K, I also do not agree with B but, alas, for different reasons. And, even more alas, not for anything that ultimately matters.
B is of course correct to point out the criteria of "wholly and exclusively". However, it is generally implicit in a question about travelling / subsistence that you must NOT be undertaking private commuting but - simply put - be travelling between 2 places of work.
Therefore, you do in fact want your home to be a place of work, so that travelling to the property might ordinarily be considered "wholly and exclusively" a business journey. And HMRC does sometimes argue in some cases that a landlord's home is not a place of work because no substantive activity is undertaken there, particularly where the lion's share in the active management of the property is passed over to an agent. And if we were talking about the costs of travelling in the furtherance of J's property business, then B would be wrong: J's points would nail the heart of the matter.
Unfortunately, B then recovers by making the point that it would seem that J's purpose in making these journeys is to facilitate the disposal of a capital asset of the property business. It is therefore NOT a journey undertaken in the furtherance of letting property. Nor is it an allowable expense incurred incidental to the disposal of a fixed asset in the land. TCGA 1992 s 38 is quite narrowly prescriptive, and your closest shout would be travelling to ascertain market value. To my appreciation, YOUR costs in going to meet a professional are not normally deductible for CGT purposes even if the professional's own fees likely are.
Finally, K makes a logical point that the trade is that of "real estate management", implying that the buying and selling of land is intrinsic to such a trading activity. In other words, a cost against the income of selling "retail" stock on hand, rather than a (not allowable) cost of disposing of a capital asset.
But J appears to have a single plot of land, received by way of gift, that has been held for 20 years, and management is very "hands off". I am not sure how many "badges of trade" are left that K might hope to deploy, but I am pretty sure I will not need to take my shoes and socks off to count them.
In the absence of some as-yet unknown critical factor, this will not be a trading activity but an investment activity, that is - importantly - given a thin veneer of quasi-trading only so as to facilitate the administration of Income Tax for day-to-day expenses. Underneath, it is still not a trade*.
To summarise then these journeys to facilitate the sale of the land will not be relevant to J's Income Tax position, but nor will they meet the narrow scope of deductions for CGT purposes.
Regards all - and a Happy New Year,
*I am saying this on the assumption that the arrangements with J's land are NOT the special kind of short-term grazing tenancy arrangement that MIGHT qualify as a trade. If they DID qualify, then you might in turn conceivably be in Business Asset Disposal Relief (Entrepreneurs' Relief) territory and eligible for only a 10% tax rate on your capital gain. But there is also a very important restriction (for scenarios like this) that basically says that the more your rent charge approaches a commercial rate, then the less BADR/ER you will get. (Although that may be only for ASSOCIATED disposals; I'd have to check). Depending on the overall value of the land, J, it MAY be worth speaking to a good tax adviser with experience of dealing with the taxation of agriculture, to see if you are in line for only a 10% tax charge.