help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust

jimjames · 14 October 2018 at 8:08PM

Quite shocking really that all the signs were there. All it takes are lawyers to intimidate the sites hosting any content that could alert people to the situation

Doc_N · 14 October 2018 at 8:11PM

dunstonh wrote: »

And once again, we have another thread where regular posters warned about the issues in 2014 but MSE deleted or edited their posts and warned posters not to continue posting about those things. And once again, like other threads, the company is found wanting and consumers being potentially out of pocket.

For a consumer site, MSE doesn't really like protecting consumers.

You do make a very good point there, for those of us who remember all too well what happened.

If somebody from MSE had properly taken on board what was really going on and done something about it instead of just going along with muzzling those who were sounding alarm bells a lot of people might not have lost a lot of money.

Not a good outcome for MSE, was it.

Malthusian · 15 October 2018 at 10:08AM

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 · 15 October 2018 at 1:18PM

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 · 15 October 2018 at 2:19PM

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 · 15 October 2018 at 2:20PM

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 · 15 October 2018 at 2:57PM

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 · 16 October 2018 at 2:48PM

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 · 16 October 2018 at 9:52PM

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 · 17 October 2018 at 8:45AM

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.

help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free