Most tax-efficient option: living in rented or owned property in London?

[northernladuk]

In England a rental agreement can be verbal i.e. you can move in here and stay as long as we agree.

If it is then the relevant Housing Act protects your rights but also inserts some conditions.

Arguing with NLUK whether it's a place of business or not is pointless as if you ended up with a case with HMRC and it went before a judge, it would be up to the judge to decide what type of agreement you had.

And to be honest with what you are trying to pull off it would be the least of your worries.

TO be fair, trying to go through all the disjointed crap he is posting I think he meant the property he owns not the one he is renting. It is so complex I lose track.

[Sockpuppet]

The two-year rule only relates to travel.

Guess again

[SueEllen]

TO be fair, trying to go through all the disjointed crap he is posting I think he meant the property he owns not the one he is renting. It is so complex I lose track.

That's because he is trolling.

However we know that some newbie to this boards will in time post a similar scenario.

[SueEllen]

But, you have to be talking about specific parts of Hampshire and specific parts of Surrey to make the statement that Hampshire is quicker to get to London than Surrey. Typically, Surrey is quicker.

I can give you plenty of stations in Hampshire that are quicker to travel to London to/from than stations in Surrey by train. (And by Surrey I mean the parts that are not part of London like Croydon.)

[Guest22]

You need to learn to **** off. Ungrateful twat.

I'm very grateful for all your help. But you sometimes completely misread what I write, just as SueEllen has also just done, which I'll reply below...

In England a rental agreement can be verbal i.e. you can move in here and stay as long as we agree.

If it is then the relevant Housing Act protects your rights but also inserts some conditions.

Arguing with NLUK whether it's a place of business or not is pointless as if you ended up with a case with HMRC and it went before a judge, it would be up to the judge to decide what type of agreement you had.

And to be honest with what you are trying to pull off it would be the least of your worries.

Why are we talking about rental agreements, verbal or written? I own the damn property! That's been a pretty central theme to this entire discussion!


So... whichever way I look at this, I could be out of pocket, as it were, on my expenses. Even if I were living in my Surrey property all the time and commuting to London when I was in a permie job 2008 to 2011, it doesn't matter - the workplace (Canary Wharf / Square Mile) has been the same for over 40% of the time - so, I can't claim travel, accommodation or subsistence.

[Guest22]

I can give you plenty of stations in Hampshire that are quicker to travel to London to/from than stations in Surrey by train. (And by Surrey I mean the parts that are not part of London like Croydon.)

Yes, but I bet I can give you many more stations in Surrey that are quicker to travel to/from London than stations in Hampshire. (And by Surrey I mean Surrey, not just part of it!!)

[northernladuk]

Why are we talking about rental agreements, verbal or written? I own the damn property! That's been a pretty central theme to this entire discussion!

Because it is very confusing trying to keep track of all the properties. Both of us made the same mistake so that tells you something is confusing. We thought you were talking about your rented accom in London.. but anyway...

So... whichever way I look at this, I could be out of pocket, as it were, on my expenses. Even if I were living in my Surrey property all the time and commuting to London when I was in a permie job 2008 to 2011, it doesn't matter - the workplace (Canary Wharf / Square Mile) has been the same for over 40% of the time - so, I can't claim travel, accommodation or subsistence.

You will be, not could be. Just to add another little gotcha to this. You have to stop claiming as soon as you KNOW you will be there over 24 months. If you were there 19 months and get a contract for 6 you cannot claim anything else past the 19 months cause you KNOW you were going to be there over 24 months. I guess you will have to work backwards and re-adjust your figures.

You will of course confirm all this with your accountant as this is just free advice!

[Guest22]

You will be, not could be. Just to add another little gotcha to this. You have to stop claiming as soon as you KNOW you will be there over 24 months. If you were there 19 months and get a contract for 6 you cannot claim anything else past the 19 months cause you KNOW you were going to be there over 24 months. I guess you will have to work backwards and re-adjust your figures.

Yes, I saw this about the forward knowledge of being in a location over 24 months when reading up on the matter. For me, it's only going to affect my past expenses since middle of April (less than eight weeks) as that is only when I have contracted in London since, my previous contract's expenses were all up in Cambridgeshire, so I can still claim them. I'm more concerned that it means I won't be able to claim any expenses for the next 22 months as I thought I would be able to (as I thought the two-year rule would only apply two years after I started my current London contract). So, it kinda makes the whole discussion about my owned London property fairly moot, and I will lose about £400 in tax each month as a result of this.

However, I think I may still be able to claim the rent on my rented London accommodation. As already mentioned, it became rented out to tenants while I was on a contract outside of London and before I knew I would be returning to London for another contract, and it was booked for the Olympics. This meant I could not move into it when I returned to London and had to rent a flat instead. Surely, this would be a legitimate business expense as my owned London property was unavailable irrespective of my London contract, and I had to rent a flat in order to work in London. Or, would this still fall under the 24-month rule as a flat I would have to rent in any case for my job based on the previous two years living in London (over 40% of the time)?

[Sockpuppet]

However, I think I may still be able to claim the rent on my rented London accommodation. As already mentioned, it became rented out to tenants while I was on a contract outside of London and before I knew I would be returning to London for another contract, and it was booked for the Olympics. This meant I could not move into it when I returned to London and had to rent a flat instead. Surely, this would be a legitimate business expense as my owned London property was unavailable irrespective of my London contract, and I had to rent a flat in order to work in London. Or, would this still fall under the 24-month rule as a flat I would have to rent in any case for my job based on the previous two years living in London (over 40% of the time)?

Would still fall under the 24 month rule.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Sockpuppet - if this is you

Neo - if you really are this belligerent But, to answer your question, again, you cannot claim for travel or accommodation expenses as you have contravened the 24 month rule. Also, you cannot claim for travel or accommodation expenses as you have contravened the 24 month rule. To put it another way you cannot claim for travel or accommodation expenses as you have contravened the 24 month rule. Or from another perspective you cannot claim for travel or accommodation expenses as you have contravened the 24 month rule. Additionally you cannot claim for travel or accommodation expenses as you have contravened the 24 month rule. To take a slightly different view but along the same lines you cannot claim for travel or accommodation expenses as you have contravened the 24 month rule. Finally you cannot claim for travel or accommodation expenses as you have contravened the 24 month rule.

HTH