Copy article

When ‘ambulance chasers’ misrepresent court judgments

ended 12. August 2026

When ‘ambulance chasers’ misrepresent court judgments

Court and tribunal judgments are often lengthy, technical and carefully balanced. That creates an opportunity for anyone with a commercial interest to select the passages which support their preferred narrative, play down those which do not and still present the result as an “independent review”.

A judgment can be misrepresented without a single sentence being fabricated. The strongest favourable findings are buried, every unresolved issue is moved to the foreground and worried readers are then invited to book a discovery call or request a paid proposal.

In my view, that is professional ambulance chasing.

I believe we are now seeing precisely this following Property118’s successful First-tier Tribunal appeal against HMRC.

Some commentary has focused heavily on the fact that the Tribunal was not asked to decide every Property118 client’s individual tax position. That is true, and Property118 has never suggested otherwise.

What is being given far less prominence is what the Tribunal did decide.

After a ten-day hearing, Property118 and Cotswold Barristers succeeded in defeating every DOTAS description relied upon by HMRC. The Tribunal also found that tax was not the main purpose of the arrangements, accepted the genuine refinancing constraints faced by landlords and recognised the commercial purpose of preserving access to capital accumulated within their businesses.

Most strikingly, after examining the Capital Account Restructure in detail, the Tribunal concluded at paragraph 185 that there was “nothing unusual or contrived” about the relevant steps.

Those are not minor observations which can fairly be relegated to the small print while affected clients are told why they should remain anxious.

Landlords are, of course, entitled to obtain independent professional advice. Property118 has always encouraged clients to involve their own accountants and solicitors when making important decisions.

What clients should question is whether they are reading genuinely balanced analysis or a disguised advertisement designed to unsettle them sufficiently to buy another opinion.

I have now published a detailed response explaining the seven findings in the Property118 Tribunal judgment which some critics seem remarkably reluctant to discuss.

Read: Seven findings in the Property118 Tribunal judgment critics seem reluctant to discuss

2 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Nouran Moustafa
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Court judgments should never be turned into marketing material. A tribunal decision can contain findings that favour one side while still leaving other issues outside its scope, and both points matter. If commentary highlights only the uncertainty and ignores findings that were clearly favourable to Property118, that risks giving landlords a distorted picture.

Equally, a successful appeal does not mean every individual client’s tax position has been approved. The sensible approach is to read the judgment as a whole, separate what the Tribunal actually decided from what it did not, and then take advice based on your own circumstances.

Independent advice should reduce confusion, not create fear. If the commercial model relies on making people anxious enough to buy a second opinion, that is where professional analysis starts to look more like ambulance chasing.
Copy

Editor
Kate Underwood
Founder & Chief People Strategist at Kate Underwood HR and Training
Here's what makes my blood boil. A tribunal ruling lands, and within hours someone has cherry-picked the scariest line, waved it at worried business owners and quietly forgotten the ten pages where the employer actually won. It isn't there to inform you. It's there to rattle you into a discovery call.
I've taken those calls. A small firm owner, up half the night, convinced they're about to lose everything over one alarming headline. Nine times out of ten they'd done nothing wrong. They'd followed a fair process and were fully protected. But that bit was buried in the small print, because reassurance doesn't sell. So before anyone talks you into a paid proposal, read the whole judgment, or get someone impartial to read it for you. Fear is the easiest thing in the world to sell and the most expensive thing to buy. Good advice tells you when you're fine. A sales pitch never does.