting and incentives to utilise this idle housing wealth, Fairer Finance warns the country faces an impending 'later life crisis', with many entering retirement with insufficient income to fund a satisfactory standard of living. Property rich, income poor.
It argues that if some of this property wealth were unlocked, it could boost the UK economy through extra consumer spending (Rachel from Accounts, take note). It would also enable more to live their later years in financial comfort rather than financial distress.
James Daley, managing director of Fairer Finance, says there are too many 'social, economic and regulatory barriers' which stop housing wealth being part of the retirement planning conversation.
He warns: 'If we're to head off a later life funding crisis, policymakers need to start taking action now to bring down these barriers.'
The report comes up with numerous recommendations for helping release this equity.
The first is to make downsizing easier for retirees to facilitate. A cut in stamp duty costs – even better, its scrapping – is recommended.
This should be accompanied by building more retirement-friendly homes, providing downsizers with greater choice.
These suggestions are music to the ears of Michael and Lynne Clare, from Swindon.
In February last year, I spoke to Michael for an article on downsizing for Money Mail. They were desperate to downsize from the four-bedroom home they had lived in for 37 years. Yet premium prices for bungalows nearby meant a move did not make financial sense. A big impediment, too, was a likely stamp duty bill of £9,250.
When I caught up with Michael on Friday, the 79-year-old former salesman for food giant Del Monte (affectionately known to friends as the Man from Del Monte) said their mission to downsize was 'ongoing'.
'A bungalow makes sense because of our age but few are on the market,' he said.
Though downsizing means release of a five-figure sum of equity, this will be bitten into by stamp duty of £10,000-plus (rates are higher than 15 months ago), plus estate agent fees, conveyancing and moving costs.
'There are eight houses in our cul-de-sac and four are owned by people thinking of downsizing,' he added. 'But the system makes it difficult because of onerous stamp duty and a lack of suitable properties. I can't imagine Rachel from Accounts will be keen to cut stamp duty for elderly downsizers given the parlous state of UK finances.'
Fairer Finance's report also calls for changes in the regulatory framework, allowing financial advice to be more holistic (based not just on financial assets but property wealth, too). Permitting this would enable financial experts to talk to retirees about ways property wealth can be unlocked through downsizing or loans such as retirement mortgages and equity release loans (far more customer-friendly than ten years ago).
It also wants the government- backed Money & Pensions Service to embed housing wealth as a key part of its conversation with those who contact it for later life advice. The Equity Release Council, representing lenders, commissioned Fairer Finance's report although it had no influence on the editorial.
I trust Rachel from Accounts gets a copy and acts on some of its ideas. It could help save her government, her job and the UK economy from rack and ruin.
Don't bank on Barclays not axing branches
Barclays' annual general meeting in London last Wednesday was a rumbustious affair as the bank's board attracted criticism on multiple fronts: branch closures, the company's share price and its dividend policy.
To make matters worse, political activists also protested outside the meeting and disrupted proceedings once the AGM got underway.
Some of the criticism directed at the board seemed a little misdirected given the bank's shares are up more than 40 per cent over the past year and annual dividends are tickling up quite nicely (8.4pence a share in 2024, compared to one penny a share in 2020).
Yet opprobrium over the bank's demolition of its branch network was well justified. Data from consumer group Which? shows that over the past ten years, Barclays had led the way in closing branches – more than 1,200 of them.
Although the bank has opened 'local' services in some towns impacted by its branch closures, these replacements are minimalist with cash transactions not permitted.
In my hometown of Wokingham, for example, the 'local' – located in the community centre - is only open four days a week. Quite ridiculously, it shuts at lunch time which I thought would be its busiest time.
Meanwhile, the former Barclays branch, shut in August 2023, remains unoccupied and a blot on the high street.
I suppose, supporters of high street banking should take comfort from the assurance given at the AGM that the bank will be announcing no more branch closures this year or next.
Yet this is like a football team selling its six best players and then telling fans no more players will be sold this season or next – with any new recruits being inferior to those they replaced.
As Barclays confirmed to me on Friday, it has already stripped its branch network to the bone – just over 200 full-service branches now cling onto dear life.
Come 2027, I would put money on these branch numbers getting another severe haircut.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
ALEX BRUMMER: 'Wise old hen' Chancellor dances on a pinhead
Rachel Reeves's pledge to restore fiscal stability and confine herself to one budgetary event a year is threadbare. When she delivers Labour's first full spending review next Wednesday, it will be her fourth visit to the dispatch box. As the Economist magazine remarked this week, it has been 'all pain, no gain'. Most of her difficulties can be traced back to the alleged discovery of a £22billion black hole in her public spending audit on July 30 last year. Reeves established a narrative, repeated by rote by her Cabinet colleagues, about a terrible inheritance. The number was contrived, in that the biggest element was a giveaway to public sector unions and railway workers, which brought a temporary truce. The Chancellor has made a series of tactical and strategic mistakes. At that very first appearance at the Treasury, she sowed the seeds of festering political dissonance by withdrawing the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. A costed gain to the Exchequer of £1.4billion last year and £1.5billion this year has proved ferociously politically expensive. It is now to be partly reversed in the spending review with the fuel payments restored but taxed as income for better-off silver surfers. Reeves then created a new rod for her back in her first Budget in October. The impact of £40billion of tax increases, fuelled by the debilitating rise in National Insurance Contributions, caused a growth stammer. The fundamental error was in shaping the fiscal rules. Taxation and current spending would be broadly balanced. The Government would only borrow for investment. But by leaving herself so little room for error on current spending, £10bn of headroom, the Chancellor sprung a trap. She ignored Harold Macmillan's dictum, 'Events, dear boy, events.' The headroom detonated another booby trap. Reeves's third intervention came in the spring. She took the axe to welfare, most notoriously to personal independence payments (PIPs) for those claiming disability benefits. It started a debate about Labour values, which has exposed Reeves to pressure to restore £3.5billion of payments to families with more than two children. Which brings us to the spending review. Any hopes that this would be the moment for Reeves to repair struggling public services have been smashed. A downgrade to the Office for Budget Responsibility's growth forecast, surging defence spending, the U-turn on winter fuel and the rocketing cost of servicing the national debt mean the envelope for current spending is negligible, with overall increases confined to 1.2 per cent or so. The joy, such as it is, will come from the capital spending plans. We had a flavour of this earlier in the week when Reeves unsheathed £15billion of transport investment across the North. One cannot but think most of these are reheated plans already announced by her predecessors. Infrastructure is critical and the Elizabeth Line in London and HS2 activity around Birmingham provide graphic evidence of how bold schemes can generate growth. But axing a supercomputer project in Edinburgh, as the Chancellor did last July, hardly speaks to UK tech ambition. In conversation at the CBI this week, Reeves described herself as a 'wise old hen' among G7 finance ministers as elections have brought newbies to the table. Her fiscal fortitude is creditable. Further tax increases, having pledged not to come back for more, would be a deception too far.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Tariff-hit steel maker Tata begs for US trade deal
Britain's biggest steel maker has urged Labour to step up efforts to finalise a US trade deal as the industry remains saddled with double digit tariffs. Rajesh Nair, boss of Tata Steel UK, said a deal with Washington is needed 'as soon as possible'. There is growing frustration that an agreement made last month has yet to take effect. Additional steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 25 per cent. The UK, however, was spared a recent doubling of the rate to 50 per cent, which hit other countries. Doubt continues over whether Indian-owned Tata will benefit from either exemption. That is because it imports steel from sister companies in India and Europe for finishing in the UK. US rules state that steel must be 'melted and poured' in the country they are imported from. Nair said it was 'critical for our business that melted and poured in the UK is not a requirement to access the steel quotas in any future trade deal'.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Leading businessmen Simon Peckham urges politicians to back UK firms
Politicians have been urged by one of Britain's leading businessmen to get behind wealth creators. As concern grows that the Government is hammering the private sector, Simon Peckham, who has made a fortune buying up and turning around industrial firms, said ministers 'should support' business. 'It would be nice if politicians understood that what [business] people are trying to do is generate wealth,' he said. 'If you don't generate wealth you don't generate tax income, and if you don't generate tax income you won't have any money to spend on causes they want to support, and which civilised countries probably should support.' Peckham is best known as the former boss of Melrose, the FTSE 100 firm which thrived by snapping up businesses under its 'buy, improve, sell' mantra. Most controversially, it took over and broke up the historic British industrial conglomerate GKN, earning opprobrium from unions and politicians. Peckham, 62, has since moved on to new venture Rosebank, which operates under the same principle and yesterday announced its first deal, the purchase of 72-year-old US firm Electrical Components International (ECI), a leading global supplier of electrical systems. Rosebank said it was raising £1.1bn to fund the deal, which it said values ECI at less than £1.5billion. The company said takeover opportunities had been 'enhanced by the turbulence of recent months' as Donald Trump's tariffs throw global trading into turmoil. Rosebank's acquisition of a US firm with more than £900m in annual revnenues represents a rare win for a UK-listed firm at a time when London's stock market is being degraded by foreign takeovers as well as the departure of many of its leading companies for New York. UK firms are being hammered by Labour's determination to saddle them with higher taxes and a raft of new workers' rights. Chancellor Rachel Reeves this week failed to rule out raising taxes further. Peckham said Rosebank would '100 per cent' remain on the UK market, adding 'we are proud to be so'. But he urged UK politicians to do more to back business.