What This Document Is
- Date submitted: 30 October 2025, to editor Lee Boyce and journalist Emily Hawkins
- Subject: "Hairdressers warn industry is 'finished' without Budget help" — 29 October 2025
- Evidence provided: HMRC FOI data, ONS statistics, Companies House filings, Insolvency Service records — all publicly available
- Response received: None substantive
- Subsequent articles: Three further pieces from the same source network, published after this formal written notice
On 29 October 2025, This Is Money published "Hairdressers warn industry is 'finished' without Budget help" by Emily Hawkins. The article repeated claims from the British Hair Consortium without verification against publicly available government data.
The following day I submitted a formal complaint to editor Lee Boyce and journalist Emily Hawkins, with full primary source documentation demonstrating that every major claim in the article was directly contradicted by HMRC FOI data, ONS statistics, Companies House filings, and Insolvency Service records — all freely available without cost or specialist access.
The original complaint is published below in full, unedited. The update section at the foot of this page documents what happened next.
To: Lee Boyce, Editor — lee.boyce@thisismoney.co.uk
Cc: Emily Hawkins — emily.hawkins@dailymail.co.uk
Date: Thursday 30 October 2025
Subject: Formal Complaint — Unchallenged Publication of Demonstrably False British Hair Consortium Claims
The Complaint
Dear Mr. Boyce,
I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding This Is Money's publication of unchallenged claims from the British Hair Consortium in the article "Hairdressers warn industry is 'finished' without Budget help" (29 October 2025).
I maintain the UK Hair & Beauty Sector Data Archive (data.salonlogicpro.co.uk) and can demonstrate that every major claim in this article is contradicted by publicly available government data.
Claim vs. Reality
"Record numbers are dodging paying VAT, costing the Treasury billions"
HMRC VAT Registration Data (FOI2024/15284):
- 2018-19: 14,300 VAT registered salons
- 2022-23: 14,900 VAT registered salons
- Change: +600 (+4.2%)
HMRC VAT Collection Data: VAT collection UP 18% (2018–2023). Average VAT per salon UP 6.5%.
If "record dodging" was occurring, registrations and collection would be DOWN, not UP.
"The number of apprenticeships in the sector has plummeted 82 per cent since 2020"
2020 was COVID lockdown — apprenticeships were legally impossible. Using forced closure as a baseline is fraudulent methodology. Department for Education data shows apprenticeship recovery from 2021 onwards, not continued 82% decline.
"9 in 10 salon owners support" reducing VAT threshold from £90,000 to £30,000
- Approximately 70% of UK salons operate below the £90,000 threshold
- They currently pay ZERO VAT
- Reducing threshold to £30,000 would force them to pay NEW VAT
- This proposal would harm 70% of salons while benefiting large operators
Survey methodology: 350 responses from ~48,000 salons = 0.73% sample size. No disclosed methodology. Likely self-selected respondents who would benefit.
There is no credible way 90% of salon owners support a policy that forces 70% of them to pay new tax.
"Unless the Government levels out the playing field with regards to tax, the industry as we know it is finished" — Toby Dicker, BHC
- ONS: Business count UP 19% (2017–2024: 44,800 → 53,312)
- HMRC: Employment UP 8,000 (2018–2023: ~189,000 → ~197,000)
- ONS: Turnover UP £1.1bn (2022–2024)
- Insolvency Service: Business failures DOWN 19.6% (2023–2024)
Every major economic indicator shows growth, not crisis.
"Labour taxes hitting us five times harder than any other high street sector"
This compares high-labour services to low-labour retail — an invalid comparison. Independent analysis of identical-turnover service businesses shows:
- Childcare providers pay higher total tax than salons
- Physiotherapy clinics pay higher total tax than salons
- Tattoo studios pay similar total tax
All high-labour service businesses face similar tax structures. This is not unique to salons.
The 2020 Doom Prophecy That Failed
In December 2020, similar articles published National Hair and Beauty Federation claims:
- Survey of 5,000 salons
- 62% unsure if they would survive
- 18% certain they would close
If true, the sector should have lost ~8,000 salons by 2021. What actually happened:
What the Data Shows
- Business count: UP 19%
- Employment: UP 8,000
- VAT registrations: UP 600
- Turnover: UP £1.1bn
The 2020 doom prophecy was completely false. Yet This Is Money published substantially identical claims in February 2025 ("final nail in coffin") and October 2025 ("industry finished").
The VAT Proposal: Clear Winners, Unpublished Details
BHC proposes reducing VAT to 10% and threshold to £30,000. Critical implementation details have not been published.
What is clear:
- Customer pricing: £100 service currently costs £120 (with 20% VAT), would cost £110 (with 10% VAT)
- Large VAT-registered operators gain immediate 8.3% pricing advantage
- 70% of salons currently operate below the £90k threshold and pay no VAT
- Reducing threshold to £30k forces most into VAT registration and compliance
BHC co-founder Toby Dicker controls £3m in assets across 11 companies and would benefit from the reduced VAT rate he is lobbying for. His stated figures show: £122k cost increase ÷ 65 employees = £1,876.92 per employee = £1.11 per hour = a 1% price increase solves the problem.
Undisclosed Conflict of Interest
A multi-millionaire with £3m in assets, who controls the lobbying organisations making these claims, facing costs equivalent to a 1% price increase, is not a "struggling entrepreneur." He directly benefits from the VAT cuts he's lobbying for. Your article did not question these claims or disclose these conflicts of interest.
Fact-Checking Failures
Every claim above could have been verified within hours using:
- Companies House (free, public, searchable)
- HMRC FOI requests (free, response within 20 working days)
- ONS statistics (free, public, published regularly)
- Insolvency Service data (free, public)
This Is Money verified none of this before publication.
Comparison to Financial Times
Financial Times (27 October 2025): "Tax advantage of UK self-employment at record high" — proper economic analysis, Resolution Foundation research, economy-wide context, policy design discussion.
This Is Money (29 October 2025 — two days later): "Industry is finished" — unchallenged lobby claims, no government data verification, no economic context, sector-specific crisis framing.
One is journalism. One is press release stenography.
Requests
1. Correction
Publish correction noting:
- VAT registrations UP 4.2%, collection UP 18% (not "record dodging")
- Employment UP 8,000, businesses UP 19% (not "industry finished")
- 70% of salons would be harmed by threshold reduction (not "90% support")
- BHC co-founder controls £3m in assets and runs lobbying organisations
2. Disclosure
Future articles should disclose:
- Survey sample sizes and methodology
- Financial interests of quoted sources
- Government data contradicting claims
- That sources directly benefit from policies they advocate
3. Methodology Review
Establish fact-checking procedures for lobby group claims, including:
- Verification against government statistics
- Companies House checks on wealth claims
- Survey methodology disclosure requirements
- Conflict of interest disclosures
Standing Offer
I have publicly and repeatedly offered to debate British Hair Consortium co-founder Toby Dicker on these data claims in an open, public forum:
- Format: Me solo without notes vs. any number of BHC representatives with materials
- Recording: Public and fully transparent
- Platform: Any venue, any time
Mr. Dicker has declined all invitations. One must ask: if BHC's data withstands scrutiny, why refuse public debate? If This Is Money's sources won't defend their claims openly, why amplify them unchallenged?
Documentation
All data cited in this complaint is documented with sources at data.salonlogicpro.co.uk. I am not seeking media coverage — I am seeking factual accuracy in reporting about the sector I analyse.
Should This Is Money require verification of any figures, the complete HMRC FOI responses, ONS datasets, and Companies House filings are publicly accessible.
Contact: Andrew Clelland, SalonLogic Pro — andrew@salonlogic.co.uk
I request correction, improved disclosure standards, and implementation of fact-checking procedures for lobby group claims.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Clelland
What Happened Next — Updated 10 May 2026
The complaint received no substantive response from This Is Money, Lee Boyce, or Emily Hawkins.
Three further articles followed:
Richard Ward quoted as an embattled sector voice warning about rising costs. What the article did not disclose: filed accounts for Richard Ward Associates Ltd show net assets increased by approximately £400,000 in the year to September 2024, with £1,926,019 in cash on the balance sheet. Hellen Ward was already in the process of arranging transfer of the business into an Employee Ownership Trust, Richard Ward Associates EOT Limited was incorporated 13 January 2025, with Hellen Ward appointed as a director. Source: Companies House.
British Beauty Council claims published unchallenged. Published three months after formal written notice with documented primary source evidence.
Hellen Ward, co-founder of the Salon Employers Association alongside Toby Dicker, quoted warning that apprentice jobs are "the first to go" and that the sector is "the toughest it's ever been." What the article did not disclose:
- Net assets of Richard Ward Associates Ltd increased by ~£400,000 in the year to September 2024
- £1.9 million in cash on the balance sheet at year end
- Business is in the process of transfer to an Employee Ownership Trust, an exit structure under which selling shareholders receive payment from future business profits
- Hellen Ward is co-founder of the Salon Employers Association with Toby Dicker, the same organisation whose claims formed the basis of this complaint
The Pattern
Four articles. Seven months. The same lobby network as primary source. The same absence of verification against government data. Published after formal written notice with full primary source documentation.
The original complaint noted: "Journalism requires verification, not amplification."
That remains the position.
Documentation
All data cited in this complaint and update is publicly available for independent verification:
- data.salonlogicpro.co.uk — HMRC FOI responses, ONS datasets, Insolvency Service records
- Companies House — Richard Ward Associates Ltd, Richard Ward Associates EOT Limited
- HMRC FOI references: FOI2024/15284, FOI2023/51378, FOI2024/200347