help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust

eskbanker wrote: »

Although I agree with your earlier comments about leaving stuff that isn't defamatory, I disagree that your highlighted quote is relevant to this - there's a big difference between putting your name to research by employed journalists under your direct control and being held liable for uninformed comments from anyone and everyone who chooses to spout off on a public and unmoderated forum.

Given the clear distinction between the editorial side of the site and the forum, other more relevant quotes would beand

I take your point entirely - I'm simply suggesting that this is very much a topic that requires some 'journalistic research', followed (but only if appropriate) by 'campaigning for financial justice'.

These companies may all be operating in a perfectly proper way, and if they are they have nothing to fear from the journalistic research - in fact they should welcome it. Such research ought, if properly carried out, to be capable of establishing whether or not there's any justification for keeping the thread. If there is, it should stay. If there isn't it should go.

And I'd still like to see that deleted post purporting to be from those companies reinstated - it made interesting reading and tried to explain what had been happening. There are two sides to any story.

It also contained text accepting that there had been failures and that the 'crisis' referred to had highlighted procedural and processes which needed to be improved and resolved.

Whilst the post was 'only words' I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

My one nagging thing that I cannot get past is why one of the 'employees' would be the / a trustee (based on the OPs information). That would worry me and is not something I would countenance if I were to take a similar undertaking.

Your posting is similar to the potential situation my family find themselves in. I am sorry that your family has had the misfortune of UAP. We are coming to the conclusion the house of nearly £500k is now lost to the family. The law restricts the setting up of Trusts to qualified lawyers because of ancient property laws so why are the likes of UAP are not being stopped by the Law Society? They are not even fulfilling the basic obligations of a Trustee as set out by STEP.

Something needs to be done to stop them. MSE you need to heed these postings rather than allowing UAP to fetter them! Otherwise what is the point of your forum?

cloud_dog wrote: »

It also contained text accepting that there had been failures and that the 'crisis' referred to had highlighted procedural and processes which needed to be improved and resolved.

Whilst the post was 'only words' I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If they're prepared to come on here and accept failures it begs the question why they feel the need to supposedly threaten legal action against people for pointing out issues.

shortcroft wrote: »

The law restricts the setting up of Trusts to qualified lawyers because of ancient property laws so why are the likes of UAP are not being stopped by the Law Society?

First I've heard of it. You can set up one kind of Trust simply by writing a designation on an application form. Another can be set up without the settlor even knowing he was setting up a trust (bequeathing assets to minors in your Will before they are old enough to inherit). No lawyers involved at all.

Which ancient property law are you thinking of? Most ancient laws (other than common law) are no more relevant than the one about being allowed to shoot Welshmen with a longbow.

The Law Society's main job is to protect and represent the interests of lawyers. If UAP are not fully accredited solicitors it's unlikely to be their problem.

Out of interest, does your lawyer know you are posting here? I am not trying to dissuade you, but it would be interesting to know what they think about the likelihood that UAP could successfully bring a libel case based on what has been posted here.