"Ronald Raygun" wrote
What costs were you thinking about?
You could have one contract covering all the many tens/hundreds of thousands of (related) transactions, so you wouldn't need to sign thousands of bits of paper. You can transfer the total amount of money in one go, if both parties agree (can't see why they wouldn't).
Legal costs might be slightly more, beacuse the contract runs to more pages than usual - but surely it shouldn't be excessive overall??
I'd have thought one contract would count as one transaction. If the transaction is itself sub-divided into, erm, let's call them steps, that wouldn't be effective.
Another snag, I think, is that a contract is probably ineffective unless the consideration is at least a pound, so the best you could do is chop the transfer up into contracts of £1.99 each, thereby in effect nearly doubling the threshold, by doing 120,000 transactions for £1.99 each, you could pay no SD on a transfer worth £238,800.
Unless you can process each contract for much less than 2p, it'd be cheaper to pay the SD.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
So a (single) contract which specifies the purchase of a dozen different properties, on varying dates across the next (say) 24 months (with payments made for each in turn separately), would be *one* transaction? OK...
It's just that I thought it was the above kind of situation that caused the "... not part of series of transactions..." clause. So, from what you say, the clause must be solely to stop multiple *contracts* creating lower SD, rather than multiple purchases under one contract (which would, IWYSIC, count as one transaction anyway - and therefore automatically create a higher SD liability without the "series of transactions" clause).
------------
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
That's very unfortunate, isn't it? Doesn't that mean that, after paying for the Sunday paper or a pint of milk, the newsagent/grocer can run after you into the street and retrieve his property from you - because there was effectively no contract of sale?!! :-(
Well yes, I dare say it would be one transaction. But
No, I don't think so. If you buy three houses, all at once, then ownership of each house would be recorded at the Land Registry independently of the others, and if consideration for each house was less than the appropriate threshold, but the sum total more, then my understanding is that no duty will be payable even though there might be a single deal behind the three transactions. BICBW.
That's how I understand it, yes. The clause appears in the "certificate for value", after all, doesn't it, which accompanies each application to transfer ownership at Land Registry. The sole purpose of that certificate is to establish exemption from SD (or, as the case may be, entitlement to be taxed at a lower rate).
No it wouldn't, because each recording is independent of the others.
No. The context here is contracts providing for the recordable transfer of real property. You still have a valid contract for your milk and papers, but you can't buy or sell a house, or share in it, for less than a pound *and have the transfer recorded*.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
I heard of somebody buying something like half-a-dozen flats (in the same block), each for around 100K, sum total 600K. Apparently, he had to pay SD at the top rate of 4% ...
Also, some big-time BTLers buying several houses at the same time, off-plan from the same developer - even from different sites - having to pay the top rate of SD because the total exceeded 500K.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Exactly - and what we are trying to determine is 'under what circumstances can the clause can be declared true'.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Please see examples above.
------------
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Is the contract ineffective just because it is not recorded at the Land Registry??
Tsk. Bad luck.
It might well be effective for some purposes, but (with the possible exception of land which has not yet been registered) it would not be possible to establish/defend title, and hence in due course to sell. I'm told contracts for the transfer or lease of land are inadmissible in court as evidence unless stamped.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.