help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust

bank_leper

racey wrote: »

Thanks.
Couldn't see any reference to "Universal Wealth Trust" though.

I assume you’ve got the answers by now but just in case ...

Universal Wealth Preservation
Universal Trustees LLP

Steven Peter Long
Dob: Nov 1966

Spend a few hours reading the thread, it will bring you up to speed.
Sadly.

Glen_Clark

bank_leper wrote: »

My Dad worked hard to better himself and get away from living on the state. He spent years working to make sure that he bought his own home, to ensure that my siblings and I weren!!!8217;t left with huge debts when he died. When my Mum died he and my step Mum (who had done similar) wanted nothing but to protect their joint families. They weren!!!8217;t doing it to avoid care home fees. They were making sure that any future spouse couldn!!!8217;t swoop in and con the family out of the money they had worked hard for. There were contingencies to pay for care should it be needed so it didn!!!8217;t impact on us. They trusted the Longs.

All our parents are now dead.

We only want back the rights to money which was being held in trust for us as it wasn!!!8217;t needed for care homes. We want the clause put on the property without our knowledge removed.

I don!!!8217;t think this is too much to ask.

We have lost 4 very much loved parents (own, plus step parents) and the grief of that alone was hard enough to bear. To now discover that everything our parents worked hard for could be gone is unbearable.

I don!!!8217;t actually care that much about the money, my Dad taught me good work ethic. I had no handouts from him, he helped me occasionally but I had to pay him back.

It!!!8217;s the principle. These ******** poached a fake lifestyle from hard working elderly people. That!!!8217;s what I can!!!8217;t abide. They are no better than scum who break into old people!!!8217;s homes, beat them and steak their savings.

And that!!!8217;s why I am passionately hoping that Steven and Melanie Long, and anyone connected them get their come uppance and suffer slowly, painfully and for a very long time. They are nothing but scum. They have caused injury and upset to customers, they have abused innocent staff who worked for them leaving them out of pocket and struggling financially.

And as for why not just go to a solicitor to arrange the same, they tried it ... solicitors told them to put it in a trust fund! ...! Yeah thanks for that advice!

Well if thats all they wanted they could have just put that in their will.
So I don't know why the solicitor suggested a trust.
Or why they chose not to go with the solicitor who wouldn't claim the trust would enable them to evade care home fees.
And instead chose to go with the con men who did claim the trust would enable them to evade care home fees.

PS: My relative married again when her husband died. The gentleman she married put it in his will that she could live in his house for the rest of his life, then it would be sold and the proceeds divided equally between his child and her child. But now she is in a care home and its sold to pay her care home fees. They are both nice kids and I'm sorry they won't get their inheritance. But would it make it right for someone else to have to pay the care home fees so they can get a windfall they have not earned?
I don't think so.

Glen_Clark

bank_leper wrote: »

It!!!8217;s the principle. These ******** poached a fake lifestyle from hard working elderly people. That!!!8217;s what I can!!!8217;t abide. They are no better than scum who break into old people!!!8217;s homes, beat them and steak their savings.

I suppose they would point out they never broke into anyone's home or beat anyone up.
And argue they didn't steal from your parents, they took it from you.
I want to see them brought to justice and the money paid back.
So lets not lose credibility and score an own-goal by making allegations that are over the top.

don't_get_mad_get_even

At least the long arm of the law is finally around the shoulders of the Longs. Hopefully Suffolk police have all the information they need to get the CPS to prosecute and let the justice process give them what I hope is a long stint inside.
In the meantime our solicitors have applied to remove the Longs as trustees from my late father's trusts - it would be nice to think that this will happen quickly but we are resigned to this taking more time and expense. I hope there will be sufficient funds left in the trusts to make at least some of the bequests that my father left in his will.

At the end of this I also hope that the government take note of the legislative loophole that the Longs and perhaps others have been able to exploit.

Malthusian

Glen_Clark wrote:

PS: My relative married again when her husband died. The gentleman she married put it in his will that she could live in his house for the rest of his life, then it would be sold and the proceeds divided equally between his child and her child. But now she is in a care home and its sold to pay her care home fees. They are both nice kids and I'm sorry they won't get their inheritance.

Chances are quite high that they will still get a significant proportion of their inheritance - i.e. whatever is left from the proceeds after she dies.

I'm assuming that the house itself was held on trust for your relative as life tenant, with the two children to benefit as remainderpeople, and the proceeds of the sale continue to be held by the trust in the same way.

If he wanted to make absolutely certain that the children would get something from the house while still allowing both of them to live in it for the rest of their lives, they could have taken out a joint life equity release policy while he was still alive and given the cash to the children. Of course, that would have put both of them at risk of going into a poorer-quality care home. It sounds like he preferred to prioritise his own needs and that of his wife, quite understandably.

don't_get_mad_get_even wrote: »

At the end of this I also hope that the government take note of the legislative loophole that the Longs and perhaps others have been able to exploit.

The "loophole" here is that a mentally competent adult can give their assets to whomever they wish. If they gift the house they live in into a trust with dodgy people as trustees the Government is not going to stop them. It is not a loophole, it is how property works. There is no chance at all that this "loophole" will be closed.

Contrary to popular belief, the Government does not care, and has never cared, whether people fall for financial scams. This is a corrosive belief because it leads to "this scheme must be legit, otherwise the Government would have shut it down", which is on page 1 of the scammer's playbook.

eskbanker

Malthusian wrote: »

The "loophole" here is that a mentally competent adult can give their assets to whomever they wish. If they gift the house they live in into a trust with dodgy people as trustees the Government is not going to stop them. It is not a loophole, it is how property works. There is no chance at all that this "loophole" will be closed.

Contrary to popular belief, the Government does not care, and has never cared, whether people fall for financial scams. This is a corrosive belief because it leads to "this scheme must be legit, otherwise the Government would have shut it down", which is on page 1 of the scammer's playbook.

I wouldn't disagree with your cynical but accurate views on government's desire to 'protect', but would observe that when enough publicity is generated from sites like this, government will sometimes choose a populist route and intervene (via FCA, etc) - I'm thinking here of the likes of 'simplification' of overdraft charges and the removal of credit card surcharges, both largely resulting from public pressure but ultimately negative for the consumer....

Malthusian

eskbanker wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with your cynical but accurate views on government's desire to 'protect', but would observe that when enough publicity is generated from sites like this, government will sometimes choose a populist route and intervene (via FCA, etc) - I'm thinking here of the likes of 'simplification' of overdraft charges and the removal of credit card surcharges, both largely resulting from public pressure but ultimately negative for the consumer....

Overdraft charges and credit card surcharges were perfectly legal and above board - they weren't scams. The government intervened on overdraft and credit card charges because it affected millions of people and its intervention would get it lots of publicity in the national press. Universal Wealth victims by contrast number a few thousand at most, maybe only a few hundred.

Glen_Clark

Malthusian wrote: »

If he wanted to make absolutely certain that the children would get something from the house while still allowing both of them to live in it for the rest of their lives, they could have taken out a joint life equity release policy while he was still alive and given the cash to the children. Of course, that would have put both of them at risk of going into a poorer-quality care home. It sounds like he preferred to prioritise his own needs and that of his wife, quite understandably.

Of course he could do what he likes with his own house. Having never claimed benefits I am no expert, but from what I have heard, my understanding of it is that if the council calls it 'deprivation of capital' they can assume he still has it for the purpose of claiming benefits.
Certainly, contrary to popular belief, 'cradle to the grave' care is a thing of the past (if it ever existed) and the state will let people starve on the streets. Thats why we have charity night shelters and foodbanks.

Peripatetic

I read about a meeting that Kleyman & Co Solicitors had set up on the 1st June for clients of Universal Wealth Preservation Trust. Unfortunately I couldn't attend but wonder whether anybody else did and could let me know if it was helpful. I am in a position like many others on this thread. My father put his house and some cash in trust with Universal and is now trying to unravel it

don't_get_mad_get_even

Hi. I did attend the meeting with Kleymans. I found it useful and suggest that you contact Shivani@kleymansolicitors.com.