help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust

Malthusian

In fairness to MSE, even after all the "text removed by MSE Investigator" there was still more than enough information left on the thread to deter anyone who Googled the company name looking for a second opinion.

The first two replies stated very clearly that the supposed care fee avoidance mechanism could be invalid and that professional advice should be taken, ColdIron pointed out in post #4 some distinctly dodgy text from Universal Wealth's own FAQ, post #7 pointed out that they are unregulated and there is no redress if it goes wrong...

Anyone who read what was left and still handed over their assets to Univeral Wealth Trust was quite clearly determined to lose their money, and it would have made no difference if MSE had left whatever they deleted.

If MSE really wanted to be responsible for people losing their money, they could have asked happyhero whether they wanted to provide their full name and address and potentially get sued by Universal Wealth, or have this entire thread deleted.

jimjames

dunstonh wrote: »

I
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've had exactly the same over the years. Funnily enough I've never had solicitor letters for making comments over the service from British Gas, Npower or TSB. The only ones have been companies that have subsequently been found to have issues of one sort or another.

Glen_Clark

Malthusian wrote: »

In fairness to MSE, even after all the "text removed by MSE Investigator" there was still more than enough information left on the thread to deter anyone who Googled the company name looking for a second opinion.

The first two replies stated very clearly that the supposed care fee avoidance mechanism could be invalid and that professional advice should be taken, ColdIron pointed out in post #4 some distinctly dodgy text from Universal Wealth's own FAQ, post #7 pointed out that they are unregulated and there is no redress if it goes wrong...

Anyone who read what was left and still handed over their assets to Univeral Wealth Trust was quite clearly determined to lose their money, and it would have made no difference if MSE had left whatever they deleted.

If MSE really wanted to be responsible for people losing their money, they could have asked happyhero whether they wanted to provide their full name and address and potentially get sued by Universal Wealth, or have this entire thread deleted.

Exactly.
There were enough warnings left in place.
Britains libel laws are such that Lord Archer cost the Daily Star over a million pounds (at a time when the average house price was £25K ) just for truthfully stating that Lord Archer gave money to a working girl. (I suspect that was the reason nobody dared print the truth about Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG.)
Why should we expect someone else to take that kind of risk on our behalf when it isn't necessary?

Malthusian

The fault here still lies with the dodgy companies making legal threats rather than with MSE.

UK defamation law is clear that if you run a website (like MSE) and you receive a legal threat over something that somebody else posted on your website, your responsibility is to contact the person who posted it and give them the opportunity to give their full name and address and take the flak. If they demur or can't be contacted, you either remove it or you are legally liable for it as if you posted it yourself.

I wouldn't volunteer to be held legally responsible for something that dunstonh or jimjames or bail-in said about a dodgy unregulated scheme, even if I agreed with it, and I don't expect MSE to be legally responsible for something I've said either.

If this Universal Wealth thread had been posted in 2018, I think MSE would have simply deleted the whole thing. As they have done over the past couple of years with threads on Asset Life plc, MJS Capital etc.

Malthusian

And just to head off a couple of points which people may be thinking:

"But they wouldn't actually sue if it was true" - sure they would. Dodgy unregulated schemes have a bottomless pit of other people's money to bring frivolous lawsuits with to discourage adverse coverage.

"But even if they did sue they'd never win" - sure they would. Google Privilege Wealth v David Marchant.

The issue in that case is not that Privilege Wealth won - that was inevitable as Marchant turned down the fight. The issue is that a British judge went so far as to say that Privilege Wealth was "clearly not a fraud" when, after Privilege collapsed a year later, it took the liquidator all of a couple of months to prove that it probably was exactly that. For whatever reason, the British judiciary has a raging boner for dodgy people who bring SLAPP cases against individuals.

Dodgy oligarchs and unregulated schemes pay their lawyers more than journalists and amateurs (often hiring QCs - bottomless pit of investors' money, remember), which in the eyes of a judge - remember that a judge is an ex-lawyer in a silly costume - makes them the good guys.

Doc_N

Twopints wrote: »

BBC article

Thanks for the info Twopints - an interesting programme, and some old footage of the elusive Steve Long too.

Here's an iPlayer link for anyone interested:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bnk6xq/inside-out-east-15102018

jimjames

Doc_N wrote: »

Thanks for the info Twopints - an interesting programme, and some old footage of the elusive Steve Long too.

Here's an iPlayer link for anyone interested:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bnk6xq/inside-out-east-15102018

Cheers. I'm not sure about the advice at the end of it to speak to a lawyer though. Surely anyone should contact Suffolk police as a first port of call?

Reaper

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Britains libel laws are such that Lord Archer cost the Daily Star over a million pounds (at a time when the average house price was £25K ) just for truthfully stating that Lord Archer gave money to a working girl.

I'm going off topic but that's not entirely correct. He succeeded because he had an alibi for the night the newspaper said he was seeing a prostitute, so the court finding in his favour was fair enough.
Subsequently it turned out he had manufactured the alibi, paying people to lie for him for which he went to jail and was forced to repay the Daily Star.

Malthusian

I'm going off topic but that's not entirely correct. He succeeded because he had an alibi for the night the newspaper said he was seeing a prostitute, so the court finding in his favour was fair enough.

He succeeded because in a his-word-against-hers case, the judge believed a crooked politician and his dodgy friend over a prostitute. The overriding point is that the Star printed something which was perfectly true, and they still had to pay record damages over it, thanks to a judge who couldn't have been more biased if he'd worn a "Justice For Jeffrey" badge on his robes.

"Remember Mary Archer in the witness-box. Your vision of her probably will never disappear. Has she elegance? Has she fragrance? Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance? How would she appeal? Has she had a happy married life? Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband Jeffrey?" This vomitous statement about Archer's wife is up there with "Privilege Wealth is clearly not a fraud" in the list of idiotic things said by judges, and should dispel the illusion that a judge is some kind of wise, impartial seeker of the truth rather than an ex-lawyer in a silly costume.

It is best to assume that if you are sued for defamation in the UK by someone who is rich and powerful you are probably going to lose, regardless of whether it is true or not, unless you are more rich and powerful. (Dodgy unregulated investment schemes qualify as rich and powerful, due to their bottomless pit of other people's money.)

jimjames wrote: »

Cheers. I'm not sure about the advice at the end of it to speak to a lawyer though. Surely anyone should contact Suffolk police as a first port of call?

Suffolk police aren't going to be able to unwind whatever trust arrangements Universal Wealth has locked up your money in. That's a job for a regulated solicitor.

bank_leper

MoneySavingExpert.com Insert:

DC Kett has asked us to add a note to this post giving the best contact number and email address for this enquiry: 01992 533 555 or email ardentenquiries@ersou.pnn.police.uk

Back to the original post:



Long shot ... but does anyone know the name of the conveyancing firm Universal Trustees LLP were using?

... and has everyone who is tied up in this mess seen this:
You need to confirm your details with
DC Graham Kett
Regional Asset Recovery Team
Eastern Region Special Operations Unit (ERSOU)
Eastern ROCU
PO Box 725, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 9HZ
{details removed}
Twitter: @ersourocu
Website: https://www.ersourocu.org.uk