Rat-infested property is “suitable for use as a dwelling”
The First-tier Tribunal has found that a property in disrepair, inhabited by rodents, is still suitable for use as a dwelling for tax purposes. This sounds illogical - so what’s the full story?

In Mudan & Anor v HMRC the taxpayers (the Ms) purchased a £1.7m property in London that had been empty for five months after the previous tenants were evicted. During that time, the property had been broken into and vandalised, none of the utilities worked and mice and rat droppings covered the kitchen. The boiler had been ripped off the wall, the gas, electricity and water were not functioning safely and rainwater was leaking into the property. It took nine months of renovations before the Ms moved into the property.
Higher rates of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) are chargeable on residential properties, with the pertinent part of the definition being that the property is residential if it is “suitable for use as a dwelling”. Due to the state of the property, the Ms argued that it was not suitable to be occupied and so lower rates of SDLT should apply. HMRC, and ultimately, the tribunal disagreed. The judge confirmed that the bar for a property not to be suitable for use as a dwelling was set very high, and that a building which was recently used as a dwelling, has not in the interim been adapted for another use, and is capable of being so used again will count as a dwelling for SDLT purposes. An additional £100,000 SDLT was due on the purchase, and the appeal was dismissed.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?