I agree with the comments regarding this post and support them.
I would also highlight some concern about this post. It is on the face of it a query of forum users about a relevant topic, but it is of such a basic nature that it makes me concerned that the poster is about to run away with any newfound knowledge and start advising on the creation of trusts. This would be potentially dangerous to the public.
Should this forum be expected to act as a substitute for reading and studying of the basics? I do appreciate the purpose of this forum as a resource and knowledge sharing platform (from which I benefit and derive great interest), and by its nature it will have users of differing abilities and experience. The question in this post does, however, appear to suggest that the poster is perhaps more interested in looking for quick answers rather than understand the area on which they wish to advise.
Yes, I can confirm that. I was once telephoned by HMRC with a response to a query I had posted on the forum. The lady was very helpful but I was rather spooked by the fact they were looking at it.
I understand your concern about the questions being so basic, however it would be not practical for me to take this knowledge and to commercialise it. My situation is I have had non-res grandparents and am taking a SWW course on will drafting; however, this is more for fun and to understand some of the structures I am a beneficiary of. My business is property investment but wanted to do a wills course and then a trust course to understand fully how my family affairs are structured and if I could improve upon the structure when I am more aware.
If we take the question of how is a trust created, e.g. deed and £10 note, I find it curious that one does not have to go to a register like companies house straight away, There is no way I could make money from this as I doubt many people would be happy to have a trust without understanding all the tax implication the reliefs the anniversary charge act. I assure you all questions, no matter how basic are mine alone, and I greatly appreciate the help people are giving me
I for one greatly appreciate Lee Prior’s generous candour in responding so positively to Duncan Watson’s concern, which I have silently shared for some time. In my view the boilerplate T&Cs of this forum are, understandably, too defensive of the providers and insufficiently explicit about the legitimate expectations of contributors and readers. No doubt we do all value a light touch from the moderators, to avoid patronising authoritarian censorship (see Law Society Gazette Online).
Contributors have had their say about the recent blatant self-promotion of another contributor and only the moderators can take that further if they think appropriate. In my view the civility points in the FAQs are not adequate i.e. “do not reply” and contributors having to make their points in terms is regrettable and unseemly. The practice that I and so many condemned is not formally interdicted and self-restraint is so egregiously absent from the modern Cult of the Self that is presumption is naive in the extreme.
Lee Prior has done a service to all those who might risk improper reliance on postings here. Unfortunately it may become buried in the specific thread. The FAQs say “This is a public forum, and search engines index these discussions”. In the information age a universal disclaimer is probably not feasible but more focussed T&Cs might at least warn members who join the forum or aspire to.
As a cynic (summa cum laude) I see no foolproof way of preventing those who would consult the NHS Patient Access website as a preliminary to performing neurosurgery on themselves in their garden shed. And some of my most lucrative clients were (ching! ching!) hopelessly addicted to self-help and false economy. We cannot make every contribution subject to the rubric “Don’t try this at home”.
