Landlords to be responsible for tenants tobacco tax evasion?

What I don't understand is how we would KNOW that the tenant has cigarettes on which UK Duty was not paid? Do tenants leave packets of cigarets around the house on the day of inspection? How often would we be expected to inspect the property to ensure they are not breaking the law, and at what cost to us? If we pay an agent to conduct inspections, will they be held liable if a tenant is later found to have illicit cigarettes? No, I guess it will still be us! I don't think I've ever been in someone's house where a carton of cigarettes was on display - can we search through all the cupboards, perhaps check the bins? If we come across a packet that doesn't have a UK Duty stamp on it, they could have legitimately bought them on holiday. Are we supposed to interrogate them? How many packets of cigarettes would you need to PROVE they are tabacco smugglers? If you have more than one tenant in the property, how do you prove WHO owns the cigarettes - DNA testing? Landlords becoming Border Force enforcers with Right to Rent checks is one thing, at least you can check a passport, but how on earth could we comply with this proposed legislation?
Has anyone yet responded to the consultation? If so, could you post it on this group to save the rest of us some time in compiling a response, please?

I would like to add a clause to all forthcoming legislation which makes politicians, civil servants, and public sector employees and contractors criminally and civily responsible for doing the job they are paid to do. If we had an effective border agency we would have no need for the near useless right to rent checks while failed migrants, refugees, and foreign criminals would actually be ejected.

And they are content to maintain renting out property is not a business? I mean for real all the existing let alone future responsibilities, and they imply its like shares? Secondly what happned to you scratch my back I will scratch yours? Ie they could help? For example do they make it easy to eviction 'anti social tenants' do they heck but hell lets bager nickle and dime landlords for not sufficiently dealing with said anti social tenants.

What shocks me about all this is that the toried did not do all this with the Lib dems so they could claim/blame the lib dems were at fault. Yet most of the damaging things they have responsibility. Its almost like the powers that be just want to duck the 'difficult decisions' to labour so they will bear the electoral cost so then the tories can 'ride to the rescue' in 2025 (or even 2015). On the latter election, Its interesting because on the one hand they allegedly did not expect to win but on the other they fought tooth and nail to dislodge the lib dems.

We might want to point HMRC to this thread so that they can take our opinions into account for their 'consultation.' It would save us having to spend even more of our precious time dealing with the authorities' relentless attacks on our businesses, which proxide essential housing to millions of people.

Yet I am just guessing here. They wont amend legislating you have to give 24 hours notice. After all if you give them 24 hours notice if they are guilty of this offence they will be able to remove the evidence???

Surely to god with such a waver thin ,majority the tories wont be able to pass much more of this more red tape garbage (esp with about 70 tory mps being LL and not even major ones at that) that labourdid not even do. MTD would have been hounded as one big red tape if it was labour yet the tories are content to do it themselves.

This country is resembling on one hand the state being stripped way back like libertarians would like but with the regulations and high taxes still intact.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "03/03/2017 - 13:07":

Maybe contacting your friend andrew pierce might be an idea Ros?

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "03/03/2017 - 10:30":

Perhaps we shouldnt be too surprised at this continuing nonsense...considering.. . We have a recent new tax regime in the form of clause 24...which imposes income tax...on a landlords main expense...and ...... explanation/justifiaction/defence ..when Gov. or various supporters of it..are challenged on same ..is....Quote.>>>.. "it will ony effect a small proportion of landlords".....<<<<.....when did we as a nation justify punitive and highly detsructive government led attacks on a minority section/group of our people by saying..its ok because were only doing it to a minority?????....Thats completely immoral..and would be seen as such if it was applied to any other minority group...and the population as a whole would be shocked and disgusted by such an argument even being suggested let alone repeatedly trotted out by our "leaders".........but not where landlords are the minority !!....Doesnt even seem to have crossed peoples minds. The moral absurdity of that justification beggars belief..and yet in their various communications MPs and cabinet ministers have trotted it out without shame and probably in many cases without the wit to see that it cant ever be a justification for attacking any minority group. We seem to live in very strange times in terms of politics, morals and state actions and responses.

I agree Michael that it is absurd as a justification and I have sent Barwell an email to that effect as he is the latest to repeat it.

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "03/03/2017 - 10:23":

Surely you are aware of the regulation that already requires you to do that?

Just thinking.... there might be money to be made out of this proposal / discussion paper if it gets through! looking at some info on the web the HMRC might give cash as a result of the outcome of what is reported. So is this an incentive worth thinking about? after all you will be helping the country by being an informant 😉

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/general-information-about-customs-hotline