help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust

Peripatetic

I did email Shivani@kleymansolicitors.com sometime ago but didn't get a reply. Could you tell me whether there were a lot of people at this meeting and perhaps some information as to what solutions to our problems they provided

IanManc

Doc_N wrote: »

This is not an advertising forum for solicitors touting for custom.

Have you obtained permission from the siteowners to post?

There have been repeated references to another firm of solicitors on this thread, including contact details, so perhaps others could reasonably conclude that there wasn't a problem in their joining in.

Not all solicitors are bent ambulance chasers. They do help people and they undergo extensive training so that they're capable of doing so.

And no, I don't have any connexion with either firm of solicitors mentioned in this thread, or any knowledge of them.

Doc_N

IanManc wrote: »

There have been repeated references to another firm of solicitors on this thread, including contact details, so perhaps others could reasonably conclude that there wasn't a problem in their joining in.

Not all solicitors are bent ambulance chasers. They do help people and they undergo extensive training so that they're capable of doing so.

And no, I don't have any connexion with either firm of solicitors mentioned in this thread, or any knowledge of them.

Couldn't agree more - there are some excellent solicitors around, as well as some hopeless ones and some thoroughly corrupt ones.

There is a protocol, though, for posts from businesses, and the post above clearly breaches it. The other posts to which you refer are almost entirely from ordinary MSE members (apparently) and not from the firms themselves. There is one exception, and that firm has MSE approval to post.

MSE is not a place for firms to sell their wares, and that includes solicitors.

IanManc

Doc_N wrote: »

Couldn't agree more - there are some excellent solicitors around, as well as some hopeless ones and some thoroughly corrupt ones.

There is a protocol, though, for posts from businesses, and the post above clearly breaches it. The other posts to which you refer are almost entirely from ordinary MSE members (apparently) and not from the firms themselves. There is one exception, and that firm has MSE approval to post.

MSE is not a place for firms to sell their wares, and that includes solicitors.

Yes, I see your point.

Not_out_running

Earlier this month we discovered that our parents had put their property in a Steven Long trust. They now have a solicitor acting for them, starting with trying to change the named trustees.

We would like to know how the other people who started sooner with similar processes are getting on, as so far their solicitor has had attempts to make contact with Mr Long or his companies rebuffed, and they don't have access to their full Trust documentation.

From wandering around the internet I've seen at least four firms of solicitors boasting that they can help their clients get out of Universal Wealth trust problems - but are there really any happy ex-Universal Wealth victims yet, or are solicitors just hoovering up collections of clients?

Malthusian

Not_out_running wrote: »

From wandering around the internet I've seen at least four firms of solicitors boasting that they can help their clients get out of Universal Wealth trust problems - but are there really any happy ex-Universal Wealth victims yet, or are solicitors just hoovering up collections of clients?

The first sign that Universal Wealth clients had sought professional legal advice and that legal action was in hand came just under two months ago. [STRIKE]My understanding is that removing the Longs or Universal Wealth as trustees from these trusts will require court action and a ruling from a judge. It's likely to take several months just to get a court date. If Steven Long decides to string it out, it could take years before Universal Wealth is removed as trustees. So no, I think it is extremely unlikely that there are any happy ex-Universal victims yet.[/STRIKE] *edit*: See the post from Barker Gotelee below who is in a much better position than me.

The short version of this story is that the Universal Wealth victims gave away an asset (to a trust controlled by Universal Wealth / Steve Long) and now regret doing so and want it back. That will always be an uphill struggle if the recipient chooses not to co-operate.

le_loup

Malthusian wrote: »

The short version of this story is that the Universal Wealth victims gave away an asset ……………

…………. so that I could pay for their care costs rather than their children!

Doc_N

le_loup wrote: »

…………. so that I could pay for their care costs rather than their children!

.........except that the scheme didn't work anyway because it was marketed as a scheme to avoid care home fees, which ipso facto made it fail under the deprivation of assets rules applied by local councils.

Glen_Clark

le_loup wrote: »

…………. so that I could pay for their care costs rather than their children!

all of whom claim it was done without their knowlege......
But whoever the biggest crooks are I would still like to see the money paid back.
So their mums and dads can go in nice care homes of their own choice, and I don't have to pay for them

Glen_Clark

Doc_N wrote: »

.........except that the scheme didn't work anyway because it was marketed as a scheme to avoid care home fees, which ipso facto made it fail under the deprivation of assets rules applied by local councils.

So whoever gave their money to these scammers is not the sharpest tool in the shed and is going to need our help to get it back. Otherwise we will be losers too if we end up paying their care home fees