help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust

Doc_N

Just listened to the programme (above) - don't miss it if you have any interest at all in Steven Long and the various 'Universal' companies.

"They took us to court to try and block this report"

One of the opening lines - ring any bells?

Difficult to imagine that anybody having heard the programme would ever consider using one of these companies - as soon as the local authorities see who's involved they immediately know the background and regard the trust as ineffective for care home fee avoidance!

Doc_N

UniversalWealthP wrote: »

This is an official response from a representative of Universal Wealth Preservation (UWP) in relation to this thread and the various comments made.

Universal and its large team of dedicated staff are committed to providing a comprehensive quality service to its thousands of clients around the UK. Client satisfaction is a top priority.

No business is perfect, and we recognise that in recent weeks our service has fallen below that which we expect or that our clients deserve in a handful of cases. This has been caused by the unplanned, unforeseen and unprecedented absence of a Trustee for an extended period. This unfortunate situation was entirely beyond the control of the company or the Trustee.

We would like to publicly express the sincere apologies that we have made to each of those clients individually and in private for any distress caused by the brief but regrettable delays in completing their transactions.

This unexpected situation has highlighted a weakness in our processes that we are now working to remedy so that this isolated incident cannot be repeated. New systems and procedures are being introduced to prevent this.

The Principals, Management and staff at Universal strive to operate with the utmost integrity and professionalism within the parameters of the Law. On occasions, robust procedures designed to protect both our client and his/her beneficiaries can appear to be long-winded or time-consuming but the security and legal integrity of every transaction we undertake is paramount. We will always strive to act in the best interests of our client and in accordance with his wishes which can, at times, be contrary to those of a potential beneficiary.

Universal operates nationwide and employs a team of highly experienced and qualified lawyers, accountants and tax specialists to provide expert advice. Every week hundreds of people attend our free seminars to obtain valuable estate planning information. Over the years, we have legally protected the wealth of thousands of satisfied clients for them and for the future security of their families.

This post is merely to 'save' the Universal Wealth post above - who knows, they might choose to delete it at some point?

UniversalWealthP

Universal’s Response to the BBC Money Box programme on Radio 4


As you may be aware, this company was featured on BBC Money Box, broadcast on Radio 4 on the 15th April 2017 and repeated the following day on 16th April.

We consider that the content of the programme presented a very one sided version of events, was misleading and did not show this company or the wide range of professional services it offers in the correct light.

In the BBC’s own words, ‘we are one of many firms’ (indeed we are 1 of over 500 firms), which provide estate planning advice and as such feel that we were unreasonably singled out.

The BBC advised us of their intention to broadcast the programme in an email on 29th March. We responded by providing them with substantial evidence to refute their allegations and those of the featured client.

The BBC refused to answer our questions nor did they acknowledge the contents of the documents we sent but stated that they would continue with the programme as they planned regardless of the proof we sent them. Hence the only recourse left to us was to try to prevent broadcast by seeking the Court’s help. We did indeed go to the High Court but this was after we had sent the BBC numerous documents which clearly showed that their version of events was misguided and they gave us no confidence the programme would remain impartial. The case was never heard by the Court as the BBC raised a technicality and so the judge never made a decision as to the validity of the BBC’s claims.

This release is intended to present a fuller version of the facts rather than those carefully selected by the BBC to support their allegations.

The programme featured a client of Universal (Susan Steer) who had complained following the death of her husband. This complaint to us was almost two years after they had engaged us to carry out comprehensive planning for them.

Dealing with the points as they appeared on the programme:

Susan Steer first complained to us on 28th October 2016. We replied on the following dates answering her queries, 10th November 2016, 23rd November 2016, 6th December 2016, 15th December 2016, 7th February 2017, 9th February 2017 and 2nd March. We went to extraordinary lengths to deal with Mrs Steer's complaint, remaining professional at all times. Mrs Steer's complaints seemed to vary considerably each time, accusing this firm of varying misdemeanours and ironically she never suggested that 'care fees' was her main concern yet the BBC appear to have made this out to be the reason for her complaint. Dissatisfied with our responses, Susan Steer involved her local MP, Alan Johnson, who following receipt of the actual details of the matter from us has not proceeded with the case.

The BBC did barge into a seminar being presented by our Steve Long in 2011; on 4th October 2011 they requested an interview with him and we replied promptly on 10th October 2011 saying he was out of the country and that he would speak to them upon his return; in the run up to their misleading programme on 15 April 2017 we provided the BBC with documentary proof of Mr. Long’s absence out of the country and that we had notified the BBC on his return from this absence yet they chose to edit today’s programme in such a way as to make it seem that Mr. Long was avoiding them but this absolutely was not the case.

The Steers never told our representative that Don Steer had terminal cancer; we were only told that he had been diagnosed with cancer; we even sent the BBC the paperwork pertaining to the meetings with the Steers and the documents which they signed which showed precisely why the Steers instructed us; in their own words it was because “ [Mr and Mrs Steer] have a son who is not very responsible where money is concerned. Gifting their main asset into trust will be helpful for him in the future re administering their estate and for him after they have died “. The BBC only mentioned the later half of the actual reason, therefore being very selective with what they wanted the listeners to hear. Furthermore, If a client decides to withhold vital information relating to the health, which would understandably affect their planning, this firm cannot be expected to advise fully and for Mrs Steer and the BBC to suggest otherwise is wholly unreasonable.

Don Steer not only attended the seminar but had a personal one to one consultation with our advisor, saw and approved the information we had noted and was finally seen by another representative on a subsequent visit to whom he confirmed his approval and that he was very happy with what we were doing for him and his family. At that second meeting Mr and Mrs Steer formally executed all of the legal documentation drafted for them and raised no objections or questions regarding the planning they had undertaken. At no point did Mr or Mrs Steer confirm Mr Steer's cancer as being terminal, despite our client care letter asking them to check and clarify our understanding.

Lastly, we would add that Susan Steer and her son have indeed benefited from the planning Don put in place, as should Susan need to go into care, the assets which Don put into trust cannot now be used to pay for her care fees and their son is protected irrespective of her stated intentions of avoidance. Don's desire to ring-fence and protect his assets for his wife and son have been achieved. This was never mentioned on the programme.

Turning to the seminars, we make it quite clear to potential clients in writing, in our slides and verbally during the presentation, that if avoiding care fees is a primary motive then we cannot assist them. Our sales consultant covered this at the end of the seminar when answering questions and categorically reinforced this fact.

Trust planning has numerous benefits and while a client may enjoy many of these benefits, care fee avoidance should not be the motive for planning and while it may, for some, be a side benefit, it can never be guaranteed.

Even the BBC’s own expert, Mary Butler, (a Solicitor for the Elderly) said during the programme “I am not saying that these products in certain circumstances will not work”... this is because they do work and we would add that if done correctly, for the right reasons and at the right time and not to deliberately avoid care home fees it would be difficult to challenge. The Government’s Care and Support Statutory Guidance definition says: “…it would be unreasonable to decide that a person had disposed of an asset in order to reduce the level of charges for their care and support needs if at the time the disposal took place they were fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for care and support.” In conclusion Trusts have been around for hundreds of years and have consistently proved to be an effective tool in tax and inheritance planning.

Finally, we totally agree that many of the companies offering this type of planning are unregulated. In fact, many are untrained and unqualified. However, please note that our employees are highly qualified in their own specialist areas and are individually regulated within their own field of expertise. Our staff include experts qualified in law, accountancy and tax and ongoing technical training and competency is a top priority for the firm.

The Government decided that bodies such as ourselves do not need to be regulated but, we would be happy to be regulated as we strive to meet and exceed all legal requirements.

We have many thousands of satisfied clients who have enjoyed the benefits of comprehensive planning with us. We are not always perfect and we do occasionally fall short of the rigorous standards that we have set for ourselves, but we pride ourselves on the technical accuracy of our advice and the commitment and integrity of our staff who always act in the best interests of the client.

Doc_N

UniversalWealthP wrote: »

Universal’s Response to the BBC Money Box programme on Radio 4


As you may be aware, this company was featured on BBC Money Box, broadcast on Radio 4 on the 15th April 2017 and repeated the following day on 16th April.

We consider that the content of the programme presented a very one sided version of events, was misleading and did not show this company or the wide range of professional services it offers in the correct light.

In the BBC’s own words, ‘we are one of many firms’ (indeed we are 1 of over 500 firms), which provide estate planning advice and as such feel that we were unreasonably singled out.

The BBC advised us of their intention to broadcast the programme in an email on 29th March. We responded by providing them with substantial evidence to refute their allegations and those of the featured client.

The BBC refused to answer our questions nor did they acknowledge the contents of the documents we sent but stated that they would continue with the programme as they planned regardless of the proof we sent them. Hence the only recourse left to us was to try to prevent broadcast by seeking the Court’s help. We did indeed go to the High Court but this was after we had sent the BBC numerous documents which clearly showed that their version of events was misguided and they gave us no confidence the programme would remain impartial. The case was never heard by the Court as the BBC raised a technicality and so the judge never made a decision as to the validity of the BBC’s claims.

This release is intended to present a fuller version of the facts rather than those carefully selected by the BBC to support their allegations.

The programme featured a client of Universal (Susan Steer) who had complained following the death of her husband. This complaint to us was almost two years after they had engaged us to carry out comprehensive planning for them.

Dealing with the points as they appeared on the programme:

Susan Steer first complained to us on 28th October 2016. We replied on the following dates answering her queries, 10th November 2016, 23rd November 2016, 6th December 2016, 15th December 2016, 7th February 2017, 9th February 2017 and 2nd March. We went to extraordinary lengths to deal with Mrs Steer's complaint, remaining professional at all times. Mrs Steer's complaints seemed to vary considerably each time, accusing this firm of varying misdemeanours and ironically she never suggested that 'care fees' was her main concern yet the BBC appear to have made this out to be the reason for her complaint. Dissatisfied with our responses, Susan Steer involved her local MP, Alan Johnson, who following receipt of the actual details of the matter from us has not proceeded with the case.

The BBC did barge into a seminar being presented by our Steve Long in 2011; on 4th October 2011 they requested an interview with him and we replied promptly on 10th October 2011 saying he was out of the country and that he would speak to them upon his return; in the run up to their misleading programme on 15 April 2017 we provided the BBC with documentary proof of Mr. Long’s absence out of the country and that we had notified the BBC on his return from this absence yet they chose to edit today’s programme in such a way as to make it seem that Mr. Long was avoiding them but this absolutely was not the case.

The Steers never told our representative that Don Steer had terminal cancer; we were only told that he had been diagnosed with cancer; we even sent the BBC the paperwork pertaining to the meetings with the Steers and the documents which they signed which showed precisely why the Steers instructed us; in their own words it was because “ [Mr and Mrs Steer] have a son who is not very responsible where money is concerned. Gifting their main asset into trust will be helpful for him in the future re administering their estate and for him after they have died “. The BBC only mentioned the later half of the actual reason, therefore being very selective with what they wanted the listeners to hear. Furthermore, If a client decides to withhold vital information relating to the health, which would understandably affect their planning, this firm cannot be expected to advise fully and for Mrs Steer and the BBC to suggest otherwise is wholly unreasonable.

Don Steer not only attended the seminar but had a personal one to one consultation with our advisor, saw and approved the information we had noted and was finally seen by another representative on a subsequent visit to whom he confirmed his approval and that he was very happy with what we were doing for him and his family. At that second meeting Mr and Mrs Steer formally executed all of the legal documentation drafted for them and raised no objections or questions regarding the planning they had undertaken. At no point did Mr or Mrs Steer confirm Mr Steer's cancer as being terminal, despite our client care letter asking them to check and clarify our understanding.

Lastly, we would add that Susan Steer and her son have indeed benefited from the planning Don put in place, as should Susan need to go into care, the assets which Don put into trust cannot now be used to pay for her care fees and their son is protected irrespective of her stated intentions of avoidance. Don's desire to ring-fence and protect his assets for his wife and son have been achieved. This was never mentioned on the programme.

Turning to the seminars, we make it quite clear to potential clients in writing, in our slides and verbally during the presentation, that if avoiding care fees is a primary motive then we cannot assist them. Our sales consultant covered this at the end of the seminar when answering questions and categorically reinforced this fact.

Trust planning has numerous benefits and while a client may enjoy many of these benefits, care fee avoidance should not be the motive for planning and while it may, for some, be a side benefit, it can never be guaranteed.

Even the BBC’s own expert, Mary Butler, (a Solicitor for the Elderly) said during the programme “I am not saying that these products in certain circumstances will not work”... this is because they do work and we would add that if done correctly, for the right reasons and at the right time and not to deliberately avoid care home fees it would be difficult to challenge. The Government’s Care and Support Statutory Guidance definition says: “…it would be unreasonable to decide that a person had disposed of an asset in order to reduce the level of charges for their care and support needs if at the time the disposal took place they were fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for care and support.” In conclusion Trusts have been around for hundreds of years and have consistently proved to be an effective tool in tax and inheritance planning.

Finally, we totally agree that many of the companies offering this type of planning are unregulated. In fact, many are untrained and unqualified. However, please note that our employees are highly qualified in their own specialist areas and are individually regulated within their own field of expertise. Our staff include experts qualified in law, accountancy and tax and ongoing technical training and competency is a top priority for the firm.

The Government decided that bodies such as ourselves do not need to be regulated but, we would be happy to be regulated as we strive to meet and exceed all legal requirements.

We have many thousands of satisfied clients who have enjoyed the benefits of comprehensive planning with us. We are not always perfect and we do occasionally fall short of the rigorous standards that we have set for ourselves, but we pride ourselves on the technical accuracy of our advice and the commitment and integrity of our staff who always act in the best interests of the client.

Good to see you back again - forgive me for quoting your entire post, but it does serve to create a permanent record for the future.

I guess what we believe depends on how much faith we put in the people who've posted here, and the BBC, and how much faith we put in Steven Long and his companies.

To help us, perhaps you'd you now answer the questions I put to you earlier (above) after your last post:

Just for the sake of clarity, and completeness, could you elaborate on the following, please:

1 What period does 'in recent weeks' cover, approximately?
2 Was the trustee in question Steven Long?
3 Was the trustee outside the UK?
4 What were the approximate dates of the 'extended period' of absence referred to?

I think we're all more than happy to take an open minded approach to the comments made in this thread (including those that have been removed), and I'm sure you'll agree that the above request for a little more information is not unreasonable.

masonic

UniversalWealthP wrote: »

We consider that the content of the programme presented a very one sided version of events, was misleading and did not show this company or the wide range of professional services it offers in the correct light.

So the BBC did not roll over to your attempts to censor it like MSE did? I consider your heavy handed tactics against those who are trying to have an open and frank discussion here to be deplorable. Seems the BBC has given you a taste of your own medicine. It seems pretty clear to me who is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Right_of_Reply

It seems if any individual or company with their name in the public tries to protect itself from potentially false accusations it is greatly maligned on these forums, as the individuals who hide behind pseudonyms can say what they want but don’t have to defend their accusations. (Including me)

Let me get this right, you are calling the company deplorable for trying to defend itself by actually going to court and having the right of reply before things go into the public domain. We should all be able to challenge what we see as one sided false reporting especially against such a large company as the BBC. Do you see the BBC as the shining light of morality?
You appear more concerned that a company is trying to defend itself with facts than the fact that the BBC are not providing a fair discussion and are in fact pulling the wool over our eyes. They appear to be hiding behind technicalities as they had already planned the show and did not want to let the real facts get in the way of a good story! For example they were prepared to quote the original accusations against Mr Long despite apparently being shown clear evidence that the original claims against Mr Long being unavailable for interview in 2011 were clearly untrue. Surely the fact that Universal was prepared to go to court to defend itself shows Universal must have been confident in their facts.

I would have thought that we would have liked the BBC to look at the evidence independently and to have argued their case with the Judge and then if allowed to still air the program to give an impartial account. If this had happened we could all reasonably have made up our own minds on this. The BBC’s unwillingness to do this does not give any confidence in the impartiality of their show.

masonic

Right_of_Reply wrote: »

It seems if any individual or company with their name in the public tries to protect itself from potentially false accusations it is greatly maligned on these forums, as the individuals who hide behind pseudonyms can say what they want but don’t have to defend their accusations. (Including me)

I'm sure those people who have expressed honest opinions and made factual comments only to be pushed around and censored by this company would be only too happy to engage in a full and frank discussion about the facts. However, this company appears to be attempting to extinguish such discussion and promote its own agenda here without allowing its actions and practices to made known or placed under any scrutiny. I wonder why that is.

Whether people "hide" behind pseudonyms or not, the facts of the matter will bear out in an open discussion. Those who were targeted for sharing information and expressing their honest opinions are not in the habit of knowingly posting factually incorrect statements. Likewise, I am always happy to be corrected or revise my views in the light of new information. So the most effective way for a company to engage with the posters here is not through complaints and threats of litigation.

Let me get this right, you are calling the company deplorable for trying to defend itself by actually going to court and having the right of reply before things go into the public domain.

Presumably that is directed at my comment above. My use of the word deplorable was solely in relation to the actions taken against MSE and its members. So, yes, I do think it is deplorable for a company to believe it should be able to have the right of veto to comments made on a public discussion forum like this one before they are posted, if that's what you are suggesting. And patently ridiculous too, for that matter.

We should all be able to challenge what we see as one sided false reporting especially against such a large company as the BBC. Do you see the BBC as the shining light of morality?

I agree we should all have the right to challenge things, and as I understand it, an opportunity to come on the programme and do just that was afforded by the BBC and declined by this company. Which of course is their prerogative.

So the company representative has come here to challenge it, and I dare say their post will be allowed to stand by MSE, so any suggestion that they have no ability to challenge things here is incorrect.

Similarly, some of the other posters in this thread, including myself, have/will challenge statements made in other posts in this thread. Hopefully our posts will also be allowed to stand, but I am slightly less confident that will be the case.

You appear more concerned that a company is trying to defend itself with facts than the fact that the BBC are not providing a fair discussion and are in fact pulling the wool over our eyes. They appear to be hiding behind technicalities as they had already planned the show and did not want to let the real facts get in the way of a good story! For example they were prepared to quote the original accusations against Mr Long despite apparently being shown clear evidence that the original claims against Mr Long being unavailable for interview in 2011 were clearly untrue. Surely the fact that Universal was prepared to go to court to defend itself shows Universal must have been confident in their facts.

Use of the quote button would have made it clear to whom you are referring when you say "you", but I'll assume it is me.

Like I said to the official company representative, "Seems the BBC has given you a taste of your own medicine." I'm not asserting anything about the BBC's portrayal of things, but if they did try to hide facts and prevent the company from having its say, then that's exactly what happened to the innocent posters in this thread who were trying to help others who had questions related to this company, which is what people do around these parts.

But then again, an opportunity to come on the programme and have its say was afforded by the BBC and declined by the company.

I would have thought that we would have liked the BBC to look at the evidence independently and to have argued their case with the Judge and then if allowed to still air the program to give an impartial account. If this had happened we could all reasonably have made up our own minds on this. The BBC’s unwillingness to do this does not give any confidence in the impartiality of their show.

Legal action and a smokescreen of paperwork was the wrong approach by the company in this case. If that's their knee-jerk reaction when things are not going their way, then I feel sorry for all those who have dealings with them.

Whatever you believe about the BBC's decision not to delay airing the story, the company's unwillingness to come on the programme and defend itself does not give any confidence in their position stated above.

cloud_dog

I think the company's position on the BBC programme and the verbiage post above is simply meaningless words. The rights and wrongs, or moral appropriateness of the scheme in question can be discussed, attacked, and defended ad nauseam, what cannot be defended is how Universal Wealth appears to operate.

We have had a number of posters raise their complaints and concerns on this board, all with similar or common themes, i.e. Trustee unavailable (out of the country; unforeseen circumstances), posters having to engage in excessively long periods of communications (years in some circumstances), posters having to engage legal professionals and incur substantial costs simply to get Universal Wealth to operate and discharge their duties as they are obliged to do, and where they have been paid significant amounts of money to do so.

Latest example:

Deb1million wrote: »

I have had the misfortune to be chasing Universal Group for the last THREE AND A HALF YEARS since my aunt died, and they have used every excuse on the planet as to why they are still holding on to her flat and savings.

UniversalWealthP and Right of Reply have appeared defending the company and pointing their fingers at the big bad BBC and at posters on here who question the honesty of these posts. What about your clients who have been crying out for help?

You plead for open and honest discussion with full visibility of the facts and yet you appear unable to answer simple questions regarding your apparent failure in undertaking and executing simple tasks as expected of a trustee. There are many questions Universal Wealth need to answer but as a starter why not provide answers to these very simply ones; answers that will demonstrate your desire to be open, honest, and sincere:

Doc_N wrote:

1 What period does 'in recent weeks' cover, approximately?
2 Was the trustee in question Steven Long?
3 Was the trustee outside the UK?
4 What were the approximate dates of the 'extended period' of absence referred to?

racey

Is the "Official Company Representative" of Universal Wealth its sole director,
(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)?

metrobus

Thanks guys and the BBC for bringing this companies activities to our attention.