Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
She has to go, really. I can understand that the circumstances of the purchase seem quite complicated, but if nothing else, she is Labour's attack dog who's gone after the Tories for things like these. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
It's not the first one either. The first one was when she declared the 'wrong' home as her primary residence, even though she was technically spending more time in a different one. That passed because it had more to do with her personal relationship, and people can accept that people in relationships don't immediately declare their primary residence as the one they're currently spending more time in. But this is worse, it's another scandal and she is Minister for Housing.
|
The primary issue here isn't about designation of residences. The issue is that technically she still owned part of an interest in the Ashton-under-Lyne house, because the trust was for somebody under the age of 18.
GOV.UK rules
Quote:
Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
|
That meant she owned 2 properties.
Issues surrounding the transfers of ownership and the reassessment of mortgages on the Ashton-under-Lyne property should be looked into.
Is the trust paying part of the mortgage now? Why was she conveniently allowed to withdraw £162,500 from her disabled son's trust fund. Sounds all planned in advance.