Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is facing a political storm after admitting she underpaid stamp duty by £40,000 on her recent purchase of an £800,000 seafront flat in Hove, East Sussex. The revelation, which came to light on September 3, 2025, has not only triggered an official investigation but also ignited fierce debate over ministerial integrity, the complexity of property tax law, and the standards expected of senior government officials.
Rayner’s admission followed days of media scrutiny and mounting political pressure. According to The Telegraph, she paid around £30,000 in stamp duty when she bought the Hove property in May 2025, but the correct amount—based on her circumstances—should have been closer to £70,000. The discrepancy stemmed from advice she received regarding a trust established for her disabled son, which complicated her property ownership status and, by extension, her tax liabilities.
“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 done. And always felt proud to do that,” Rayner told Sky News. She emphasized that her actions were rooted in her desire to support her children, especially her son, who has lifelong disabilities. “I feel 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 because it’s his and my ex-husband ... it’s not fair on them.”
The saga began in 2020, when Rayner’s son received a financial award after a distressing medical incident as a premature baby. That money was placed in a trust, a standard practice in such circumstances. After her divorce in 2023, Rayner and her ex-husband transferred some of their interest in their Ashton-under-Lyne family home to the trust. By January 2025, she sold her remaining stake in the Greater Manchester property—her “life savings”—to the trust for £162,500, which she then used as a deposit for the Hove flat.
Standard stamp duty was paid on the purchase, based on legal advice Rayner received at the time. However, as The Guardian and BBC reported, the existence of the trust and the fact that her son was under 18 meant that, for tax purposes, Rayner and her ex-husband were still considered co-owners of the original family home. This triggered a higher “second home” rate of stamp duty—a detail that was missed in the initial legal guidance.
Verrico & Associates, the small family conveyancing firm handling the Hove purchase, said they calculated the stamp duty “based on the facts and information provided to us,” but stressed they do not offer tax advice or deal with trusts. Joanna Verrico, the firm’s founder, told BBC: “We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith.”
Rayner, acknowledging the mistake, has referred herself for investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, and has contacted HMRC to rectify the underpayment. “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,” she said in a statement to BBC.
The fallout was swift and severe. Conservative and Reform UK politicians seized on the admission, with calls for Rayner’s resignation echoing across Westminster. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, criticized Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s response, saying, “Time and time again he has said that if this situation happens he would instantly sack people. When the shoe was on the other foot when he was leader of the opposition he went after people for this same scenario—as did Angela Rayner. Now that the shoe is on the other foot what we are seeing from them is hypocrisy.”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was even blunter, telling The Telegraph: “I don’t see how Angela Rayner can survive this.” Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, added on Sky News: “She was so vocal in attacking opposing politicians when she was in opposition that she can’t stand up and say ‘I’m the biggest hypocrite in the land’. She has to offer her resignation to the Prime Minister.”
Labour’s response, however, has been more measured. Sir Keir Starmer publicly backed Rayner, stating during Prime Minister’s Questions: “She has explained her personal circumstances in detail. She has gone over and above in setting out the details, including asking a court to lift a confidentiality order in relation to her own son. I know from speaking at length to the Deputy Prime Minister just how difficult that decision was for her and her family. She did it to ensure that all information is in the public domain. She has now referred herself to the independent adviser. That is the right thing to do, but I can be clear, I am very proud to sit alongside a Deputy Prime Minister.”
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has refused to say whether he would sack Rayner if the ethics adviser concludes she broke the ministerial code. “I do think in the end we need to establish the facts, which the independent advisor will do and come to a conclusion. I don’t think it’ll take long now for that bit of process to conclude and then, of course, it does fall to me. I completely accept that, to make a decision based on what I see in that report,” Starmer told BBC.
The ministerial code, which sets standards of honesty and integrity for government ministers, gives the independent adviser the authority to recommend if rules have been broken. However, the ultimate decision on any action rests with the Prime Minister. As The Independent highlighted, Rayner’s political fate now hangs on the findings of Sir Laurie Magnus, with the report expected as soon as September 5, 2025.
Labour backbenchers remain divided. Some told the PA news agency that Rayner’s future depends on the outcome of the investigation, while others expressed hope she could continue in her role, citing her unique perspective and popularity with constituents.
Meanwhile, tax experts have weighed in on the case's complexity. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, explained to The Independent that “in complex situations, this is a very bad idea” to rely solely on a conveyancer for stamp duty calculations. He noted that if HMRC finds Rayner was “careless” in her tax dealings, she could face a fine of up to £12,000—30% of the underpaid sum.
As the investigation unfolds, questions linger about whether Rayner purposefully sought to lower her tax bill or genuinely acted on faulty legal advice. The intricacies of her family arrangements and the trust’s role in her property transactions have only added to the confusion, making this not just a story about one politician’s error, but a broader lesson in the perils of navigating Britain’s labyrinthine tax laws while in the public eye.
With the country watching, the coming days will determine whether Angela Rayner’s mistake is viewed as a forgivable error or a career-ending breach of trust.
