Stamp Duty on Tenancy Agreement

[Daphne_sam]

I have read that Stamp Duty was payable on some pre-December 2003 tenancy agreements, including those over £5000 a year.

Could somebody please let me know who was responsible for getting the agreement signed?

Also, how strict are courts in practice about refusing to accept unstamped agreements as evidence?

Any comments would be gratefully received.

Thanks,

Daph

[MrShed]

It really depends on a few factors.

- When did you move in?
- What was the fixed term of the original tenancy?
- How much was your monthly rent?

[Aequitas]

Originally Posted by Daphne_sam

Could somebody please let me know who was responsible for getting the agreement signed?

If you are the tenant and were not represented - you.

Originally Posted by Daphne_sam

Also, how strict are courts in practice about refusing to accept unstamped agreements as evidence?

As I am not a litigator I cannot answer that question. However, the legal position is that a document that ought to be stamped cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is stamped; if someone takes the point and points it out to the judge he cannot admit the tenancy agreement into evidence. The position is not beyond remedy as a document can be stamped at any time, though a penalty may be payable for late stamping. Contact the Stamp Taxes helpline for information on the amount of duty payable and how to get the document stamped - details here: HM Revenue & Customs: Stamp Taxes helpline

[Daphne_sam]

Originally Posted by MrShed

It really depends on a few factors.

- When did you move in?
- What was the fixed term of the original tenancy?
- How much was your monthly rent?

April 2003, nine months, £800 pcm.

I've read the Inland Revenue site and was wondering if anyone actually had experience of a Judge refusing to accept a tenancy agreement as evidence.

Thanks for your replies!

Daph

[MrShed]

Daphne, in answer to your question, no I dont have experience of this. However, it is kind of irrelevant. This is not something that a judge can "choose" to ignore. If the agreement is not stamped, and it should have been, and the judge is made aware of this, he has no choice but to reject it as evidence. If he does accept it as evidence, he has acted outside of his jurisdiction.

[Daphne_sam]

Mr Shed,

Thank you for your reply. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's to my advantage or not if the tenancy agreement can't be used as evidence, although my ex-landlady will possibly use it. Presumably the Inventory and Schedule of Condition is a separate document and CAN be used as evidence...that's what I want to use, because it shows quite clearly the condition of various items when I started the tenancy.

Thanks for your help.

Daph

[Aequitas]

The inventory and schedule of condition is part of the agreement.

[Daphne_sam]

Ohh! I'm not sure where I stand now. On the one hand, the inventory shows that the decorations and carpets were not new at the start of the tenancy. On the other hand, my ex-landlady can't prove what was in the house, so what will the judge make of that?

[Ed999]

An unstamped document cannot be produced in evidence in a court case, so your landlord cannot rely on it.

If the landlord sues for possession, the court application to evict you will fail unless the stamp duty tax is paid by the landlord prior to the hearing date.

The stamp duty on the tenant's copy (the copy which you hold) is only 50p, so it's not too much hardship on you to get your document stamped by the Inland Revenue Stamp Office, if you need to rely on it in a court case!

The tax due from the landlord on her copy is greater, probably £5, but still nothing in comparison to even a month's unpaid rent. You don't have to pay that. You only pay the fixed 50p duty on your part.

Don't count on the landlord being too stapped for cash to pay the £5 in question!


As to the completely different question of the lack of an inventory, read this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...eductions.html


Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

[Daphne_sam]

Ed,

The landlady isn't suing for possession. To cut a long story short, she is suing me for £4.3k. She never returned my £800 deposit, which was more than enough to cover any 'damage' I had caused. The kind of thing she wants compensation for include leaving a battery-powered toy car out in the garden...it was never on the inventory, I asked repeatedly for it to be removed during the three and a half year tenancy AND I didn't leave it outside anyway! Now she is claiming £400 to replace it. She also wants £230 for a sofa which I only kept because she didn't want the hassle of taking it to the skip, it was worn when I moved in AND the tenants after me were still using it, despite her claim that she replaced it. Maybe you can understand that this woman is taking the p***. I need to use the inventory as evidence, because it shows that the carpets and decor were NOT brand new as she has claimed.

Thanks for your advice

[Ed999]

If you are the one being sued, you should not need to do any stamping of documents. You don't care if the court throws out the landlord's claim because the documents have not been properly stamped.

It is only important to you to get a document stamped if you are suing the landlord, e.g. in a counterclaim.


Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.