Whilst a divisive figure, I hope we can mostly agree that Angela Rayner is amongst the least boring in the Westminster village. Many see the unfolding drama as an ideological hit-job — including me. But while the media focus on her stamp duty liabilities, there is a less-expected impropriety.
It seems increasingly clear that, whilst describing her prematurely born son as an ‘NHS miracle’, Rayner secretly made a six-figure damages claim against the NHS. This was paid into a trust for her son — with Rayner appointed to manage it. The details of this were protected by a court order. If not requested by her, it was certainly politically convenient.
She said that she had ‘acted as any parent would’, when implying that she’d transferred her home to the trust for her son’s benefit and protection. In fact, though, it appears she transferred the mortgaged property to the trust to expressly, in her capacity as trustee, (a) clear the mortgage, and (b) cash-out her equity.
The latter step required the house to be valued. Property price inflation in Ashton‑under‑Lyne since 2016, when she purchased for £375,000, would suggest a 2025 valuation at circa £500,000. The value contrived for the trust was £650,000 — the maximum valuation for a property asset to be transferred into a trust without an inheritance tax liability.
Crucially, this inflated the value of her equity in the house, at the expense of her son’s funds in the trust, to the maximum level possible without triggering an IHT liability. This also maximised a capital gain protected by primary residence CGT relief.
Having done so, she proceeded to live presumably rent-free in the property, now fully owned by a trust controlled by her — the mortgage lender displaced by her son. Manoeuvring herself from owner to trustee enabled her to purchase a holiday home without the additional stamp duty premium, whilst also claiming the Ashton property as her principal residence to avoid double council tax on her grace-and-favour apartment in London.
The latter points are well-reported, and blamed on poor advice. But it’s apparently a less newsworthy scandal than a moral one that she prioritised personal extraction of funds above her fiduciary duties to her own son’s trust. I’m surprised by that, and not a little disappointed.
belowtheline.blog 