Can you get an SDLT refund after selling your old home if the new home was bought jointly with an unmarried partner?

Introduction

A common Stamp Duty Land Tax question is whether the higher rates paid on buying a new home can be reclaimed later when the buyer sells their previous main residence. The issue becomes more complicated where the new property was bought jointly, especially if one buyer had previously owned property and the other had not.

This article explains how the replacement of a main residence rules can apply where a person buys a new home with an unmarried partner, pays the higher SDLT rates, and then sells their former home within the permitted time limit.

The Question

A buyer owned a number of rental properties and also had a former home in their sole name. They then bought a new dwelling jointly with their partner. Because the buyer already owned other dwellings, the purchase of the new home was charged at the higher rates for additional dwellings.

Later, within three years of buying the new home, the buyer sold the former home that had previously been their main residence. The question was whether that later sale could support a refund of the higher SDLT rates paid on the joint purchase of the new home.

A further point was that the new home was bought with a partner who was not a spouse or civil partner.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s view was that there was an arguable refund case, although not a simple one.

In substance, his reasoning was:

“If the partner is not a spouse or civil partner, and the buyer sold their previous main residence within three years of buying the new one, it is arguable that the higher rates can be reclaimed.”

He also highlighted the key statutory condition that, during the period between the disposal of the old residence and the purchase of the new one, there must not have been another acquisition by “the purchaser or the purchaser’s spouse or civil partner” intended to be that purchaser’s only or main residence.

That matters because the legislation expressly refers to a spouse or civil partner. It does not generally treat an unmarried cohabiting partner in the same way for this part of the SDLT replacement rules.

The practical result in this case was that the refund application was in fact accepted and the refund was confirmed.

The Law

The higher rates for additional dwellings are contained in Schedule 4ZA to the Finance Act 2003.

Broadly, the higher rates can apply when, at the end of the day of purchase, a purchaser owns more than one dwelling and is not replacing their only or main residence on the same day.

However, Schedule 4ZA also provides relief where a person buys a new main residence before disposing of their old one. In that situation, the higher rates may be paid up front and then reclaimed later if the old main residence is disposed of within the permitted period.

The key replacement of main residence rules are found in Schedule 4ZA, especially the provisions dealing with:

• what counts as a “replacement” of an only or main residence;
• the requirement that the former residence must previously have been the purchaser’s only or main residence;
• the time limit for disposing of the former residence after buying the new one; and
• the rule that looks at whether the purchaser, or the purchaser’s spouse or civil partner, acquired another dwelling intended to be their only or main residence in the relevant period.

For SDLT purposes, spouses and civil partners are often treated as a single unit in the higher rates regime. Unmarried partners are not automatically treated in the same way merely because they live together or buy jointly.

The now-repealed section 839 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 was mentioned in the correspondence, but for SDLT analysis the more important point is the wording of Schedule 4ZA itself and the specific references it makes to a spouse or civil partner.

Analysis

Step 1: Was the higher rate correctly paid on the new purchase?

Probably yes. If one of the joint buyers already owned other dwellings at the effective date of the purchase, the transaction could fall within the higher rates regime. In joint purchases, if the higher rates apply to one purchaser, they usually apply to the whole transaction.

Step 2: Was the later sale capable of being a disposal of a former only or main residence?

Potentially yes. The important question is not whether the old property was later let out, but whether it had at some point been the buyer’s only or main residence. A property can still qualify as a former main residence even if it was subsequently rented out before sale.

Step 3: Was the old residence sold within the allowed period?

Yes, on the facts given. The former home was sold within three years after the purchase of the new home. That is the normal deadline for a refund claim in this type of case.

Step 4: Does the joint purchase with an unmarried partner prevent the refund?

Not necessarily. This is the key point. If the joint buyer had been a spouse or civil partner, the statutory rules would more readily aggregate their position. That can create difficulties if the spouse or civil partner did not also dispose of a relevant former main residence.

But where the co-buyer is only an unmarried partner, the legislation does not automatically produce the same result. That creates an argument that the buyer who sold their own former main residence can still satisfy the replacement test, even though the new property was bought jointly.

Step 5: Did the fact that the former home was in sole ownership matter?

It could have mattered if the legislation had required both joint purchasers to have disposed of a previous residence, or if spouse/civil partner rules had applied. But on these facts, the sole ownership of the old residence did not prevent the refund claim from succeeding.

Step 6: Did the rental history of the old property defeat the claim?

Not on these facts. A former residence does not stop being a former main residence simply because it was later let under a consent to let arrangement. The real issue is whether it genuinely had been the person’s only or main residence before the move.

Step 7: Is this the same as an “uninhabitable” refund case?

No. This is a replacement of main residence case, not an uninhabitable dwelling case. That distinction matters because the legal tests are different. In uninhabitable or not suitable for use cases, the threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799. That authority is relevant where a buyer argues that a property should not count as a dwelling at all because of its condition. It does not govern the replacement of main residence refund rules discussed here.

Outcome

Yes, there may be a valid SDLT refund claim where:

• a buyer paid the higher rates on a new home purchase;
• the new home was bought jointly with an unmarried partner;
• the buyer later sold a former property that had previously been their only or main residence; and
• that sale took place within three years of the new purchase.

On the facts considered here, the refund claim was ultimately accepted.

Practical Steps

If you are assessing your own position, work through the following points:

1. Check whether the old property was genuinely your only or main residence at some point before the new purchase.
2. Confirm the effective date of the new purchase and the completion date of the sale of the old residence.
3. Make sure the old residence was sold within three years after buying the new one.
4. Check whether the co-buyer was your spouse or civil partner at the relevant date. That can materially affect the analysis.
5. Review whether there was any other property acquired in the relevant period with the intention that it would be your only or main residence.
6. Gather evidence showing occupation of the former home as a main residence, such as mortgage records, council tax records, electoral roll entries, utility bills, and correspondence address history.
7. Check the deadline for making the refund claim to HMRC.

Where the facts are mixed, especially in joint purchase cases, the exact wording of Schedule 4ZA should be applied carefully.

Conclusion

A joint purchase with an unmarried partner does not automatically block an SDLT higher rates refund. If you sold your own former main residence within three years of buying the new home, there may be a valid replacement of main residence claim, even if the old home was in your sole name and even if it had later been let out.

Legal References Used

• Finance Act 2003, Schedule 4ZA
• Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, section 839
• Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799

This page was last updated on 22 March 2026.

See all questions and answers categorized in this sitemap. Or use Google site search below.