Uninhabitable Property Claims — Did You Overpay Stamp Duty?

Bought a property in the last 4 years that was derelict, structurally unsafe, or required reconstruction? If it had lost its fundamental characteristics as a dwelling at the date of purchase, you may have overpaid SDLT, LTT, or LBTT — and be entitled to a refund.

Uninhabitable property reclaims From 20% — No Win, No Fee

These are the most contentious claims — HMRC, Revenue Scotland, and the WRA all actively challenge them. The higher fee reflects the complexity, the volume of evidence required, and the risk involved. You receive the refund first, then pay me.

Email me with details of the property and what condition it was in when you bought it. I'll tell you honestly whether it meets the Mudan threshold.

✉️ [email protected]

Property Habitability Checker

Use this tool to assess whether your property may qualify as "not suitable for use as a dwelling" under the legal test established by the Court of Appeal.

The Legal Test: Mudan v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799

The Court of Appeal unanimously endorsed the Upper Tribunal's 7-point framework. The test is not whether the property is habitable, safe, or ready for occupation. It is whether the building has lost its fundamental characteristics — its identity — as a dwelling.

Lord Justice Lewison held (at para 69) that the UT's general principles were "legally sound, practical, workable, and reflect the intention of Parliament."

The key distinction (UT at para 54(2), endorsed by the Court of Appeal):

"A desirable house which has become dilapidated" — still a dwelling, even if dangerous, uninhabitable, or requiring complete renovation
"An empty shell with no main roof" — no longer a dwelling; identity lost

Critical points from the judgment:

Previous use as a dwelling is a "very strong indication" that the building possesses dwelling characteristics (UT para 54(1))
The definition is concerned with the building, not its internal fit-out (Court of Appeal para 63)
Unsafe occupation (e.g. dangerous electrics) is a relevant factor but does not by itself render the building unsuitable (UT para 54(5))
Defects must be assessed for whether they are capable of remedy — if works would be so dangerous or hazardous as to prejudice their viability (as in Bewley, where asbestos prevented repair), the building is unlikely to remain suitable (UT para 54(4))
The court is not restricted to a snapshot on the completion date — past history and whether the building retains its identity are relevant (Court of Appeal paras 58, 66)

Part 1: Identity Assessment

These questions determine whether the building retains its fundamental characteristics as a dwelling. Under the Mudan framework, previous use and structural identity are the primary indicators.

1. Previous Use as a Dwelling

Yes — Property was previously used as a dwelling No — Property was never used as a dwelling

Help ?

Legal Principle (UT para 54(1), endorsed by Court of Appeal):

"Actual use as a dwelling is a very strong indication that the building has possessed the fundamental characteristics of a dwelling, and has previously been suitable for use as a dwelling."

If the answer is Yes, the building is presumed to retain its dwelling identity unless something has happened to destroy that identity — for example, structural collapse, demolition, or conversion to a wholly different use.

The Court of Appeal noted (para 64) that this is equivalent to asking whether the building has "lost its identity" — the same test applied in Boss Holdings and Hosebay.

2. Fundamental Structure Retained

Yes — Main walls and roof structure exist (even if damaged) No — Property is an "empty shell" or has structurally collapsed

Help ?

The Core Test (UT para 54(2), endorsed by Court of Appeal at para 64):

The question is whether the building has the "fundamental characteristics of a dwelling" — in other words, does it still look and function as a building that people live in, even if it is in poor condition?

Retained: Walls standing, roof structure present (even if leaking), internal layout recognisable. The building is "a desirable house which has become dilapidated" — still a dwelling.
Lost: "An empty shell with no main roof", total structural collapse, walls collapsed, or demolition in progress — no longer a dwelling.

The Court of Appeal emphasised (para 63) that the definition is concerned with the building rather than its internal fit-out. Some concentration on the structure is therefore appropriate.

3. Basic Dwelling Layout (Space for Facilities)

Yes — Space for kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping exists No — Core layout removed (e.g., gutted to a shell, converted to commercial)

Help ?

Serviceability is Irrelevant — the test is layout, not function:

The Court of Appeal confirmed (para 63) that the definition is about the building, not its fit-out. The UT in Fiander held that a dwelling must provide facilities for "basic domestic living needs" — but the question is whether space and layout for those facilities exists, not whether they work.

Yes: A room for a kitchen exists (even if units are smashed or removed). A bathroom space exists (even if the toilet is broken). Sleeping space exists. The floorplan is recognisably residential.
No: The floorplan has been erased (e.g., internal walls removed to create an open warehouse or commercial space). The building has lost its residential layout entirely.

In Mudan itself, the property needed complete rewiring, a new boiler, new kitchen, and had broken windows and rubbish throughout — but the layout was intact and it remained a dwelling.

Part 2: Condition Assessment (Score 1–5)

Important: Under the Mudan framework, the Court of Appeal held that only factors which destroy the building's identity as a dwelling are legally relevant. Most "habitability" issues — including dangerous electrics, broken boilers, damp, mould, and infestation — are legally irrelevant unless they have caused structural collapse. Score these honestly; the tool applies the legal weighting.

CRITICAL FACTORS (Can Destroy Dwelling Identity)

These are the only factors that matter under Mudan. A property loses its dwelling identity only through structural collapse, legal prohibition, or conversion to a non-residential use.

1. Roof & Structural Shell

Score 5: No roof; walls collapsed; open to sky — "empty shell"
Score 4: Major structural failure; roof missing or severely compromised
Score 3: Large holes in roof; partial collapse of structure
Score 2: Leaking roof; missing tiles (repairable defect)
Score 1: Roof and shell intact

Help ?

Legal Impact (UT para 54(2); Court of Appeal para 64):

This is the single most important physical factor. The UT's key example of a building that is not a dwelling is "an empty shell with no main roof." A building that has lost its roof or whose walls have collapsed has lost its identity as a dwelling.

However, a leaking roof or missing tiles are "dilapidation" — the building remains a dwelling. The question is whether the structural shell is fundamentally intact, not whether it is in good repair.

2. Structural Integrity (Walls/Floors)

Score 5: Unsafe/collapsed; demolition required; building condemned
Score 4: Severe structural movement; floors collapsed; walls buckling
Score 3: Subsidence requiring underpinning; partial floor collapse
Score 2: Cracks and settlement (repairable)
Score 1: Structurally sound

Help ?

Legal Impact (UT para 54(4); Court of Appeal para 63):

The UT held that defects must be assessed for whether they are "capable of remedy." If works cannot be carried out without prejudicing the structural integrity of the building (because, for instance, the walls might collapse), the building is unlikely to be suitable for use as a dwelling.

In Mudan itself, Mr Mudan agreed there was "no structural damage to the Property and no structural work was required except to replace the missing roof over the boiler room" — the property remained a dwelling despite needing complete renovation.

Mere "dilapidation" — cracks, settlement, subsidence that can be underpinned — does not destroy dwelling identity.

3. Legal Prohibition on Occupation

Score 5: Permanent legal ban on residential occupation
Score 4: Prohibition Order / Dangerous Structure Notice in force
Score 3: Planning restriction to non-residential use
Score 2: Improvement notice or enforcement action only
Score 1: No legal restrictions on residential use

Help ?

Legal Impact (UT in Ridgway [2024], endorsed by Court of Appeal):

The UT in Ridgway held that suitability may involve "a wide range of factors, including the physical attributes of the building but also any restrictions on use of the building, including legal restrictions." The Court of Appeal cited this with approval.

A legal prohibition on use — such as a Closure Order, Dangerous Structure Notice, or planning restriction preventing residential occupation — can override physical condition. The FTT in Fish Homes noted that hazards which "would spur a local authority to issue a prohibition notice" are relevant.

However, a mere improvement notice does not prevent use as a dwelling.

4. Conversion to Non-Residential Use

Score 5: Fully converted to commercial/other use; residential identity gone
Score 4: Residential layout removed; commercial fit-out installed
Score 3: Mixed use / partial conversion underway
Score 2: Minor commercial alterations; residential layout intact
Score 1: Residential layout intact; no conversion

Help ?

Legal Impact (Court of Appeal paras 35–38, citing Hosebay):

The Court of Appeal cited Lord Carnwath's judgment in Day v Hosebay, which distinguished between a building that was "disused and dilapidated" (still a house — Boss Holdings) and one where "the residential use has not merely ceased, but has been wholly replaced by a new, non-residential use" (no longer a house — Hosebay).

If the building has been physically converted so that its residential identity has been replaced by a commercial or other non-residential identity, it is no longer a dwelling. But mere disuse or dilapidation does not cause loss of identity.

5. Fire Damage or Hazardous Contamination

Score 5: Structural collapse caused by fire/contamination
Score 4: Asbestos or contamination preventing ANY safe repair (Bewley)
Score 3: Fire damage to roof/floors but repairable
Score 2: Smoke damage / surface contamination (cleanable)
Score 1: No fire or contamination

Help ?

Legal Impact (UT para 54(4); Bewley):

The UT held that defects must be assessed for whether they are "capable of remedy." It specifically noted that works which would be "so dangerous or hazardous as to prejudice their viability" mean the building is unlikely to remain suitable.

Bewley is the leading example: the FTT found the bungalow was not suitable for use as a dwelling because asbestos contamination prevented any repairs or alterations from being carried out safely. The presence of the asbestos made the building incapable of repair, not merely in need of repair.

Fire damage that destroys the structure has the same effect. But smoke damage or repairable fire damage does not stop a building being a dwelling.

BACKGROUND FACTORS (Do Not Affect Dwelling Identity)

The Court of Appeal confirmed that these issues relate to "habitability" or "state of repair," not to dwelling identity. Under the Mudan framework, they do NOT stop a property being a dwelling unless they have caused the structure itself to collapse. Score them honestly — a high score here does not indicate a viable claim.

6. Services (Electrics, Water, Gas, Heating)

Score 5: All services stripped out / never connected
Score 4: Dangerous wiring / condemned electrics / lead pipes
Score 3: Services disconnected or needing full replacement
Score 2: Minor faults; services need updating
Score 1: Working services

Help ?

Legal Note (Court of Appeal, paras 62, 66; UT para 54(5)):

In Mudan, the property needed complete rewiring and a new boiler — the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that it remained a dwelling. The UT held at para 54(5) that unsafe occupation "for instance, because the building requires rewiring" is a relevant factor but "would not of itself render the building unsuitable for use as a dwelling."

The Court of Appeal also noted (para 62) that property which is actually occupied is residential regardless of condition — meaning a property with dangerous electrics that someone is actually living in is self-evidently a dwelling. The test cannot logically produce a different result simply because the occupant has moved out.

These are repairable defects. They do not affect dwelling identity.

7. Damp, Mould & Infestation

Score 5: Rot causing structural floor/roof collapse
Score 4: Severe black mould / infestation (health risk)
Score 3: Widespread damp / woodworm
Score 2: Localised damp
Score 1: Dry and clean

Help ?

Legal Note (UT para 54(2)–(3); Henderson Acquisitions):

Damp and mould, even if severe, are "dilapidation." Under the Mudan framework, these are works needed to render a building "habitable" — which is expressly distinguished from works that affect dwelling identity.

The only exception: if rot or damp has caused the structure to physically collapse (e.g., rotten joists causing floor collapse), the structural damage itself may be relevant — but that is scored under "Structural Integrity" above, not here.

These are repairable defects. They do not affect dwelling identity.

8. Abandonment, Vandalism & Disuse

Score 5: Derelict for decades; structural ruin
Score 4: Smashed windows; doors missing; rubbish throughout
Score 3: Long-term empty; overgrown
Score 2: Recently vacated
Score 1: Occupied or recently occupied

Help ?

Legal Note (Court of Appeal paras 36, 64; Boss Holdings):

The Court of Appeal cited Boss Holdings, where the House of Lords held that a building "disused and in part stripped back to the basic shell" remained a house because it had not lost its identity. Lord Neuberger said: "The fact that the property had become internally dilapidated and incapable of beneficial occupation (without the installation of floor boards, plastering, rewiring, replumbing and the like) does not detract from the fact that the property was designed for living in."

In Mudan itself, the property had broken windows, broken doors, missing locks, and was full of rubbish inside and out — the FTT found it remained a dwelling.

Abandonment and vandalism do not destroy dwelling identity unless they have caused structural collapse.

On the completion date, what was the status of any works?

The Court of Appeal noted (para 61) that a building "in the process of being constructed or adapted" for use as a dwelling is residential property. If works were underway to adapt the building to a non-residential use, that may be relevant.

No process of works was ongoing. A process of repair/renovation was ongoing (building toward residential use). A process of conversion to non-residential use was ongoing.

Score	Condition	Description	Viability Under Mudan
1	Pristine	Move-in ready	0% — Clearly a dwelling
2	Good condition	Minor cosmetic work needed	0% — Clearly a dwelling
3	Needs modernisation	Old kitchen/bathroom, dated décor	0% — Clearly a dwelling
4	Poor condition	Damp, mould, broken windows, no heating	0% — Still a dwelling (Mudan: "dilapidation")
5	Very poor condition	Dangerous electrics, leaking pipes, infestation — like Mudan itself	0% — Still a dwelling (Court of Appeal upheld)
6	Derelict / vandalised	Smashed up, rubbish, boarded up — but structure sound	<5% — Very unlikely (Boss Holdings: still a dwelling)
7	Severe structural damage	Major repairs needed; partial collapse but walls/roof standing	10–20% — Weak case; needs structural engineer's report
8	Structurally compromised	Partial collapse; Dangerous Structure Notice; repair viability in doubt	60–80% — Strong case if evidence supports identity loss
9	Shell / no roof	"Empty shell with no main roof" — the UT's example	90–95% — Highly likely viable claim
10	Identity lost	Demolished, converted to commercial, or legally prohibited	95–100% — Almost certain viable claim

What counts as "not suitable for use as a dwelling"?

Following the Court of Appeal's judgment in Mudan v HMRC [2025], the legal test is strict. A property remains a dwelling unless it has lost its fundamental characteristics as a residential building. This is very different from normal renovation or modernisation — rewiring, plumbing, or cosmetic work do not meet the threshold.

A property may qualify if, at the date of completion, it had:

✓ Collapsing or unsafe floors, walls, or roof structure

✓ A missing or severely compromised roof

✓ Dangerous contamination such as asbestos preventing repair

✓ A legal prohibition on occupation (e.g. Dangerous Structure Notice)

✓ Been effectively reduced to an empty shell

Important: Damp, mould, broken windows, dangerous electrics, or lack of a boiler are "background" issues. Under Mudan, they do not stop a property being a dwelling unless they have caused the structure to collapse.

We are very selective about the cases we submit. HMRC is actively challenging poorly evidenced claims and scrutinising both taxpayers and agents for incorrect or speculative filings.

Uninhabitable Property — SDLT / LTT / LBTT Reclaim Calculator

Estimate your potential refund if your property was not suitable for use as a dwelling at the date of purchase. The calculator compares what you paid (residential rates) against what you should have paid (non-residential rates).

Purchase Price (£)

Date Bought

UK Resident for Stamp Duty Purposes

Did you pay Higher Rate Stamp Duty when you purchased?

Success Fees (% of Reclaimed Sum)

Do you know how much stamp duty you paid?

If not, we'll calculate the estimated stamp duty for you.

Great Feedback!

Land Tax Advice (Stamp Duty Advice Bureau)

5.0

Based on 209 reviews

review us on

Donka Dimitrova

08:33 08 Mar 26

I would like to thank Nick for the prompt and thorough responce he gave to my query. I must admit I was quite sceptical and at first I thought that the free email advise offered on the web site might well just be some sort of a bait to get you go with the paid service. I was so pleasantly surprised when I recieved a most prompt and exhaustive responce to my question.
It is so refreshing to see that there are still people out there providing a highly professional pro-bono service! I cannot recommend this enough!
Thanks you Nick.

Andy Morse

08:27 04 Mar 26

Outstanding. It's easy to be slightly dubious about contacting any expert online for advice and I had a reasonably complex Stamp Duty refund question but not only did Nick come back to me within 24 hours but he also provided with the information that fully answered my query without necessarily leading me into further communication. Highly recommended for both his customer care and for his expertise.

JBTQY

15:59 24 Feb 26

Nick was superb He gave me a detailed, very clear and explanation of the SDLT situation involving the higher rates surcharge. he detailed the legislation, and reasons why I had no options – far more thorough than I expected. Knowledgeable, patient and genuinely helpful. Thank you, Nick – Ill recommend you to anyone dealing with stamp duty questions!

Ricky Puri

08:22 21 Feb 26

Nick is an exceptional professional — knowledgeable, honest, and highly competent. He answered my SDLT question in comprehensive detail, clearly explaining how the relevant legislation works and how it applies in practice. It’s rare to find someone who goes above and beyond to deliver such a high standard of service.

Once again, thank you, Nick.

subash vanga

17:22 13 Feb 26

Nick was outstanding! He gave me an extremely detailed, clear and professional explanation of a tricky SDLT situation involving first-time buyer relief, higher rates surcharge and married couple rules. He cited the exact legislation, provided calculations, and outlined practical options – far more thorough than I expected. Highly knowledgeable, patient and genuinely helpful. Thank you, Nick – I’d recommend you to anyone dealing with stamp duty questions!

Zoe Shuker

22:30 11 Feb 26

Nick was fantastic - we highly recommend him!
We couldn't believe how quickly he responded to us and it explained the matter with such clarity and detail which helped us understand our position and greatly reduced our stressed! We can't thank Nick enough!

P Boyapati

09:42 09 Feb 26

Excellent specialist advice from Nick. Who is knowledgeable, responsive, and very clear in explaining the practical risks around a mixed-use SDLT position. His guidance was thorough and realistic, which was greatly appreciated. I would confidently recommend him to others dealing with complex property tax matters.

Stevie Jacob

11:39 24 Jan 26

Nick is brilliant! He is always on hand to help and his advice is always sound and honest. As a business we have over 300 investor clients and if I ever had a stamp duty query he is the only person I would recommend. Thank you Nick for your continued support and efforts

nati azar

10:20 19 Jan 26

I am extremely impressed with the knowledge and level of service Nick provided—I truly can’t thank him enough for the excellent job he did. Nick advised me on SDLT where a limited company was purchasing a probate property, an area where most solicitors were unable to help. His expertise made a real difference. Thank you again.

Jacks J

20:45 13 Jan 26

Nick Garner is outstanding. I contacted him with a complex SDLT question relating to a trustee purchase under a life-interest trust, and he responded quickly with a clear, structured explanation supported by the relevant legislation. He set out the correct SDLT treatment and provided a precise calculation that removed all ambiguity for my conveyancer. Calm, highly knowledgeable and incredibly helpful. If you need SDLT advice from someone who truly understands the detail, Nick is the person to speak to.

James Harrington

17:45 11 Jan 26

Nick has been extremely, quick, clear and helpful with his advice and the full and rounded understanding of the situation, giving both sides of what can happen. He has built trust in his experience and we were very happy with his services. I would recommend Nick to and LTA to anyone going forwards.

Mike Simmons

17:42 09 Jan 26

Nick has been fantastically helpful. We are buying our neighbour's garage & driveway, but we simply could find no definitive answers as to whether SDLT was payable on our purchase. Nick analysed our circumstances, provided written reasonings, then provided his conclusion. We cannot recommend Nick highly enough!

Florin Gheorghiu

12:21 09 Jan 26

Nick's prompt and clear response was invaluable - I was dealing with quite a specific edge case where I am the legal owner of a property abroad, but do not have any major interest in it, as my parents rent it out and make use of the money. The question was whether I would qualify for the SDLT first-time buy relief and whether the higher rates for SDLT apply to me.

With such a specific case, I couldn't find any advice online and Nick's response gave me the confidence to proceed with our plans AND the practicalities of what documents I would need to show HMRC that my situation actually makes me a first-time buyer. Super clear and professional.

Highly recommend and when we buy, I'll definitely use Nick's services for an indemnified letter. His free advice is genuinely valuable and NOT a way to get you to pay money for answers or to milk fees from you.

Thanks Nick!

ivan fernandes

17:45 08 Dec 25

Had emailed Nick twice for some advice regarding stamp duty , the response was quick and well detailed . Did help me in taking the right course of action. Really found his advice to be very helpful

Craig Macura

10:07 08 Dec 25

Nick provided excellent, expert advice for my SDLT enquiry. His professionalism and ability to answer specific, complex questions was extremely valuable. Thank You.

19:41 03 Dec 25

Thanks again for the help from Nick and Martin. Very professional team who have been providing detail advices and analysis, clear fee quote too before we made decision on moving forward. The whole process has taken quite along time but we have been receieving frequent updates and follow-up actions by the team. Really appreciated the help again and highly recommended their services.

Jerome Hilario

11:54 02 Dec 25

Nick has been very helpful in all my queries surrounding SDLT and is extremely knowledgeable about the complexities of SDLT. I strongly recommend to use Nick for any land tax enquiries and am very much appreciative of the assistance and support he has given me

Mike D

09:53 26 Nov 25

Nick was very generous and knowledgeable in providing timely and accurate advice on an SDLT query I had re the "Rule of 6". He demonstrated a real subject matter expertise. I will strongly consider proceeding with Nick to assist further with the matter.

Farhana Shabbirdin

19:54 19 Nov 25

Nick was outstanding from the moment he answered my call. He was incredibly knowledgeable and even provided free guidance on our complex SDLT situation. I genuinely appreciate his time, effort, and kindness in taking time out of his busy schedule to help us. Truly grateful. Thank you so much!

James

20:11 10 Nov 25

We have had some questions about how the stamp duty (SDLT) is calculated. We sent an email to Mr Garner for his advice. He quickly responded with a detailed analysis of our situation and a clear guidance. Thanks very much!

Dionne Rooney

09:43 24 Oct 25

Nick was clear and answered my question in a day. I am very grateful that they were able to amass expert knowledge and share it. Such kindness helps the world go round. I will be sure to pass on my own skills to help others and make the donation to charity. Thank you so much!

Zk Ka

11:44 10 Sep 25

Nick was incredibly helpful in explaining a complex SDLT issue. He broke everything down clearly, walked me through the calculations and options, and made the whole situation much easier to understand. Even though the outcome wasn't quite what I hoped for, his advice has given me clarity on my next steps.
Professional, knowledgeable and considerate - highly recommended!

Steve Mayers

10:24 04 Sep 25

Nick is knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. In a brief call he quickly identified the relevant information to answer our land tax query. Combining his knowledge of the UK guidelines, and relevant case law he answered our query quickly and with confidence. Thanks!

Monika Khera

16:36 02 Sep 25

Nick’s professional knowledge is truly commendable; complex SDLT issue was explained in such a simple language with precise reasons . It’s been an absolute pleasure knowing Nick. Highly recommend Nick.

ali shaik

19:41 01 Sep 25

I had an excellent experience with Nick. He took the time to give me a very detailed explanation, answered all of my questions thoroughly, and provided clear guidance that was easy to understand. His professionalism, patience, and support made a real difference, and I felt confident after our discussion. Highly recommended!

STEVEN SANDERS

19:51 25 Aug 25

I would like to say a big thank you to Nick for his extremely prompt response to my emailed enquiries in relation to both SDLT and LTT including higher rate. The information Nick has provided me with is very helpful and both concise and easy to understand and will allow me to confidently move forward with my personal situation regarding property. I greatly appreciate your time and effort and highly recommend your services, thanks very much again Nick!

Zidaan Ltd

14:38 07 Aug 25

I’m extremely grateful to Nick for their prompt and expert assistance in resolving my SDLT issue. They responded quickly, clearly understood the situation, and provided practical, accurate guidance that led to a smooth resolution.

Their professionalism, knowledge of the process, and ability to act efficiently made what could have been a stressful experience feel completely manageable. It’s rare to find someone so responsive and effective — I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend their services to anyone dealing with property-related matters.

Debbie Stone

13:29 23 Jul 25

Nick helped us with a very detailed answer in support of our son Ollie's (first time buyer) 'equity share' house purchase, for which his solicitor had mis-calculated a higher rate of SDLT (on the market value rather than the purchase price). We were desperate for a detailed enough proof of calculation to satisfy the legal team and Nick's help has saved us. Our son could not have afforded the higher rate they had miscalculated. His work is invaluable as are the causes he supports

Luke Thomas

18:25 13 Jul 25

Nick was a massive help with Stamp Duty issues surrounding stair casing on my flat. My solicitor was certain the remaining percentage purchase of my flat resulted in me paying Stamp Duty of a few thousand pounds.

Nicks professional knowledge and expertise outlined clauses of stamp duty where I was not required to pay stamp duty for stair-casing and based upon remaining percentage being purchased.

This evidence was used to relay back to my solicitor who acknowledged there would be no further action required to pay stamp duty.

This saved me a few thousand pounds.

Nick is highly professional, reliable, takes interest into each clients needs. Would highly recommend and will use in the future.

Alun Thomas

14:41 08 Jul 25

I'm absolutely delighted to have found this website and to have been able to speak with Nick !!
I have been trying to make sense of the legislation for some weeks now and Nick unravelled the knots that i've mentally made of our complicated situation.
He patiently listened whilst I described the multiple aspects and then explained the related schedule to each element in such an easily understandable way, happily clarifying any aspect that I was unsure of.
Nick then invited me to e mail him so that he could explain in writing and refer to the relevant legislation schedule.
I recieved his reply so quickly and the information was presented stage by stage with such clarity that I now feel completely confident that I know which tax is due (and which isn't !!)
I can't thank or recommend Nick enough for his remarkable service.
It's a huge weight lifted !! and i'm ever so grateful.

ruba sodha

14:37 04 Jun 25

Nick called me within an hour of my contacting him. He was very thorough with understating what is a complex area of SDLT and researched the legislation in question. Very approachable. Thank you we really appreciate your help.

Sunil Kumara

10:12 04 Jun 25

Nick is the best tax consultant I’ve interacted with—he responded within minutes with a clear and concise answer. He’s approachable, easy to understand, and incredibly helpful. Thank you, Nick!

Frankie Johnson

12:42 02 Jun 25

Excellent service. Speedy responses to my questions from an extremely knowledgeable bloke. Would certainly recommend utilising his services.

stephanie beechey

13:55 29 May 25

Nick was very helpful on my query regarding Stamp Duty rates. He was prompt with his reply and his knowledge was excellent. I now feel less confused in this minefield of taxes. Thanks Nick

Si Wachira

18:30 28 May 25

My solicitor was unable to provide advice with certainty about a specific transaction involving LBTT, a yes or no question.
I struggled to find the answer myself from reading the legislation and tax advisors quoted 100s of pounds in order to research and tell me if the correct answer was yes or no.
Nick responded quickly, same day and provided the answer with a detailed explanation. Exactly what I needed to comply with the legislation. Thank you so much for your help.

Dee Coman

12:30 22 May 25

Nick has been very helpful. He communicated his advice very clearly. I highly recommend him for all those who have stamp duty queries. Thank you, Nick.

Ajmal Mian

10:48 21 May 25

I asked Nick a question on stamp duty and his response was very professional setting out the condition applicable to this particular case.

Dhvanil Shah

10:38 19 May 25

I have recently reached out to Land Tax Advice for free of cost advice to my query related to LBTT and Additional Dwelling Supplement in Scotland.

Nick thoroughly went through my case in detail, provided with a clear answer and also attached the legislation supporting the answer he provided.

I would definitely recommend their service. Thanks.

Robert Harper

08:21 19 May 25

Nick quickly provided exactly the sort of impartial insight that I needed and was struggling to find. It was a great help and very much appreciated.

Julie Morris

16:01 16 May 25

Nick is very knowledgeable regarding this field. Not only is he knowledgeable he make it very easy to understand the minefield of stamp duty. Nick has just saved me over £7,000 in stamp duty as its not payable on my planned move. It's easy for a solicitor to say you owe X amount in stamp duty its not their hard earned money being paid out unnecessary. I will never be able to thank Nick enough. My advice is if you think your solicitor has got it wrong seek out Nick. Once again Nick thank-you so much.

Take Julie

Rob Watling

15:05 16 May 25

Thorough, detailed and comprehensive. Thanks

Ajay Treon

10:50 18 Apr 25

Amazing advice. Anyone with any SDLT queries Nick should be your goto advisor. Many thanks Nick.

Hannah Marsh

19:27 09 Apr 25

I was stressed out today believing we needed to pay stamp duty on a transfer of a house when previously I didn’t think we did. I called up and asked for advice, explained my situation and that I did not understand. It was explained really clearly to me, which was so helpful. I had already tried to get advice from my accountant who did not know the answer. In fact no one seemed to know the answer until I made this phone call so I am relieved I did.

Samuel

11:20 08 Apr 25

Nick was fantastic gave me some wonderful advice would definitely recommend. Thanks Nick

Lara H

21:57 30 Mar 25

Needed some advice on two SDLT matters and Nick was so helpful and knowledgeable. I’d highly recommend his services, he’s a pleasure to deal with and clearly knows his stuff!

Jonathan Cockroft

15:45 24 Mar 25

Nick is an expert in his field, knowledgeable, offering clear and concise understanding around your SDLT issue and found a prompt, informed roadmap to my individual issue. 100% speak to Nick before anyone else.

David Wong wongchisin88

12:43 12 Mar 25

My wife and I newly moved to the UK and encountered a problem over the eligibility of first time buyer. I contacted Nick over the phone for enquiry. Although I made the enquiry without any payment to Nick, he seriously took my case and eventually gave me very useful information, which greatly helped us to make decisions for the declaration of Stamp Duty. Throughout our communication, we definitely saw and felt Nick's passion and expertise in land tax field and professional comprehension of the law as well as very high efficiency. Seeing the information and explanation of the law given by Nick, we were certain that our simple question did cost Nick quite a bit time and efforts, yet he was all the time very polite. Seeing his true willingness and passion to help, patience, efficiency and expertise in land tax and the law, we truly admire this sage gentleman. Thank you very much Nick for helping us.

David Carter

16:44 07 Jan 25

Nick is incredibly knowledgeable and was immediately able to understand my complex position in relation to UK Stamp Duty as an expat working in Switzerland. He was quick and generous in providing useful, actionable and timely advice that has allowed me to save thousands in avoidable taxation. Many thanks for your help Nick - all greatly appreciated.

Debora Depaola

17:33 22 Nov 24

Nick was great during our appointment, providing clear and concise clarification about stamp duty.

He explained everything in an easy-to-understand way, also providing with reference to the guidance, ensuring we felt confident about the process. His professionalism, knowledge, and approachable manner made the experience seamless and stress-free.

We left feeling much more confident thanks to his help!

Highly recommend!

Natalia Boguslawska

17:43 10 Nov 24

Thanks for the incredibly helpful and informative chat. Nick has patiently explained a lot, and did not dismiss my query despite the transaction being too small or not qualifying. Very knowledgeable guy, and approachable. Highly recommend!

Did I help you? Share your experience in a quick Google review. Click Here to Share Your Opinion

Reclaim Overpaid Stamp Duty on Derelict Uninhabitable Homes

Uninhabitable Property Claims — Did You Overpay Stamp Duty?

Property Habitability Checker

The Legal Test: Mudan v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799

CRITICAL FACTORS (Can Destroy Dwelling Identity)

BACKGROUND FACTORS (Do Not Affect Dwelling Identity)

Estimated Probability of Viable Claim (Mudan Standard)

🎉 Based on your answers, this property may qualify

SDLT / LTT / LBTT Reclaim Calculator

What counts as "not suitable for use as a dwelling"?

Uninhabitable Property — SDLT / LTT / LBTT Reclaim Calculator

Great Feedback!

Professional Advice? Or overpaid SDLT, LTT, or LBTT?

Notices

Business Info

Tracking cookies

Third Party Embed