Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • happyhero
    • By happyhero 31st Mar 14, 1:16 PM
    • 1,087Posts
    • 54Thanks
    happyhero
    help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust
    • #1
    • 31st Mar 14, 1:16 PM
    help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust 31st Mar 14 at 1:16 PM
    Hi my mother is fretting over a scheme she has just paid for, one of those things where they tell you to take out a trust to protect yourself from inheritance tax so that that you can pass on more to your family rather than the tax man. She thought it was great at first but is now having doubts as to whether it is worth the money and does she really need it etc. I went to the first seminar with her and was with her for when they came round to arrange the trust she needed. She picked stage 2 and it came to £4000.

    Has anybody got any experience of these people or similar schemes?

    Once in the trust your property and savings/investments are protected from tax and any other attack basically.

    Both the seminar talker and the guy who came round have a bunch of qualifications in finance/investment and legal stuff, the seminar talker was a non practicing solicitor, i.e he used to be a solicitor before he did this.

    I like to think I am not easily swayed or taken in and both guys seemed nice genuine people plus I felt what they said made sense. I understood it all but my mother was worried that she did not. She feels all control will be taken away as they put the house and everything in trust whereas the way they do it is protect it in the trust and my mother becomes the boss for want of a better word and makes the decisions as to what will happen with everything, i..e who inherits what etc. Plus this way the property cannot be taken for things like care fees.

    I thought it was a good thing but my mother is now thinking of backing out and I must admit if she keeps being against it it does start to make me have doubts even though I was sure about it up till now.

    Can anybody tell me what they think or what would be brilliant if somebody has had this for a while and what their experience and thoughts of it are?
Page 3
    • badger09
    • By badger09 13th Mar 17, 3:43 PM
    • 4,969 Posts
    • 4,169 Thanks
    badger09
    So, if I understand correctly... The OP had posted their situation on here regarding Universal Wealth looking for other's comments and during this entire time had struggled to get any sort of meaningful communication from Universal Wealth and yet as soon as some people offered their opinions and pointed to links highlighting that this possibly wasn't a good scheme to belong to Universal Wealth managed to communicate very effectively and efficiently with virtually every poster (possibly) but were unable to liaise with the OP until they incurred significant cost in employing a solicitor and a barrister in order to resolve the original issue with Universal Wealth.

    This doesn't really put Universal Wealth in a very good light from a customer service perspective. If this type of 'plan' / 'scheme' was something I was considering then I don't believe I Universal Wealth would be an organisation I would consider worthy of engaging with.
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    My interpretation is that Universal Wealth contacted MSE, who then contacted individual posters.

    Allegedly
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 13th Mar 17, 3:49 PM
    • 3,021 Posts
    • 1,613 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    Ooops, my mistake.

    Was just wanting to clarify if this is the Universal Wealth based in Ipswich?

    <<I assume someone is allowed confirm>>
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 13th Mar 17, 4:09 PM
    • 88,085 Posts
    • 53,313 Thanks
    dunstonh
    My interpretation is that Universal Wealth contacted MSE, who then contacted individual posters.
    The complaints were about specific posts. I had two on this thread but only one was complained about and was given a specific reason. Strangely it was my response to a comment made rather than a comment about the company.

    Some common defences are:

    That the alleged wrong-doer was not the publisher of the statement;
    That the statement did not refer to the alleged victim;
    That the statement's meaning was not defamatory;
    That the statement was true;
    That the statement was for comment on a matter of public interest;

    I know my post fits a few of those.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 13th Mar 17, 4:18 PM
    • 2,180 Posts
    • 3,047 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Just for variety, MSE has not emailed me to say that Universal Wealth have complained about my posts in this thread and therefore I'm free to reveal that I have not been contacted by these heartless, scheming b*stards.

    (with apologies to the writers on Have I Got News For You)
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 13th Mar 17, 5:13 PM
    • 6,058 Posts
    • 4,091 Thanks
    Reaper
    You do realise according the the link you provided "Have I Got News For You" lost that case don't you?!
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 13th Mar 17, 5:23 PM
    • 11,817 Posts
    • 10,180 Thanks
    jimjames
    My interpretation is that Universal Wealth contacted MSE, who then contacted individual posters.

    Allegedly
    Originally posted by badger09
    As the saying goes: "You might think that but I couldn't possibly comment"
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 13th Mar 17, 5:25 PM
    • 6,130 Posts
    • 19,048 Thanks
    Doc N
    Isn't this further discussion a little unfair, if it just continues to boost the thread's Google ranking?
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 13th Mar 17, 8:13 PM
    • 6,130 Posts
    • 19,048 Thanks
    Doc N
    This is all very interesting, and I make the following comments in an entirely non-judgmental way:

    It's impossible from forum posts to know the full facts of any situation. These may well be perfectly good people/companies, offering good and sound financial advice. If that's the case, then they will be justifiably unhappy at the Google prominence of this thread, and will doubtless be wanting to correct any impressions given which they feel are misleading. That's only right, and I'm sure MSE will want to assist with that process.

    If, however, there are any issues which need to be publicly aired, then I'm sure that the various people/companies involved, and their lawyers, will understand that such issues will inevitably be discussed in public fora such as these.

    Perhaps if they're following these posts a representative from one of the companies in which Steven Long is involved (see below) might usefully post (with MSE consent) in this thread to offer any reassurances felt to be necessary. I trust MSE will feel able to retain the thread (unless it contains any inappropriate posts - which clearly ought to be removed) in the interests of openness and transparency.

    There are several companies in which Mr Long has an apparent interest, and the Companies House record can be accessed here:

    Steven Peter Long (born November 1966):

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/wTFPACM6IZyZlChRzXItfbNDRc0/appointments
    • fergies_army
    • By fergies_army 13th Mar 17, 9:20 PM
    • 102 Posts
    • 64 Thanks
    fergies_army
    ^^ but Steven Long can't reply as he is either poorly or out of the country or both depending on who asks?!?! 😏
    • NGM
    • By NGM 14th Mar 17, 9:51 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    NGM
    I have been following this forum (and others like it as I often do) and have been gradually getting more frustrated. I do not normally respond as I am sure, with many businesses, things can go wrong but when the tone changed to the firm deliberately does things falsely, I thought I would put my side of story as this was not our experience. Following advice from this firm, my mother gifted her house along with some investments into Trust as she wanted to protect them for her children (of which I am one) and her grandchildren. Unfortunately, years later, mum was taken ill and ended up in residential care where she later died. Universal were the acting trustee and dealt with the administration of the trusts very efficiently and as the assets were protected in trust they were appointed out to myself and my brother in accordance with my mother’s wishes. In fact, I was so pleased with the advice and service provided to my mum, I have now instructed them to do the same for my estate.
    • greenglide
    • By greenglide 14th Mar 17, 10:13 AM
    • 2,673 Posts
    • 1,685 Thanks
    greenglide
    First post! Welcome, but you may be regarded with a certain amount of scepticism!

    People have this tendency to get involved to avoid tax / care home fees etc via these companies and then are surprised when it goes wrong. I tend to assume that if a company is making its money by setting up these schemes there is always a risk - even if the risk is small the impact can be horrendous.

    Caveat Emptor?
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 14th Mar 17, 10:14 AM
    • 6,130 Posts
    • 19,048 Thanks
    Doc N
    I have been following this forum (and others like it as I often do) and have been gradually getting more frustrated. I do not normally respond as I am sure, with many businesses, things can go wrong but when the tone changed to the firm deliberately does things falsely, I thought I would put my side of story as this was not our experience. Following advice from this firm, my mother gifted her house along with some investments into Trust as she wanted to protect them for her children (of which I am one) and her grandchildren. Unfortunately, years later, mum was taken ill and ended up in residential care where she later died. Universal were the acting trustee and dealt with the administration of the trusts very efficiently and as the assets were protected in trust they were appointed out to myself and my brother in accordance with my mother’s wishes. In fact, I was so pleased with the advice and service provided to my mum, I have now instructed them to do the same for my estate.
    Originally posted by NGM
    Good to hear your positive feedback and recommendation.

    You say that you've been 'following this forum (and others like it as I often do) and have been gradually getting more frustrated' and that's presumably why you felt strongly enough to sign up with MSE only today to make your views felt.
    • Elijah Bailey
    • By Elijah Bailey 14th Mar 17, 10:32 AM
    • 58 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Elijah Bailey
    Hello NGM,

    Did you know your username initials sounds just like a firm of London tax lawyers. What a coincidence....you have to laugh.

    I look forward to your future posts dispelling the myths about Universal Wealth protection trust.

    You are so welcome to the forum.
    Last edited by Elijah Bailey; 14-03-2017 at 10:35 AM. Reason: spelling
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 15th Mar 17, 10:52 AM
    • 6,130 Posts
    • 19,048 Thanks
    Doc N
    Just out of curiosity, why was the post from the Universal Wealth representative earlier this morning removed? It looked like a useful response.

    Was it removed by the poster, or was it removed by MSE as unauthorised?
    • Elijah Bailey
    • By Elijah Bailey 15th Mar 17, 11:04 AM
    • 58 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Elijah Bailey
    It is a shame the post was removed as I am sure it boosted the google ranking.
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 15th Mar 17, 11:11 AM
    • 6,058 Posts
    • 4,091 Thanks
    Reaper
    I didn't see it but they do need to be authorised to post and this is a thread that MSE are watching so it wouldn't surprise me if it got removed.

    Hopefully they will get authorised and post again as I would much rather a company defends themselves here than resorting to lawyers. Lawyers should be a last resort IMO.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 15th Mar 17, 12:32 PM
    • 88,085 Posts
    • 53,313 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I would agree with Reaper.

    Most of the response on this thread are in discussion form based on the comments on the very first post on the thread. Threatening people with allegations of libel etc when the posts are nothing of the sort is not a way to behave. You could get far more respect by posting clarifications and explanations.

    If someone says something you disagree with then reply saying you disagree and this is why....

    Over the years, I have been threatened by many companies via the site. MSE Investigator must think "not another one" when he sees my name. What is fairly consistent is that the companies that threaten tend to be the dodgy ones. The ones that have something to hide. Many of them have later gone on to be confirmed as scams or doing something dodgy or have gone under taking money with them. The genuine firms tend to say nothing or add clarification or information to show different.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 15th Mar 17, 12:53 PM
    • 6,130 Posts
    • 19,048 Thanks
    Doc N
    I'm now following this thread with rather more than the usual interest after the events of the last few days - and I very much doubt I'm the only one feeling that way.

    The credibility of moneysavingexpert.com is at stake here - provided that none of the comments are genuinely defamatory. If they are, they should be removed. If not, they should stand. There's an important principle at stake here, and what MSE says about itself is highly relevant:

    MoneySavingExpert.com is the UK's biggest consumer website, with about 15 million users a month. The site's dedicated to cutting your bills and fighting your corner with journalistic research, cutting-edge tools and a massive community – all focused on finding deals, saving cash and campaigning for financial justice.
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 15th Mar 17, 1:07 PM
    • 6,058 Posts
    • 4,091 Thanks
    Reaper
    To be fair to MSE it is time consuming to check every post that has been complained about, and expensive if they have to employ lawyers to check the claim or defend themselves in court. It would be very easy for them to simply delete every controversial post (and some companies no doubt try it on hoping that is what they will do) so respect to them for leaving them up and taking the time to work through them, and contact every poster.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 15th Mar 17, 1:17 PM
    • 11,817 Posts
    • 10,180 Thanks
    jimjames
    I didn't see it but they do need to be authorised to post and this is a thread that MSE are watching so it wouldn't surprise me if it got removed.

    Hopefully they will get authorised and post again as I would much rather a company defends themselves here than resorting to lawyers. Lawyers should be a last resort IMO.
    Originally posted by Reaper
    In my experience "Lawyers" in this type of context tend to be a letter from a firm that is used for encouraging posts to be removed rather than someone who has been actively consulted about the merits or otherwise of a case.


    You only need to see some of the other sections of the site for how companies do it properly with authorised accounts and trying to resolve issues raised. When lawyers letters get involved in the past it has indicated something that the company wanted to remain hidden.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,266Posts Today

8,468Users online

Martin's Twitter