Report comment

Responding to 1:09pm.
We don't, of course, know the advice given (or not) by Verrico, but we do know that they are just a conveyancing firm and that they say they did not give any tax advice.
We also now know that, having used a conveyancing firm, AR was told that the lower rate SDLT was due, but that it was suggested that she get specialist tax advice (presumably to check the position because of her complex arrangements) and then again that lower rate SDLT was due, but that she was recommended to take specialist tax advice (presumably for the same reasons).
That at least was enough to put AR on notice that she could not rely on what she had been told about SDLT without taking specialist advice to check it was correct.
She was, therefore, aware of a material possibility that the higher rate of SDLT was due.
She chose not to take the specialist advice she had been recommended to take.
That was at best foolish or careless. More realistically, it smacks of someone who had heard the answer they wanted to hear and did not want to take the risk of being told that it was incorrect.
Whether or not there were any other flaws in advice she was given, the central flaw here was in AR not taking the advice she was recommended to take, presumably because she did not want to know the answer.
That she then attempted to obfuscate for several days by giving the impression she had received specific tax advice (which she had not) and by not mentioning that she had failed to take the specialist tax advice which had been recommended to her only made matters worse - and had the unfortunate ill effect of putting her conveyancer in the spotlight, which she must have known or suspected would happen.
It is not the gravest error in the world, and people make mistakes. As is so often the way, it is how they then deal with those mistakes when they come to light that can be the crucial factor.