Angela Rayner, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, is facing mounting political pressure after revelations about her property dealings and tax arrangements. The controversy centers on her purchase of an £800,000 seaside flat in Hove, East Sussex, and the subsequent avoidance of £40,000 in stamp duty—a move that, while legal, has ignited fierce debate about propriety, transparency, and the standards expected of senior government officials.
Reports first surfaced on August 29, 2025, when The Daily Telegraph revealed that Rayner had removed her name from the deeds of her house in Greater Manchester prior to buying the Hove flat. By declaring the new property as her main home, she avoided paying the higher rate of stamp duty usually levied on second homes. Instead of the £70,000 that would have been owed under the regime extended by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in 2024, Rayner paid only £30,000. According to BBC News, this maneuver saved her £40,000—an amount significant enough to raise eyebrows, particularly given Rayner’s prior public comments about tax fairness and the responsibilities of the wealthy.
There is no suggestion that Rayner acted outside the boundaries of the law. As her spokesperson stated, “The Deputy Prime Minister paid the relevant duty owing on the purchase of the Hove property in line with relevant requirements and entirely properly, any suggestion otherwise is entirely without basis.” Friends of Rayner have also pointed out that she sold her stake in the Greater Manchester property as part of a divorce settlement, and now owns only the Hove flat.
But legality hasn’t quelled the political storm. Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake has written to Sir Laurie Magnus, the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, asking him to investigate whether Rayner broke ministerial rules. Hollinrake’s letter, cited by The Daily Mail, accuses Rayner of “hypocritical tax avoidance, by a minister who supports higher taxes on family homes, high-value homes and second homes.” He also claims that Rayner’s arrangements “collapse the house of cards that Tameside is her primary home.”
The row is further complicated by Rayner’s multiple residences. For council tax purposes, Rayner continues to designate her family home in Ashton-under-Lyne, Tameside, as her primary residence—even though, following her divorce, she no longer owns a stake in the property. Her ex-husband and their children still live there. Meanwhile, Rayner pays a punitive double rate of council tax in Hove, after telling the local authority it is her second home. And, as Deputy Prime Minister, she also has a taxpayer-funded grace-and-favour flat in Admiralty House, central London, where she reportedly spends most of her time during the workweek.
These overlapping claims of residency have not gone unnoticed. The Conservatives have called for Rayner to be struck off the electoral roll in Ashton-under-Lyne, arguing she no longer lives there and is currently registered at three addresses—Ashton-under-Lyne, London, and Hove. According to the Electoral Commission, being registered at more than one address is permitted in certain circumstances (such as students living between term-time and holiday homes), but owning a property or paying council tax alone does not establish residency.
The controversy is made more acute by Rayner’s own history of criticizing others on tax matters. In 2023, she accused then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of paying “a far lower tax rate than working people,” and in 2018, she lambasted Jeremy Hunt for exploiting “Tory tax loopholes.” Given this record, critics see her recent actions as contradictory. Dame Priti Patel, former Tory Home Secretary, branded Rayner “a hypocrite and a freeloader,” telling The Daily Mail, “She wants everyone else to pay higher taxes on family homes but doesn’t want to pay it herself.”
Within Labour, reactions have been mixed. Health Minister Stephen Kinnock defended Rayner, telling LBC radio, “The deputy prime minister has made it absolutely clear she’s done absolutely nothing wrong. Everything that she’s done is fully within the law.” Downing Street also confirmed that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer retains “full confidence” in his deputy. However, some Labour voices have called for greater transparency. Lord McConnell, former First Minister of Scotland, told Times Radio, “It’s really important that she is very transparent about this issue… My advice to her would be to get all the details, don’t hide behind privacy rules and everything else… Reassure people that you’ve done the right thing.”
Rayner’s department has previously warned of the negative impact of second homes on the housing market, with policy aimed at discouraging such purchases to free up property for those in need. The government’s 2024 Budget doubled the surcharge on second homes to 10 percent for properties valued between £250,000 and £900,000. Critics argue that Rayner’s use of residency rules to avoid this surcharge sits uneasily with her department’s stance and Labour’s broader messaging on housing justice.
Yet, as noted by several commentators, the line between legal tax planning and inappropriate avoidance is not always clear. The Scottish judge Lord Clyde once opined that no one “is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations... as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores.” Rayner’s supporters might argue she simply acted as any prudent individual would within the law. Her detractors, however, see a double standard—one rule for politicians, another for the public.
The Ministerial Code requires ministers to confirm their tax affairs are up to date and consistent with their duty to comply with the law. If Sir Laurie Magnus finds evidence of a breach, possible sanctions could include stripping Rayner of her ministerial residence or, in more extreme cases, resignation. Ultimately, any decision would fall to Prime Minister Starmer, who has so far stood by his deputy.
As the political fallout continues, the case highlights the perennial tension at the heart of British politics: the difference between what is legal and what is right. For now, Angela Rayner remains in her post, but the calls for transparency—and for a clear answer to where her true home lies—are unlikely to fade anytime soon.
