What it’s like dealing with Dan Neidle

What it’s like dealing with Dan Neidle

10:35 AM, 13th October 2023, About 7 months ago 32

Text Size

I have always stood up to bullies and have a reputation for integrity and winning legal battles. The legal case that stands out above all others is Mark Alexander (representing Property118 Action Group) vs West Bromwich Mortgage Company at the Court of Appeal. Feel free to Google it if you’re not familiar. Needless to say, we won a monumental battle for landlords. I have proudly posted the video we released shortly after the hand-down of that judgement at the foot of this article. I was also rewarded later that year by becoming the first and only ever winner of the Lifetime Achievers Award at the Property Investor Awards, which Property118 now are proud to be the 2023 Media Sponsors for the first time.

The reason I created Property118 back in 2010 is the same today as it was back then; “to facilitate the sharing of best practice within the Private Rented Sector”.

Until today I was unable to speak out about Dan Neidle for legal reasons; but as of now I am unchained and the muzzle is off.

Inconvenient truths (for Dan Neidle and Tax Policy Associates Limited)

Neither Dan Neidle nor any members of his support team are regulators, nor do they have any regulatory powers whatsoever!

Dan Neidle presents himself as entirely independent, but the individuals comprising his support network wield considerable influence over him and exhibit a level of independence that is virtually nonexistent. He rarely names his team in his articles, but where he has done so it becomes very clear from a few quick Google searches that they are our direct competitors and probably regard us with the same contempt as many London Taxi drivers have for Uber drivers.

Even Dan Neidle’s initial approach to me (July 2023) was extremely antagonistic. On two separate occasions, he refused offers to meet with him and his team on a Zoom call to discuss his/their concerns reasonably. In my final attempt to placate him, I sent redacted correspondence with HMRC relating the incorporation of a property rental business Partnership where the Substantial Incorporation Structure had been utilised. HMRC had agreed the transactions had been dealt with correctly and that no amendments were required to the tax returns of the business owners. The response to this from Dan Neidle was a demand for information he knew that I could not provide for a whole host of legal reasons, a request I promptly denied. He then issued a warning, stating that if I refused to answer his tax-related questions he would proceed to publish a damaging article aimed at undermining the reputation of my business, particularly within the tax industry. He has since followed through on that threat relentlessly.

Dan Neidle and his team transcend tax policy analysis; they actively pursue a ruthless character assassination campaign. They have meticulously dissected my Social Media profile, searching for any morsel they can twist to discredit me, irrespective of whether it is tax-related or not. Each distorted allegation results in exorbitant legal fees required to prove my innocence, only for them to further twist the facts. Neidle is acutely aware that embarking on a libel lawsuit would demand an unreasonable investment of time and money, with a meager chance of recovering a fraction of the expenses should I emerge victorious. Adding insult to injury, the knowledge that my painstakingly built personal credibility, cultivated over a lifetime, is being utterly annihilated underscores the gravity of this character assassination.

Dan Neidle is still a solicitor and I believe he has broken several of the Solicitors Code of Conduct Principles in his highly unprofessional attack, which I have reported to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, namely:-

  • SRA Principle 1, “in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and the proper administration of justice”
  • SRA Principle 2, “in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
  • SRA Principle 4 and 5, the need for honesty and integrity

Dan Neidle published the advice of a Tier 1 Kings Counsel, flouting copyright and confidentiality rules. He also published confidential correspondence from our solicitors, but the images he used on his website were carefully chosen snippets to imply an entirely different meaning to suit his own narrative, claiming he was SLAPPed. The unredacted version of the letter our solicitors sent to him can be viewed by clicking on the image thumbnails below.

We took the advice of leading counsel, Felicity Cullen KC, who was selected solely by our solicitors, and has since been announced as the 2023 winner of the Legal 500 top silk (taxation). Nevertheless, Dan Neidle dared to attempt to call her credibility and impartiality into question, along with that of our solicitors.  Our Solicitors letter to Dan Neidle in this regard can be viewed by clicking on the image thumbnails below.

Dan Neidle appears to have deliberately conflated his attack on us with HMRC’s spotlight 63. However, regular readers of Property118 will be aware that we issued detailed reports of the abuse of Hybrid LLP’s back in May this year, after being approached for advice by numerous clients of several firms we chose not name and shame. We first issued Warnings about the abuse of Hybrid LLP structures as far back as 2018.

I ask myself the question; might Dan Neidle “being ashamed” of how much money he earned from advising on tax also have something to do with his attacks on me? If not, what other motives are driving his behaviours that are so unbecoming of a person of his former status?

Thank You’s and Call To Action

I have been overwhelmed by the level of support that we have received from existing clients, their professional advisers and everyone who understands the structures and strategies we recommend.

It has been surprising to me the number of practicing Chartered Tax Advisers, Barristers and other professionals who have reached out privately to express their personal support, identifying the same flaws in Dan Neidle’s tax analysis as we did, but who are reluctant to speak out about this publicly. Perhaps this is because they are fearful of putting a target on their own backs. In the past, Dan Neidle’s response to protesters has been to raise complaints to their professional bodies. This has resulted in his dissenters concluding that raising their opinions publicly could result in damage to their own practices and reputations. They do not have unlimited time and financial resources to defend themselves. On the other hand, Dan Neidle is retired and claims to have all the time and money to be able to say whatever he wants.

We have faith in the law the regulatory bodies and more importantly the spirit of open debate and the truth.

In light of the revelations made in this article, I now expect far more Property118 clients, their professional advisers, Property118 Ambassadors and others who are equally appalled at the behaviour of Dan Neidle and the Tax Policy Associates team to flood Social Media with links to this article and comments expressing their views, where they feel empowered and bold enough to do so. Please remember to @DanNeidle if you use Twitter. I also anticipate the SRA receiving many more professional conduct complaints about Dan Neidle’s activities.

Reminder

Not a single instance of any of the detriments predicted in Dan Neidle’s articles has ever happened in nearly 8 years on the structures we recommend. We estimate 15,000+ personal and corporate tax returns have been filed by clients who have used the Substantial Incorporation Structure.

Our paramount commitment is to provide outstanding service to our valued clients and meeting the stringent requirements set forth by our clients, their lenders, and HMRC. These entities hold us accountable, and our longstanding track record of ensuring their absolute satisfaction is a testament to our ongoing commitment.

 

Property118 Action Group from Mark Alexander on Vimeo.


Share This Article


Comments

Dennis Leverett

11:51 AM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Dan Neidle? I replied to his article re:118 in a very polite manner to tell him that I am more than happy with my dealings with 118 team and service has been faultless over the years. I asked him a simple question and for a yes or no answer. "If your aspersions against 118 team are proved incorrect will you give him an apology, preferably in writing" Well guess what, my comment received but not added. That tells me a lot about a person, he obviously considers himself to be perfect, in my opinion of course, especially as he is embarrassed as to how much he earns!!!!. Yet he can't accept anything that does not fit into his misguided little world. All I wanted was a yes or no. I had a web business till 2021 with 1000's of customers Worldwide which included a forum and I always answered ever post good, bad or ugly which added brownie points to my reputation. Sadly there are many of these misguided people around like him. I really do believe that he is envious of what the 118 team have achieved in a relatively short length of time.

Susan Bradley

12:13 PM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Honest landlord at 13/10/2023 - 15:47Now that is very interesting, I could not read it all because it was behind a paywall but the players mentioned have something in common. A helper for Tax Policy Associates in very recent articles is also linked to Blick Rothenberg.
I take the view that it is not the advice that is unsound but that the person giving it is not a member of "the club". The problem is that "the club" were late to the party so to speak.
Property118 are in a unique position because they have a track record of helping landlords facing difficulties. I am referring to the West Bromwich Building Society case.
I was not involved with that but I would imagine that most of the “experts” advised people to suck it up and pay. Property118 and Cotswold Barristers did not – they decided to fight and they won. The result was a liability of £27.m in refunds for borrowers. So, if the “experts” have been proven wrong before might they be wrong again?
I believe that the issue is that the advice is sound (in most cases which is why you need bespoke advice) and that there is a lot of money to be made because there are 2.74 Million landlords looking for help.
It seems that "the club" have only just woken up to that fact whereas being in the thick of it all Mark knew the problem and was busy looking for a solution to it .

Dennis Leverett

12:18 PM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Susan Bradley at 14/10/2023 - 12:13
Sums it up nicely.

Justin Lee

12:24 PM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

All this conjecture aside, what I need as an existing client of 118 and CB is an answer to two questions.

1. Is it possible for you to provide documentation from the HMRC that they are happy with the process that we have undertaken through you.

2. In the event of us losing a case against the HMRC where CB have represented us. Does the 10 million insurance cover us for our loses at that point or would we, as Dan Neidle has suggested, have to sue Cotswold Barristers for negligence in order to recover our losses?

Seething Landlord

12:36 PM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Leverett at 14/10/2023 - 11:51
Your question and a comprehensive answer are indeed shown in the thread of comments on his website. Basically he has said that yes, if proved wrong he will apologise and tear up his solicitor's practising certificate as he will have been wrong on so many legal points.

Dennis Leverett

13:45 PM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 14/10/2023 - 12:36
That's weird, can you send me a link please.

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

23:10 PM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Susan Bradley at 14/10/2023 - 12:13
You are spot on in regards to your comments about the lack of support we received from the industry when we took on the West Brom case.

Both the RLA and the NLA (since merged to become NRLA) wanted nothing to do with our case. They subsequently kicked us and their member landlords in the teeth when they chose to accept sponsorship money and to promote the largest purveyors of the abusive Hybrid LLP arrangements that HMRC recently issued a Spotlight on. LNPG did exactly the same thing. I can't imagine their members being too happy with them right now.

Dennis Leverett

23:12 PM, 14th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 14/10/2023 - 15:00
Thankyou, Didn't show up when I looked.

Blodwyn

23:11 PM, 15th October 2023, About 7 months ago

Don't diss Mr Neidle without doing some research. Good Uni, trained at Clifford Chance, stayed with them a total 24 years, partner doing tax, tax, tax. Assume he knows something about it?
A round table debate between Side A and Side B might even be exciting, certainly informative? Sadly, I doubt it will ever happen unless each side agrees to speak nicely to each other?
The moderator would need to be pretty special?

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now