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
    • 1,102Posts
    • 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 4
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 15th Mar 17, 1:47 PM
    • 5,812 Posts
    • 5,705 Thanks
    eskbanker
    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.
    Originally posted by Doc N
    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 be
    We can be liable for what you post. When you post something, not only are you liable for what you say, but we can become liable too as the host. So it's not a case of posting what you like, and we can delete posts if needed. Of course, our aim is to ensure legitimate information about saving money or fighting for consumer rights stays.
    and
    Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 15th Mar 17, 2:00 PM
    • 6,395 Posts
    • 19,297 Thanks
    Doc N
    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
    Originally posted by eskbanker
    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.
    • Elijah Bailey
    • By Elijah Bailey 15th Mar 17, 3:22 PM
    • 85 Posts
    • 94 Thanks
    Elijah Bailey
    I read the post this morning and it did not say anything about people making defamatory remarks and it was not aggressive or confrontational in any way.

    I can only speak from my own opinion, but it read like a typical apology / excuse letter you receive from any high street bank. It mainly consisted of comments about delays being "unacceptable / unforeseen / unexpected" and having many satisfied customers etc.
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 15th Mar 17, 6:29 PM
    • 3,254 Posts
    • 1,816 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    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.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • shortcroft
    • By shortcroft 15th Mar 17, 7:36 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    shortcroft
    UAP are claiming that my posting under Athena2016 is inaccurate and want it removed as it is affecting their business. For clarity my posting is accurate and expresses the distress this organisation has caused to my family compounded by their inability to respond to requests. I know of others in a similar situation. My lawyer can also verify the situation. UAP pity you don't spend your time better by providing a decent, professional service rather than attempting to fetter genuine complainants!
    Last edited by shortcroft; 15-03-2017 at 7:39 PM. Reason: None
    • shortcroft
    • By shortcroft 15th Mar 17, 7:54 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    shortcroft
    Something needs to be done about UAP
    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?
    • richyg
    • By richyg 15th Mar 17, 8:32 PM
    • 140 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    richyg
    The BBC ran an article about a company called Universal Group.

    The company was based in Norfolk at the time (2011) and according to the BBC was run by a person called Steve Long. There is a link here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15405097 .

    Whether it is the same Steve Long is unclear but according to the BBC article they stated "When the BBC tried to contact Mr Long to put the allegations to him it was told he was out of the country."
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 15th Mar 17, 8:50 PM
    • 12,187 Posts
    • 10,704 Thanks
    jimjames
    Universal wealth trust complaints?
    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.
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    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.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • Reaper
    • By Reaper 16th Mar 17, 8:43 AM
    • 6,142 Posts
    • 4,381 Thanks
    Reaper
    The BBC ran an article about a company called Universal Group.
    Originally posted by richyg
    See post 22. I think it used to be 24 but I guess a couple of posts have been deleted.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 16th Mar 17, 9:53 AM
    • 3,309 Posts
    • 5,034 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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?
    Originally posted by shortcroft
    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.
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 16th Mar 17, 11:11 AM
    • 3,254 Posts
    • 1,816 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    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.
    Originally posted by jimjames
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not absolving them of how they appear to undertake business but failures can happen and in isolation an occurrence can be given the benefit of the doubt.

    As there are other comments / links highlighting potentially ongoing 'failures' then this needs to be a red flag to others to ensure they undertake appropriate due diligence.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • ChesterDog
    • By ChesterDog 16th Mar 17, 5:46 PM
    • 800 Posts
    • 1,447 Thanks
    ChesterDog
    Although the company may not have been able to forsee the circumstances that have caused your trustee to be "away from the company", do you not feel that the trustee's incapacity in some respect was an event that ought to have been allowed for and procedures put in place to cover such an occurence in advance?

    Do you not agree that the lack of foresight in this respect ought, at the very least, to make questionable the diligence of your company's operations?
    I am one of the "Dogs of the Index".
    • Forummonster
    • By Forummonster 16th Mar 17, 8:37 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Forummonster
    How come anytime someone from the company official or not posts it gets removed by MSE? Are companies not allowed to respond? That hardly seems fair!

    I thought MSE was supposed to be a fair and transparent place for people to discuss things with each other. If it is only one sided, then that somewhat undermines its credibility surely?! Seen some other posts disappear too so it seems that it is not just the company that is being targeted.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 16th Mar 17, 9:00 PM
    • 89,595 Posts
    • 56,072 Thanks
    dunstonh
    MSE does allow companies to respond but they have to get authorisation from the site first. Basically to make sure they are representing the company and know the board rules.
    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 an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 16th Mar 17, 9:04 PM
    • 6,395 Posts
    • 19,297 Thanks
    Doc N
    We really do need an authorised company response on this thread to allow both sides to be aired.

    After two deleted attempts at responses from people claiming to represent the companies' viewpoints isn't it high time we had one?
    • alanq
    • By alanq 16th Mar 17, 9:22 PM
    • 3,860 Posts
    • 2,479 Thanks
    alanq
    Are companies not allowed to respond?
    Originally posted by Forummonster
    They are by following the procedure set out in the forum rules.
    See How Can My Company Get A Right Of Reply?
    I'm a Board Guide on the Budgeting and Bank Accounts, Savings & Investments, Food Shopping and Over 50s MoneySaving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Any views are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert .com. Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Right of Reply
    • By Right of Reply 16th Mar 17, 10:04 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Right of Reply
    Right of Reply
    I have never had an account before although I do follow lots of forum chats.
    I have been following this thread and agreed with most people that the company should reply and put forward its response. When they did, I unfortunately missed it as it was removed quickly and thankfully was spotted before it was removed I assumed by MSE, which surprised and annoyed me somewhat.

    I don't fully understand this market but do have some understanding as we do have a Trust (set up by my parents with another company) and I know that although the proceeds of the Trust will ultimately be for me and my children we don't actually own the contents of the Trust.

    The reason I have actually now set up my first account is that I read earlier a response from an employee at Universal, who wrote this on her own behalf and who gave what I thought was a fair response but it was quickly removed I assume again by MSE. They pointed out something along the lines of their company had been slow to respond to a some customers due to unforeseen circumstances but had changed things to sort this going forward. The person stated along the lines that they and their colleagues all worked for a good company. I don't know the rights and wrongs of this case but Universal seems from looking at its website ( locations and vacancies ) that they are a reasonably sized company as they appear to have a lot of employees ( does anyone know how many people work there? it would be interesting to know if they are just a few people or employee a lot of people which I suspect).

    So why have I joined and written this response? Well, I believe that although we can and should be able put our thoughts and highlight percieved wrongs it is not right for us to be hanging someone or a company without them having a right to reply and I am really disappointed at MSE for allowing a few individuals to post attacks (which is their right ) but not either letting the company reply (in the removed post by the employee, they pointed out that their company has been trying for days to set up a company account with MSE but had been ignored! ) or equally importantly that the staff member who wrote on her own behalf ( like the rest of us) was not be able to pass what looked like a reasonable independent comment on something that could possibly affect her and her colleagues jobs.

    The purpose of this site, is in my opinion, to highlight potential wrongs and give advice which is vitally important but not hang out to dry a company that cannot have the 'Right of Reply'.

    I hope the employee that posted their response puts it on again so that we can all see both sides and that MSE is fair and reasonable and lets the company have its reply as well as I cannot see any reason why it has been removing these responses while not then letting a formal reply be posted.
    • le loup
    • By le loup 16th Mar 17, 10:23 PM
    • 3,640 Posts
    • 3,565 Thanks
    le loup
    All these first time posters standing up for the company?
    Rat I a smell - rearrange into a well known phrase or saying.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 16th Mar 17, 11:20 PM
    • 12,187 Posts
    • 10,704 Thanks
    jimjames
    How come anytime someone from the company official or not posts it gets removed by MSE? Are companies not allowed to respond? That hardly seems fair!
    Originally posted by Forummonster
    Did you join up just to post that? One might even think you worked for Universal Wealth trust!
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • Right of Reply
    • By Right of Reply 16th Mar 17, 11:54 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Right of Reply
    For the record, I was not sticking up for the company just the right of reply. I don't know whether they are good or bad or just had problems but as always there are two sides to things and I like to see both sides before making a judgement

    Really strange that you don't look at the context of my message. It is simply that we should all be able to give our opinions, which means both sides of a discussion. It appears as though you are more interested it having an opinion but not listening to others. You have not I notice worried about a number of others posters who asked exactly the same as me about why there had been no response allowed from the company originally. It appears that, as they have done lots of posts and are already in the club it was ok for them to write and ask the same thing.

    If I was writing from the company (which I am not) would it be a bad thing to have heard their side.... I think not.

    I have regulary followed chats for many years and find most very informative and very balanced and was just rather confused by MSE not airing both sides, I was not criticising the posters as I don't know if they are correct or not and without more knowledge would not think to judge them but I will not just accept them as being correct and turn on the company or an individual just because they they say so.

    With regards to a first time post, we all have to do it once. Perhaps I will post on other sites but may not bother if it a closed shop for regular posters only as I may well be criticised for only having posted a couple of time previously this time!

    The focus in my view should be on all parties ( unless libellous ) being able to post and that includes me!
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

1,426Posts Today

6,975Users online

Martin's Twitter