Profile incomplete
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.
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:-
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?
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.
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.
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
23:16 PM, 15th October 2023, About 7 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Blodwyn at 15/10/2023 - 23:11
We would definitely be up for that, but he's already turned us down - TWICE!!!
Susan Bradley
9:08 AM, 16th October 2023, About 7 months ago
There is a very obvious reason why you might arrange your choices about how you arrange your or your companies "ownership" and that is the delays at the Land Registry. I just had a quick Google and the longest they have taken is 2 years. They do say that "......The legal interests of the applicant are protected from the moment HM Land Registry receives the application, regardless of how long it then takes to complete...."
However, if the issue causing all the problems is around legal v beneficial ownership and your company can be afforded beneficial ownership for the interim why would that be a problem?