Report comment

Much obfuscation and omission in AR's and Verrico's statements which don't answer two questions: 1) whether Rayner disclosed the existence of the Trust; 2) whether this licensed conveyancer alerted her to the necessity of taking specific stamp duty advice given that. Verrico & Associates whilst claiming not to give "tax advice" acknowledge they informed her what stamp duty was payable. Their firm about us details include for one director: " has an excellent all-round knowledge of conveyancing practice and has oversight of accounts, including checking financial statements, calculation and payment of Stamp Duty Land Tax and other post-completion work such as the registration of transactions and interests in property with H.M. Land Registry. "
The independent adviser letter confirms she was twice advised in writing lower rate SDLT was payable. However, "that advice was qualified by the acknowledgement that it did not constitute expert tax advice and was accompanied by a suggestion, or in one case a recommendation, that specific tax advice be obtained." Interesting that Verrico are not claiming to have alerted AR to the need to take specific advice...... Verrico aren't solicitors. Good solicitors ensure clients understand when they really must take specific separate advice on any matter (rather than using it as a self-protecting generic caveat). We simply don't know whether any firm here was at fault, although regardless AR should have had the sense to get confirmation on the trust tax implications at the time.