Warning over new Stamp Duty refund scam that could cost you £1,000s – signs to look out for
HMRC has warned that bogus tax agents are preying on buyers, promising to win them back stamp duty payments they've made.
1
Tax agents are claiming that they can win back refunds on your behalf if you have bought a property which needs repair work.
But the taxman has warned that these claims are not valid, and you could be on the hook for the full stamp duty bill, plus penalties and interest - which could cost you thousands of pounds.
Anthony Burke, HMRC's deputy director of Compliance Assets, said: "Homebuyers should be cautious of allowing someone to make a Stamp Duty Land Tax repayment claim on their behalf.
"If the claim is inaccurate, you could end up paying more than the amount you were trying to recover."
Stamp Duty is a lump sum you have to pay to the taxman when you buy a property worth over a certain price.
What you pay depends on the type of property you're purchasing, how much it's worth, and what type of buyer you are.
You don't pay anything for properties under £300,000 if you're a first-time buyer, but for existing homeowners the threshold is lower at £125,000.
So if you were a first-time buyer buying a £350,000 property, you would pay £2,500, but if you were buying your next home, you would pay £7,500.
However, fall prey to a bogus repayment agent and you could end up forking out thousands of pounds more than you should have.
As an example, someone buying a second home in London for £1,100,000 would pay £53,750 stamp duty.
The Sun's James Flanders explains how to find the best deal on your mortgage
If that home needed modernisation and repair, such as a a new boiler and rewiring, this could stop that person moving in straight away.
The homeowner could be targeted by a repayment agent falsely claiming they can reclaim overpaid stamp duty because the home is classed as non-residential and not residential.
They may then decide to go ahead and pay the agent to make a claim on their behalf and receive a payment.
But, later in the year, HMRC would open a compliance check into the repayment claim and conclude that the property was residential.
This would lead to the homeowner finding out they owed stamp duty to the tax man plus interest and a penalty.
If the amount the person got back from the stamp duty refund was £9,250 and the agent charged a 30% fee, the refund would be £6,475.
However, the refund owed to HMRC would be worth £9,250, plus any added penalties and fees, costing them thousands of pounds.
The decision to class homes that need repairs as residential comes after a landmark Court of Appeal decision.
The decision backed up HMRC's view that if a property needs repairs but is still suitable for use as a dwelling, residential SDLT needs to be paid on it.
In other news, we revealed how some people can end up paying stamp duty twice through a virtually unknown loophole.
What is stamp duty?
STAMP duty land tax (SDLT) is a lump sum payment anyone buying a property or piece of land over a certain price has to pay.
You pay the tax when you:
Buy a freehold property
Buy a new or existing leasehold
Buy a property through a shared ownership scheme
Land is transferred to you or property in exchange for payment, for example, you take on a mortgage or buy a share in a house
The rate you pay depends on the price and type of property and certain thresholds.
If you are a first-time buyer no stamp duty is due if the property is worth £300,000 or less.
You'll also get a discount if the purchase price is £500,000 or less and will only pay 5% SDLT on the portion from £300,001 to £500,000.
Those who aren't first-time buyers will pay different rates depending on the value of their new home:
If it's up to £125,000 - no stamp duty is paid
For the next £125,000 (the portion from £125,001 to £250,000) - stamp duty is charged at 2%
For the next £675,000 (the portion from £250,001 to £925,000) - stamp duty is charged at 5%
For the next £575,000 (the portion from £925,001 to £1.5 million_ - stamp duty is charged at 10%
For the remaining amount (the portion above £1.5million) - stamp duty is charged at 12%
You'll usually have to pay 5% on top of SDLT rates if buying a new residential property means you'll own more than one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Car finance mis-selling scandal: Millions of drivers denied payouts after Supreme Court ruling
Millions of drivers have been denied payouts after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. But lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error'. And intervening in the case, the Financial Conduct Authority claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the long-awaited Supreme Court ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said: 'For the reasons set out in detail in a judgment published today, the Supreme Court allows the appeals brought by the finance companies.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99 per cent of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'.
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Car finance scandal: could you still get compensation?
Does the Supreme Court ruling mean I won't be compensated? The upholding of the judgment could have paved the way for anyone who took out a car finance loan before 2021 to be in line for some form of compensation. Now it's been overturned, pending any further appeals or escalations, it could mean only those who are eligible to claim against the potential misuse of discretionary commission arrangements could receive compensation – pending further information from the FCA. This could still implicate a lot of people, but the scale is not expected to be as huge if it also included commission disclosure complaints. The Supreme Court, however, did uphold one complaint against the lenders, suggesting there could be scope for some individuals to successfully claim. It upheld a claim from a claimant over an 'unfair' relationship between a customer and a finance company. The size of commission was 55pc of the total charge for credit. As it was so high, the 'relationship' between the customer and finance company was deemed to be unfair. How much could I be owed? This is still unclear. In regards to the discretionary commission agreement arm of the scandal, those who signed up to multiple car finance agreements between 2007 and 2021 could be eligible for several payouts. The average mis-sold car finance payout, according to LawPlus Solicitors, is £1,500. The FCA has suggested that for a typical £10,000 four-year car finance deal, a customer could have overpaid £1,100 in interest. Exact amounts would depend on individual circumstances. A driver would likely receive the difference between the amount they paid at an inflated interest rate and the rate they should have been charged. Interest of 8pc on the overpayment would also likely be added, so the payout could be quite substantial. Should I use a claims management company? Thousands of drivers have been lodging compensation claims via claims management companies, which charge a commission fee upon the outcome. Scores of law firms are also offering 'no win, no fee' deals to manage claims. You do not need to use one of these companies to make a claim. Consumer rights expert Martyn James said there was 'no reason whatsoever for claims companies to exist'. He said: 'They are like vultures. This industry made millions if not billions from PPI claims, and now they are doing the same with car finance. They are out in force.' Regulated claims firms can take up to 30pc of the reward, up to a maximum amount of £10,000, excluding VAT, whereas those who go solo will receive 100pc of their payout. You may not even have to make a claim yourself, as the FCA is considering setting up a free redress scheme, which will force lenders to automatically compensate consumers. What should I do next? For discretionary commission arrangements, the best thing to do is wait and see what the FCA reveals in six weeks' time. It could be influenced by the Supreme Court's separate ruling, so it is best to wait for the next development. Do not use a claims management company, as the FCA could force banks to automatically compensate impacted consumers. In case an automatic redress scheme isn't set up, you could log a claim if you haven't done so already. In order to do so, you'll need to contact your original lender and ask them about the commission agreements secured on your deal. The FCA has put a pause on the deadline for providers to get back to you while it carries out its investigation. As it stands, lenders don't have to respond to your complaint about car finance until December 4 this year. If you're unhappy with the eventual response from the lender, you can take your case for free to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Millions set to miss out on car finance compensation after Supreme Court ruling
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said: 'For the reasons set out in detail in a judgment published today, the Supreme Court allows the appeals brought by the finance companies.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99% of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'.
