A David and Goliath Story in Modern Law: This could change everything

Following the triumph in our legal action against the West Brom Mortgage Company, a wave of euphoria and satisfaction swept through the landlord community. The justice system had prevailed, and common sense had won the day. We were weary yet elated, comforted by the knowledge that we were safeguarded by England’s legal system – a system steeped in a legacy of fairness. It had taken us three years, a substantial crowdfunding campaign, severe criticism and overwhelming support. Yet, we had achieved it – securing a victory that slayed the bully of an all-powerful corporation that arrogantly assumed it could bend the rules to its will, beyond breaking point!

Funnily enough, we received a lot of criticism at the time from people posting on other landlord forums and generally on social media. The comments ranged from people being generally supportive, but telling us that we didn’t stand a chance and we shouldn’t bother, to others loudly professing that we were conning people out of their money by asking for their support in our crowdfunding efforts.

Does this sound familiar?

Property118 was not originally designed to offer tax planning strategies to landlords. It emerged from frequent enquiries and discussions on forums, highlighting a clear demand for comprehensive assistance in all aspects of being a professional and ethical landlord. Our mission statement has never changed; To facilitate the sharing of best practice among UK landlords and the Private Rented Sector.

As an entrepreneur, I have always believed that addressing a widespread issue often presents a solid business opportunity. The challenge for landlords was that professional legal advice was often financially prohibitive for the average individual. As a result, many landlords had to navigate the complex maze of financial and legal requirements on their own, often incurring substantial costs through errors.

I adopted an approach that has always served me well: start with the customer and work backwards. I still maintain that Steve Jobs borrowed this philosophy from me, though I’m sure he would disagree if he was still alive.

Mark Smith, of Cotswold Barristers, and I developed a strong relationship following the West Brom case, united in our understanding that there existed a genuine problem. We conducted thorough research into common taxation practices within the landlord sector, running into thousands of hours identifying and categorising the strategies employed by larger corporations and other industries that were in compliance with existing legislation. We also sought external counsel from the most respected sources for areas requiring specialised knowledge. It was evident that obtaining independent advice from a barrister’s firm could typically cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. In response, we devised a method to make this advice accessible to the landlord community at a fraction of the usual cost.

This proved to be successful for many years as we worked with complete transparency with the public, sharing our thoughts and options for efficient and best practices. We devised a method where I would consult with clients (initially it was just me but I eventually built a team of consultants) and offer suggestions making it clear they were not legal opinion or advice. If the clients wanted to explore these suggestions further we would pass on research, fact-find information, written recommendations, and video recordings of online meetings to Cotswold Barristers. Once reviewed, and only if they agreed with it, Cotswold Barristers adopted our suggestions as their own advice, occasionally with modifications. This process was unique and efficient and it opened an avenue for clients to get a barrister’s opinion at a fraction of the cost that was normal in the industry. Collating information and presenting a case to a barrister is traditionally done via a Solicitor or Chartered Tax Adviser. It is both time-consuming and expensive because these professionals charge several £100’s of pounds per hour.

In addition to maintaining transparency on our public website, both Property118 and Cotswold Barristers have consistently been open and forthcoming with information to HMRC. Over the years, HMRC has conducted multiple compliance checks on our clients and has been fully informed about the strategies we offer to clients. Every question or enquiry posed by HMRC was thoroughly addressed and accepted. At no point did HMRC indicate that any of the advice provided was incorrect.

This point is vitally important. Property118 sought the advice of Barristers’, independent counsel, and was fully transparent with HMRC, and every compliance check that HMRC requested was concluded without any required amendments to tax returns or additional tax demands being required.

There was no indication that our practices were flawed; in fact, we received multiple confirmations from independent tax professionals that they were completely correct. To provide context, clients often involved their professional advisors in video calls, and these advisors recommended our services. We were assured of the robustness of our procedures, which were overseen not only by accountants and solicitors, but also by a whole chamber of barristers. HMRC, too, accepted the advice provided during their 20+ compliance checks. Far from concealing our activities, we openly promoted them on our website, ensuring full visibility and transparency.

Little did we know that it would be this transparency and openness that would create a string of events that leave us in the position we are in now.

Let’s continue.

Dan Neidle, the former head of tax at a prestigious ‘magic circle’ law firm, unexpectedly and unusually retired at the age of 48 after claiming he wanted to spend more time with his family. However, he quickly tired of retirement and positioned himself as a self-styled avenger against tax avoidance and fraud. Gaining initial exposure by spotlighting practices involving high-profile individuals, he appears to have found the attention and notoriety to his liking. He then turned his focus to Property 118. It’s important to note that many tax professionals in the UK employ similar strategies for their clients to those we recommend to our clients. However, our distinctiveness lay in our transparency, which made it easy for Dan Neidle to scrutinise the extensive content we had made available. In our view, he and his associates formed their opinions for sheer sensationalism.

Despite our transparency and the rigorous checks conducted by HMRC, combined with the professional standing of Cotswold Barristers, Dan Neidle chose not to engage with us either in person or via video call, as we had offered on several occasions. Instead, he published a sensational article, seemingly oblivious to—or perhaps ignoring—the potential ramifications of his actions on the employees of Property118 and Cotswold Barristers, and on 100’s of our clients. His disregard for the ensuing panic, stress, and mental health implications, which disrupted the lives of families who believed they were fully compliant with all legal requirements, was both irresponsible and selfish.

If his concerns and claims were genuine, he should have initiated a dialogue with us, reported his concerns directly to HMRC given his extensive contacts, or pursued his opinion within the legal arena on a pro bono basis. Instead, he opted for clicks and fame over a genuine pursuit of justice and fairness.

In response, we sought advice from one of the UK’s top defamation law firms, Brett Wilson LLP. Before they could advise us fully they insisted we consult external counsel to verify the legitimacy of our practices. Committed to full transparency, we asked Brett Wilson to recommend a suitable candidate. They provided two options based on cost and experience, and we chose Felicity Cullen KC of Devereux Chambers, a Tier 1 silk who was later named Tax Silk of the Year by the Legal 500, ensuring we engaged counsel of the highest qualification and reputation to review our practices.

Contrary to Mr. Neidle’s assertions, we did not have direct access to Felicity Cullen KC; our interactions were mediated through the solicitors. We maintained an open book policy with the solicitors, supplying all documents requested and more for review. Counsel’s subsequent assessment fully satisfied the solicitors of the legitimacy of our services. They then proceeded to inform Mr. Neidle of their findings.

Dan Neidle disregarded the established findings, twisted the narrative, and accused us of being “crooks”. He also alleged that we had withheld information from one of the UK’s leading barristers. It’s important to clarify that we did not select nor filter the information or documentation submitted for her review; rather, we provided everything requested by Brett Wilson LLP, including case files, video recordings of consultations, and legal document templates. Our approach was one of complete transparency, without direct contact or decision-making about what to submit.

We were then advised by Brett Wilson on the dynamics of initiating a defamation lawsuit, a process potentially costing over £1,000,000. We were also advised that even with victory, the damages awarded would likely be only a fraction of that sum. Dan Neidle, fully aware of these dynamics, had previously boasted that he is not a good target for litigation, citing his ample financial resources and available time—luxuries many do not possess. This arrogance suggests he believes he can speak without consequence.

To date, our practices have undergone rigorous scrutiny by HMRC, professional external advisors, industry experts, Cotswold Barristers, defamation solicitors, and the country’s leading Tier 1 Tax Silk. All the advice we received constituted actual professional legal opinions, meticulously sought through the proper legal channels from professionals who are fully accountable for their advice

Yet, the power of social media and the allure of sensationalism became Dan Neidle’s weapons of choice, allowing him unfettered freedom to broadcast his biased opinions across unregulated platforms, thereby manipulating the narrative to his advantage. By positioning himself as judge, jury, and executioner in the court of public opinion, his actions not only undermine the very principles of our legal and justice system but also mock it—all without facing any legal consequences. This blatant disregard sets a dangerous precedent, where rhetoric overshadows truth and individual agendas threaten the integrity of our societal foundations without accountability.

It was at this point HMRC started to pursue the narrative of Dan Neidle, adopting a strategy of death by a thousand cuts. This journey was well documented on our forum, it appeared that Dan Neidle’s influence put pressure on HMRC to be seen to act. We then engaged the services of Devereux Chambers to defend and advise us through the tribunal process. They continue to stand firmly by their opinion that our actions are correct and justified under the law.

So …

Here we are (again!), engaged in another David and Goliath battle, though this one bears far greater consequences. Is the pursuit of notoriety and clicks truly worth the stress, fear, and upset inflicted on our employees, consultants, and clients? Is Dan Neidle’s quest for fame so crucial that it justifies these costs?

We remain hopeful that our faith in the British legal system will be vindicated, as we at Property118 are prepared to accept all consequences if it is proven that we acted irresponsibly or without due care, or failed to take reasonable steps to ensure our clients were treated and advised in the best possible manner.

Our legal system, with its solicitors, barristers, judges, and tribunals, is designed to uphold justice and fairness. I trust that our authorities, including HMRC, will adhere to these foundational principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that decisions are based on law and evidence, not influenced by the transient opinions and comments circulating on unregulated social media platforms

As citizens and businesses, the proper course is to seek the advice of solicitors or barristers, to obtain second opinions, and to be transparent with the authorities. We have adhered to these practices diligently and transparently, yet it seems fame and influence have outweighed these efforts.

Do we really want to live in a country where such dynamics are permissible? This is perilous for our legal system and emboldens influencers and fame-driven bloggers to wield undue power, capable of destroying people, businesses, and livelihoods without consequence.

To put it into context, Dan Neidle’s stance implies that the actions, advice, and opinions of Cotswold Barristers, Brett Wilson LLP, and Barrie Akin and Felicity Cullen KC of Devereaux Chambers, and many hundreds of other professional advisors, and the numerous checks by HMRC, should all be disregarded. According to him, Property118 has either been withholding information, or these esteemed legal professionals are so inept that we have managed to deceive them all into agreeing with us. This perspective is not only arrogant but also profoundly insulting to the legal profession—a field to which he once belonged. Such disdain and disrespect raises questions about his underlying motives.

Every piece of advice and opinion we have received through proper channels has confirmed our correctness. This includes HMRC, who up until Dan began publicising his dissenting views, had been satisfied with every single compliance check. These are all documented facts, openly shared.

Consider the implications if one were to seek professional legal advice in any area, receive a validated legal opinion, and then face opposition based on someone’s disagreement on social media, prompting authorities to follow the narrative promoted online.

This is precisely what has transpired with Property118 and every one of our clients on the firing line.

We stand resolute in our fight and will persevere to the very end, as every shred of professional advice we’ve received affirms our correctness. This battle isn’t merely a potential victory for Property118; it’s a crusade for justice, a testament to the effectiveness of our legal system. This is why I am calling on you to rally behind our cause and contribute to our crowdfunding effort. We are not retreating; we are fighting tooth and nail.

At Property118, we have taken every conceivable legal step and followed all expert advice to ensure our clients were safe and correct in our actions. This isn’t just our fight – even though we are at the forefront. While many other business owners in similar situations might have chosen to opt-out, washed their hands of the situation, or even declared bankruptcy, that is not our character. Walking away would leave our clients in the most perilous financial situation, forced to fund huge legal costs to battle alone. We are committed to seeing this through to the end, upholding our promise to defend and support our clients, no matter what.

Due to legal fees, redundancy payments, and a huge drop in income, our financial reserves are almost completely depleted. That is why we started the JustGiving crowdfunding campaign, which to date has successfully raised over £200,000 towards our £1,000,000 fundraising target.

We must prevail. To lose due to financial limitations would not only be a personal travesty but could also set dangerous precedents for the future.

Your support is crucial – please help us ensure that justice is served, and our legal system’s integrity is upheld.

JustGiving

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/property118-action-group

Share This Article