newhome

That’s just the way it is though. Everyone who is renovating a dwelling that has been empty for more than 2 years also has this constraint, ie they have to use a VAT registered builder to benefit from any VAT reduction.

I didn’t use Amtico but I used Karndean throughout the ground floor in my previous house. We used the range with the best wear layer and had it professionally laid. It still looked amazing after nearly 10 years when we moved, and we had a number of dogs walking / doing handbrake turns on it. I wanted it here but the OH wanted tiles / engineered oak instead. I would certainly choose it again when I move.

To be honest people will purchase most other things anyway I imagine. It’s the sector most struggling that has the focus which is right in my view.

You won’t be reclaiming 15% on materials. For ‘eligible conversions’ you will be charged 5% VAT by VAT registered builders for labour and supply & fit jobs. Your builder will need to be satisfied that your conversion meets the criteria to charge 5% VAT. It’s his decision, not yours, as it’s his risk if HMRC don’t accept the criteria he puts forward in his VAT return (although he could still come after you for the underpaid VAT if HMRC reject the 5% criteria). If you buy materials yourself you need to pay 20% VAT. If your conversion is eligible you can reclaim the VAT paid; both the 5% paid to the contractor and the 20% paid on materials purchased yourself. I don’t think that your project will qualify for the reclaim scheme however due to this section in the reclaim form notes: Have you carried out works to a building that has previously been lived in? A building has been lived in if it has previously been used as a dwelling. This means that the building has been adapted or designed for use as someone’s home and has been used in this way. The living accommodation need not have been self­contained or designed to modern standards. Buildings that have been used as dwellings will not only include houses and blocks of flats but will also include the following: public houses and shops where any private living accommodation for the landlord, owner, manager or staff is not self­contained – normally because part of the living accommodation, such as the kitchen, is contained within the commercial areas rather than the private areas The conversion of any of these types of property will not be eligible under the Scheme unless the 10­ year rule applies

From experience previously it was retailers, so Ikea and the like, that sell their goods including VAT that didn’t change their prices immediately (they did that when the rate rose too). Businesses that quote excluding VAT such as your example will be unaffected (assuming they don’t increase their prices). So the ‘better for who’ comment meant if you buy from a retailer that keeps their prices the same as the VAT recovery will be less. Maybe that won’t happen this time anyway. It was over 10 years ago that the VAT rate dropped previously. On that occasion the reduced rate applied for 13 months.

You should get the VAT back on eligible materials on a new build so it doesn’t make much difference in the end, although it means that you have to shell out less VAT up front. It should be a good thing for materials that are not eligible for VAT reclaim or if you are renovating rather than doing a self build. Assuming that the retailers don’t adjust the core price to suit. When I did my self build I ended up paying 3 different VAT rates; 15%, 17.5% and 20%. Some retailers left their gross prices the same regardless of that however. I think Ikea may have done from memory.

If you have CIL in your area don’t do a thing on site until you have fully understood the rules.

Great news! It’s been a long time coming!

The evidence I quoted above is the type of evidence HMRC may ask the builder to supply. Utility bills aren’t evidence of anything. You could have PV or a generator for one thing. If you or anyone else is on the electoral roll there then it will be challenging. You can update this here https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote You should also formally write to the council to say that the property is empty. Ultimately however it will be down to what the builder will accept as evidence and whether HMRC are happy with that evidence.

Yes, this. And if HMRC aren’t happy with the evidence supplied the builder will be liable for the additional VAT and may come after the customer for the additional money.

You have to prove that the property has been empty for 2 years immediately before you start the work. The proof needed needed will be documents such as Electoral Roll and Council Tax records, utility bills, notification from the Empty Property Officer in local authorities etc. This will be provided by you to the VAT registered builder who will reduce labour and supply & fit arrangements to 5% VAT. I doubt that anyone will even connect the SE report to the physical work and there would be nothing to stop anyone from getting surveys before deciding whether to move ahead with a renovation or not anyway. As long as you have solid documentation to prove that the property has been empty and the builder is happy with it I can’t see that a builder will have an issue with charging reduced VAT. It is they who have to show the evidence to HMRC, not you.

I was worried about that too as I had a few but HMRC paid out on them.

Yes but only up to 30k and most timber frame arrangements will be over the limit. You can’t claim against stage payments either, it’s the full cost of the order that is important. I paid a deposit, then stage payments in advance of each delivery. I was still putting that money at risk clearly but check out the trading history of said company, their turnover, director history etc. The company I dealt with are still trading 10 years on. You could look at an Escrow agreement potentially but that might be difficult / not cost effective.

Looks great. I hope you’re not having to live in that small tent 😉.

Why do you have a cost for scaffolding listed on an invoice then? Surely the builder wouldn’t need to mention it separately if he owns it anyway?