‘ THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY’

Lorinda Latham, 37, is another property buyer who has been given conflicting advice over whether she is liable for the stamp duty surcharge, writes Tara Evans.

The new rules state that this extra charge is not due if the property is replacing a main residence that has already been sold.

However, confusion arose after she was given conflicting advice from her solicitors and tax advisers because of the amount of time that had elapsed since she left her previous home.

Ms Latham bought her first property in Breckenridge, Colorado, in 2003 and lived in it until 2006, when she moved to the other side of the state for work and bought a second property in Denver.

Britain’s new “second property” rules apply equally to homes abroad.

She lived in the house in Denver until 2011, when she moved to London. After five years she was able to apply for residency in Britain.

In October last year she sold her Denver property to help her buy in the UK, but she still owns the Breckenridge property.

The home that she wishes to buy is a twobedroom flat in Clapham, south London, for sale at £730,000.

She was told by her solicitor that she was liable for the extra stamp duty – an additional £21,900 – because she had not lived in her previous home for five years.

However, the Treasury told Telegraph Money – correctly this time – that a “transitional rule” meant that sales before 2018 of properties that were a main residence “at some time” would not trigger the surcharge.

Ms Latham said: “There is no consistency in the advice and the answer varies from person to person.

“It has been incredibly frustrating and stressful. When I negotiated the price of the flat I hadn’t factored in the additional stamp duty.

“Obviously an extra £21,900 is enough to make a significant difference and could make me reconsider the purchase.”