Tearful Angela Rayner admits she didn’t pay enough stamp duty on flat purchase
Angela Rayner today admitted she underpaid stamp duty on a seaside flat she bought.
Listen to this article
The Deputy PM has been under intense pressure over her tax affairs after reports about her purchase of the property.
She was reported to have saved £40,000 in stamp duty on the flat because she removed her name from the deeds of a family property in her Ashton-under-Lyne constituency, meaning the Hove property is the only property she owns.
In a statement on Wednesday, she said she had taken legal advice when she bought the south coast flat, which suggested she was "liable to pay standard stamp duty" but had then sought "further advice from a leading tax counsel" following headlines about the arrangement.
She learned that the initial advice had been inaccurate and that she was liable to pay additional stamp duty.
That is because she had put her stake in her constituency home in Ashton into a trust set up in 2020 for her disabled son.
Tax experts said the Hove property could not be treated as her only residence because of the nature of the trust.
In the statement, Ms Rayner said: "I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son's trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities.
"I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase. I am working with expert lawyers and with HMRC to resolve the matter and pay what is due.
"The arrangements I have set out reflect the reality that family life is rarely straightforward, particularly when dealing with disability, divorce and the complexities of ensuring your children's long-term security. Every decision I have made has been guided by what I believe to be in my children's best interests.
"I deeply regret the error that has been made. I am committed to resolving this matter fully and providing the transparency that public service demands.
"It is for that reason I have today referred myself to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, and will provide him with my fullest co-operation and access to all the information he requires."
Ms Rayner had been prevented from disclosing information about her property arrangements by a court order, but applied to the court and was given permission to discuss the matter publicly on Tuesday night.
Asked whether she had considered resigning, Ms Rayner said: "I've been in shock, really, because I thought I'd done everything properly, and I relied on the advice that I received, and I'm devastated because I've always upheld the rules and always have felt proud to do that.
"That it is devastating for me and the fact that the reason why those confidential clauses were in place was to protect my son, who, through no fault of his own, he's vulnerable, he's got this life-changing, lifelong conditions and I don't want him or anything to do with his day-to-day life, to be subjected to that level of scrutiny."
Pressed again on whether she had considered standing down, she said she had "spoken to my family about it" and "the number one priority for me and my ex-husband has always been to support our children and do the best thing for our children".
Angela Rayner's statement in full
Following the substantial scrutiny surrounding my living arrangements, I wanted to set out the facts as openly and transparently as I can.
Until now, an undertaking in a court order prevented me from disclosing information about certain aspects of my personal life. In the interests of public transparency, I applied to the court and I was last night released from this undertaking.
Family life can be complicated, and it is no secret that, like many families across the country, my domestic arrangements reflect these complexities. Throughout my career, I have always tried to be the best mum to my children, while managing the demanding realities of public service.
There has been a lot of speculation in recent days about my domestic arrangements and in particular the home I share with my ex-husband and my family.
While I do not find it easy to publicly discuss personal and sometimes distressing family matters, I have always taken my responsibility as an MP and deputy prime minister seriously and tried to be as open as possible while protecting my family. To address the allegations made against me I have now taken the difficult decision to explain why my arrangements are as they are.
In 2023 my ex-husband and I divorced. As parents who have been through divorce will understand, the top priority for both of us during that process was the wellbeing of our children and helping them navigate this change.
To provide maximum stability during this transition, we agreed to a nesting arrangement where the children remain in the family home full-time while we alternate living there. We also wanted to ensure that our child, who has special educational needs, was provided for as part of the divorce settlement.
provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase. I am working with expert lawyers and with HMRC to resolve the matter and pay what is due.
A court-instructed trust was established in 2020 following a deeply personal and distressing incident involving my son as a premature baby. He was left with life-long disabilities, and the trust was established to manage the award on his behalf – a standard practice in circumstances like ours.
To ensure he continued to have stability in the family home, which had been adapted for his needs, we agreed that our interest in the family home would be transferred to this court-instructed trust of which he is the sole beneficiary.
Some of the interest in our family home was transferred to the trust in 2023. In January 2025, I sold the remaining interest in the property to my son’s trust. This will give him the security of knowing the home is his, allowing him to continue to live in the home he feels safe in and grew up in. We transferred the property because it was in the best interests of our child. I acted as any parent would.
The sale of the property in Ashton-under-Lyne to the trust has not altered my family life. It remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.
After I sold my stake to the trust, I bought a property in Hove in May 2025. Like many people, I used the lump sum from selling my stake in my Ashton home, which was the only property I owned and where my savings were, for the deposit on my new one. I obtained a mortgage to finance the rest. When purchasing the property my understanding, on advice from lawyers, was that my circumstances meant I was liable for the standard rate of stamp duty.
However, given the recent allegations in the press I have subsequently sought further advice from a leading tax counsel to review that position and to ensure I am fully compliant with all tax provisions.
I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities. I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these
The arrangements I have set out reflect the reality that family life is rarely straightforward, particularly when dealing with disability, divorce, and the complexities of ensuring your children’s long-term security. Every decision I have made has been guided by what I believe to be in my children’s best interests.
I deeply regret the error that has been made. I am committed to resolving this matter fully and providing the transparency that public service demands.
It is for that reason I have today referred myself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, and will provide him with my fullest cooperation and access to all the information he requires.