{"id":533494,"date":"2026-03-13T10:34:25","date_gmt":"2026-03-13T10:34:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/533494\/"},"modified":"2026-03-13T10:34:25","modified_gmt":"2026-03-13T10:34:25","slug":"selling-defective-trusts-to-the-elderly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/533494\/","title":{"rendered":"selling defective trusts to the elderly"},"content":{"rendered":"

MP Estate Planning is an unregulated advisory firm using an extensive social<\/a> media<\/a> campaign to sell expensive \u201casset protection trusts\u201d to elderly homeowners, often of relatively modest means.<\/p>\n

The pitch is simple: put your home into a trust and you can avoid inheritance tax, care home fees, divorce claims and creditors. Our investigation, drawing on the expertise of over a dozen specialist lawyers and tax advisers, found that the claims are false \u2013 and may leave families facing large tax bills and, ultimately, cause a complex and expensive probate process. <\/p>\n

We were disappointed but not surprised to find trusts being missold \u2013 that\u2019s been going on for years<\/a>. What we found was much worse \u2013 a firm that operates on the edge of legality, and may step over the line. A series of misrepresentations as to what it is and what it does, and advice to clients that goes beyond \u201cmerely wrong\u201d into shocking negligence. And when we asked MP Estate Planning for comment, they failed to provide any response to our technical criticisms, and provided answers to other points that we consider to have been intentionally misleading. <\/p>\n

The length of this report reflects the seriousness of what our investigation found.<\/p>\n

The problems with MP Estate Planning<\/p>\n

It all starts with a lack of expertise. The firm\u2019s founder, Mike Pugh, says<\/a> he is an \u201cestate planning lawyer\u201d. He isn\u2019t. The firm\u2019s website says it employs \u201cexperienced lawyers<\/a>\u201d. That is also untrue. We believe nobody at MP Estate Planning has any legal, tax or accounting qualifications.<\/p>\n

The lack of expertise doesn\u2019t stop the firm marketing its business very aggressively. It has over 400 videos on social media<\/a> pushing an alarmist message: \u201cif you own anything, it can be taken from you\u201d. Pugh says their mission is \u201cquite literally to save the middle class from being completely wiped out in the UK\u201d. The solution is simple: \u201cevery home in a trust\u201d \u2013 and they\u2019re pushing this proposition to elderly people with assets of as little as \u00a3150,000:<\/p>\n

The firm\u2019s videos and website make a variety of striking claims:<\/p>\n

You put your house and other assets in trust. They\u2019re then outside your estate for inheritance tax purposes.<\/p>\n

There are no adverse tax consequences of this.<\/p>\n

The trust will reduce probate costs.<\/p>\n

Your house won\u2019t be assessed in determining whether you have to contribute towards care home fees (should they be needed).<\/p>\n

You can financially support your children after you die, but if they divorce then their spouse will have no claim on their assets.<\/p>\n

Assets in the trust are safe from your creditors, and can\u2019t be touched if you go bankrupt.<\/p>\n

All these claims are false. The Society of Will Writers has published guidance<\/a> telling its members not to make these kinds of claims.<\/p>\n

Our investigation uncovered multiple serious problems with MP Estate Planning\u2019s claims and business practices.<\/p>\n

Lifetime trusts are poor tax planning for most people. They often result in more inheritance tax because the spouse exemption and residence nil rate bands aren\u2019t available to trusts. <\/p>\n

The MP Estate Planning structures we reviewed have no material tax benefit and likely trigger a series of unnecessary tax bills.<\/p>\n

One experienced adviser told us that the tax claims made by MP Estate Planning were so egregiously bad that they looked like fraud (although most of our team believe the firm is just unqualified and reckless).<\/p>\n

They publish hundreds of videos which include multiple legal errors, often referring to US law concepts that have no equivalent in the UK. Their website is full of false claims and appears to be largely AI generated. <\/p>\n

The firm claims the backing of an eminent KC, James Kessler, who told us he\u2019s never given it, and in fact told MP Estate Planning to stop using his name. <\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning claim their \u201chead of legal\u201d, and Mike Pugh\u2019s mentor, is Dr Paul Hutchinson, who \u201ctrained with Kessler for 20 years\u201d. In fact MP Estate Planning have never had a \u201chead of legal\u201d, or indeed any legally qualified staff at all. Dr Hutchinson told us he has never met Mr Kessler, and has never had any dealings with MP Estate Planning.<\/p>\n

It appears that the firm is drafting property trusts for its clients, despite not employing qualified lawyers. If so, that\u2019s potentially a criminal offence<\/a>. And we\u2019ve seen trust deeds that include very basic but highly significant errors.<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh\u2019s previous firm, Maplebrook Wills Ltd, went bust owing \u00a31.7m to HMRC \u2013 an extraordinarily large amount for a small will-writing business. Mike Pugh\u2019s actions are currently being investigated by the company\u2019s liquidator.<\/p>\n

We therefore believe MP Estate Planning is misselling trusts to people who probably do not need them and who are unprepared for the legal and tax complexities these structures create. Bad inheritance tax planning usually remains hidden until the taxpayer dies, decades after the planning was put in place. It is the taxpayer\u2019s grieving children who are then left to pick up the pieces.<\/p>\n

A prominent Scottish law firm<\/a> failed in 2021 after selling unsuitable \u201cfamily protection trusts\u201d. Its pitch was similar to MP Estate Planning \u2013 but at least it was regulated, and so its clients had the prospect of recovering their loss. MP Estate Planning is completely unregulated, and anyone let down by its trusts will have no recourse at all.<\/p>\n

We will be referring the firm to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for carrying on reserved legal activities without authorisation. We hope that HMRC investigates the firm for failing to disclose tax avoidance schemes. <\/p>\n

Technical terms in this article<\/p>\n

Trust<\/p>\n

A legal arrangement where the legal ownership of assets (held by trustees) is separated from the beneficial ownership (those entitled to benefit).<\/p>\n

Settlor<\/p>\n

The person who creates a trust and puts assets into it.<\/p>\n

Trustee<\/p>\n

The person (or company) holding legal title to trust assets. They must manage the trust according to the trust deed and the law.<\/p>\n

Beneficiary<\/p>\n

The person or people entitled to benefit from the assets held in a trust.<\/p>\n

Bare trust<\/p>\n

A simple trust where the beneficiary has an immediate and absolute right to both the capital and income of the trust.<\/p>\n

Discretionary trust<\/p>\n

A trust where the trustees have the power to decide how and when to distribute income or capital among a defined group of beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

Settlor-interested trust<\/p>\n

A trust where the settlor (or their spouse\/civil partner) can still benefit from the trust assets. This has major tax implications, such as the denial of certain tax reliefs.<\/p>\n

Gift with reservation of benefit (GWROB)<\/p>\n

An anti-avoidance rule where someone gives away an asset but continues to benefit from it (like giving away a house but still living in it). For inheritance tax purposes, the asset remains in their estate.<\/p>\n

Nil rate band<\/p>\n

The threshold below which an estate pays 0% inheritance tax. Currently \u00a3325,000 in the UK.<\/p>\n

Anniversary charge \/ 10-year charge<\/p>\n

A periodic inheritance tax charge of up to 6% applied to the value of relevant property trusts (like discretionary trusts) every 10 years.<\/p>\n

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)<\/p>\n

A tax on the profit when you sell or dispose of an asset that has increased in value. Transfers into trusts often count as a disposal for CGT purposes.<\/p>\n

Hold-over relief<\/p>\n

A tax relief that allows the deferral of Capital Gains Tax when giving away certain assets (like business assets or transfers into trusts), passing the potential tax liability to the recipient.<\/p>\n

Deliberate deprivation of assets<\/p>\n

When someone intentionally reduces their assets (e.g., by putting a house in a trust) to qualify for state-funded social care. Local authorities can assess them as if they still owned the assets.<\/p>\n

DOTAS (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes)<\/p>\n

Rules requiring promoters of certain tax avoidance schemes to disclose them to HMRC, giving HMRC early warning of avoidance strategies.<\/p>\n

Shrink<\/p>\n

The red flags<\/p>\n

Before we present the products sold by MP Estate Planning, and the reasons why they don\u2019t work, there are numerous red flags that in our opinion indicate this is not a business to be trusted.<\/p>\n

Deceptive claims about their expertise<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh says<\/a> he\u2019s an \u201cestate planning lawyer\u201d:<\/p>\n

He isn\u2019t<\/a>. Mike Pugh worked<\/a> as a Will writer after emigrating from Canada to the UK. He set up MP Estate Planning in 2023, but has no UK legal, tax or accounting qualifications. It\u2019s an offence to hold yourself out as a solicitor<\/a> or barrister<\/a>, but the term \u201clawyer\u201d is not legally protected. We nevertheless regard it as highly misleading for someone with no legal qualifications to claim to be a lawyer. <\/p>\n

The MP Estate Planning website said they are a firm of \u201cexperienced lawyers<\/a>\u201d \u2013 this is untrue. We can\u2019t identify anyone at MP Estate Planning who has any legal, tax or accounting qualifications. Neither any of the staff nor the firm itself is regulated. When we asked MP Estate Planning about this we didn\u2019t get a response; they just changed the website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the, fairly typical, CV of one of their representatives: he worked in sales until nine months ago, and now claims to be an \u201cestate planning consultant\u201d who can \u201cspecialise in delivering advanced, compliant and highly tailored estate planning solutions\u201d:<\/p>\n

\"Experience Estate<\/a><\/p>\n

In reality he\u2019s still working in sales, just with a different job title. <\/p>\n

We can see how MP Estate Planning hires and trains its salespeople from a recent recruitment advertisement<\/a>:<\/p>\n

It takes three to five years<\/a> to train to be a chartered accountant and two years<\/a> to train to be a chartered tax adviser. MP Estate Planning tell their salespeople they can earn \u00a320,000 per month after three weeks\u2019 training. That would be less concerning if all they did was sales; but they tell potential clients they\u2019re \u201cconsultants\u201d, and we\u2019ve seen multiple cases where the salespeople claim to be qualified to give advice.<\/p>\n

Nobody else involved<\/a> appears to have any relevant qualifications. Dan Irwin, MP Estate Planning\u2019s \u201chead of property\u201d was previously a director of Safe Hands Plans Ltd<\/a>, a pre-paid funeral plan business which collapsed in 2022, with 46,000 people losing most of their money. Two individuals who ran the business are currently being prosecuted<\/a> for<\/a> fraud<\/a>. There is no suggestion Mr Irwin was involved in the fraud, and we don\u2019t know if the fraud was underway when Mr Irwin ceased to be a director in April 2018.<\/p>\n

The website says they work with a solicitors firm called Feakes & Co \u2013 but the firm told us<\/a> that, whilst they provide some \u201ccorporate advice\u201d to MP Estate Planning, their role \u201cdoes not include designing or drafting trust structures or other such documents for them or their clients\u201d. <\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning told us that \u201cWhere a client\u2019s circumstances require specialist or regulated advice, we refer or signpost to appropriately qualified external professionals\u201d. However, there\u2019s no sign that the trust deeds we reviewed were drafted by an external firm \u2013 the only firm mentioned on them is Feakes & Co, apparently because they undertake trust registrations.<\/p>\n

Deceptive claims about their legal team<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh describes his \u201chead of legal\u201d in numerous videos. There isn\u2019t one. MP Estate Planning has never had a lawyer on its team:<\/p>\n

We asked Pugh about this. He responded:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou raise the point about references in video material to a \u201chead of legal\u201d. This refers to the involvement of legally trained professionals within the wider advisory ecosystem we work with, rather than suggesting a formal internal role that does not exist.\u201d<\/p>\n

That is a very unconvincing explanation of what we would characterise as a lie.<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh often claims an association with James Kessler KC<\/a>, often rated<\/a> as one of the country\u2019s leading private client advisers, and Dr Paul Hutchinson<\/a>\ud83d\udd12, a respected Will writer (with a PhD in Law), who appears to be the man he\u2019s saying is his (non-existent) \u201chead of legal\u201d:<\/p>\n

First video: \u201cWe use the Kessler 15th edition, James Kessler KC. I\u2019ve actually had emails with him allowing me to use the precedents. He\u2019s a lovely man. He\u2019s the number one guy for taxes and trusts worldwide, period. I\u2019ll just throw a shout out to my mentor, Dr. Paul Hutchinson, who I\u2019ve worked closely with for 10 years. Paul trained under Kessler for 20 years. So we\u2019re pretty comfortable with our technical capabilities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second video: \u201cAt MP Estate Planning UK, our head of legal is a doctor of law specialising in taxes and trusts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr Kessler is the lead author of a well known practitioners\u2019 textbook<\/a> on Wills and trusts, which includes trust and Will precedents. He has never met Dr Hutchinson, much less trained him for 20 years. The claim that MP Estate Planning had some kind of special permission to use the precedents is false \u2013 and that plus other uses of his name<\/a>\ud83d\udd12 sufficiently alarmed Mr Kessler that he includes a warning on his website<\/a>:<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning (UK)<\/p>\n

This company have been marketing themselves as Kessler Will UK and as providing \u201cKessler Wills\u201d. This has been done without James\u2019 permission.<\/p>\n

James has no association with this company. He does not endorse this company or any of their so-called \u201cKessler Wills\u201d. He does not vouch for any product offered by this company.<\/p>\n

On 10 November 2025 the company has, through its directors, entered into formal undertakings including not to use or refer to the name Kessler and\/or to use or refer to \u201cKessler Wills\u201d.<\/p>\n

If anyone is aware of them using the name Kessler or the phrase \u201cKessler Will\u201d, or holding themselves out as being associated or endorsed by James, please let us know at the email address on this website<\/p>\n

In all cases, James strongly recommends you take advice only from solicitors or accountants who are qualified and regulated.<\/p>\n

Dr Hutchinson told us he used to provide in-house training for Pugh\u2019s previous firm Maplebrook Wills. He lent the firm some money, and became a shareholder<\/a> to try to recover it \u2013 but then Maplebrook Wills went bust and he was never repaid. He says he\u2019s had nothing to do with Mr Pugh since:<\/p>\n

I wish to have no association with Mr Pugh or his company and do not consider myself his mentor\u2026 for the record I have never met Mr Kessler let alone \u201ctrained under him\u201d. I have his texts as reference material, but that is it.\u201d<\/p>\n

We can\u2019t find any evidence that MP Estate Planning has a \u201chead of legal\u201d, but it certainly isn\u2019t Dr Hutchinson.<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning continued pushing out marketing containing falsehoods even when they knew this report was about to be released. This was sent to their mailing list the day before we published:<\/p>\n

\"\"\/<\/a>\"\"\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Every senior politician does not have a trust. Trusts are poor tax planning for most people. So it is therefore unsurprising that the List of Ministers\u2019 Interests<\/a> and the Register of Members\u2019 Interests<\/a> show only a small number of politicians declaring family trusts. We cannot know for sure, but we are very sceptical that MP Estate Planning has any senior politician as a client.<\/p>\n

These claims \u2013 particularly the \u201chead of legal\u201d and \u201ctrained under Kessler for 20 years\u201d were more than slips of the tongue, or the typical exaggeration of a salesman. They were concrete claims, made repeatedly. Mr Pugh surely knew the claims were was false. It is not far-fetched to suggest that a criminal offence<\/a> may have been committed here.<\/p>\n

A deceptive website<\/p>\n

The MP Estate Planning website has several elements we regard as deceptive.<\/p>\n

First, the claimed associations and awards are untrue and misleading.<\/p>\n

\"fo<\/a><\/p>\n

We spoke to the Chartered Insurance Institute. They\u2019ve never heard of Mike Pugh or MP Estate Planning, and neither are members of (or have any association) with the Chartered Insurance Institute. <\/p>\n

Pugh told us:<\/p>\n

Some of our colleagues are members or graduates of the Chartered Insurance Institute include Mr Zubair Abad.<\/p>\n

There is no formal relationship with the Institute itself. We have amended the wording on our website to more accurately reflect this.<\/p>\n

Zubair Abad does not appear to be a member<\/a> of the CII. It is possible he has CII qualifications<\/a>. The wording on the website now says MP Estate Planning is \u201cAligned with or members of\u201d the CII and other organisations. That still seems to us to be misleading. <\/p>\n

Second, the claimed award from \u201cLegal Directorate\u201d was phony. Legal Directorate is a \u201cpay for play\u201d directory which uses AI to generate fake reviews and fake awards, with listings of \u201cbest firms\u201d that (with respect to the firms listed) are not credible:<\/p>\n

\"LEGAL<\/a><\/p>\n

At some point someone paid for an entry\/award for Mike Pugh\u2019s old firm, Maplebrook Wills. When he set up MP Estate Planning Ltd, it \u201cinherited\u201d the fake award, but Legal Directorate never changed the url \u2013 it\u2019s still \u201chttps:\/\/legaldirectorate.co.uk\/company\/maplebrook-wills-441174401555-weston-super-mare\/<\/a>\u201c, with reviews that are likely fake\/AI generated.<\/p>\n

Since we asked about this, the \u201cLegal Directorate\u201d badge disappeared from the MP Estate Planning website.<\/p>\n

Poor understanding of English law and UK tax<\/p>\n

The MP Estate Planning videos and websites show a very limited understanding of UK tax and the English law of trusts. Here\u2019s Mike Pugh last month:<\/p>\n

\u201cNever transfer your assets into your kids\u2019 names, especially real estate. Here\u2019s why.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s say you bought a home many years ago for \u00a3300,000, and now it\u2019s worth \u00a3900,000.<\/p>\n

If you transfer or dispose of the property, you could trigger a capital gains charge, and your children might be responsible for paying a charge on the \u00a3600,000 of gain.<\/p>\n

There are workarounds. For example, if your children move in and live with you, then you may be able to transfer the property to them without triggering the capital gains tax, as long as you continue to qualify for the main residence relief or private residence relief.<\/p>\n

An easier solution than living together is to set up a trust and put your house into the trust and name your adult children as trustees and beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

If you want to protect your home and see it safely get to your kids, click on the link in the description to watch my free master class on how to put assets into trust in the UK.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is nonsense from start to finish. If it\u2019s your home, then the main residence exemption usually applies \u2013 so there\u2019s no capital gains tax if you give the property to your kids. If it wasn\u2019t your main residence then there would be CGT, but on you and not your kids. Having the children live with you wouldn\u2019t change the result in any way.<\/p>\n

When we wrote to MP Estate Planning for comment in advance of publication (see below<\/a>), their explanation for this video was that \u201cthe editing of the short-form clip conveyed the point poorly and could lead to confusion\u201d. This is not credible. The statements above are complete propositions expressed in full sentences; they are not the product of an ambiguous or misleading edit. We put this to Mr Pugh; we didn\u2019t receive a response.<\/p>\n

It is hard to see any explanation for this video other than that Mr Pugh had no understanding of basic UK tax principles. <\/p>\n

A series of errors<\/p>\n

There are other basic errors and false claims in the many videos published by MP Estate Planning.<\/p>\n

A video on cryptocurrency claims<\/a> \u201ccertain reforms by the Labour Party may lead to increased tax guidelines on digital assets. This could impact how they are taxed during transfers and inheritances\u201d \u2013 but there are no planned or announced changes to the UK tax treatment of cryptocurrency. <\/p>\n

Another video says that if you declare a bare trust then the assets are still considered part of your estate and your estate pays tax on the income<\/a>. That\u2019s false: the beneficiary of a bare trust is usually considered the owner, and pays tax on the income. <\/p>\n

And in another video, Mike Pugh says there\u2019s stamp duty if parents gift their home to their children<\/a> \u2013 there isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

There are lots of small errors like this that we regard as \u201ctells<\/a>\u201d \u2013 signs that Pugh and his colleagues don\u2019t understand their subject. Then there are some very large errors \u2013 the firm seems to believe that English law is similar to US law, when it very much is not. <\/p>\n

Confusion between UK tax and US tax<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh frequently talks about \u201crevocable trusts\u201d and \u201cirrevocable trusts\u201d. These are US tax terms, which no competent UK adviser would use:<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t a one-off. Multiple videos on MP Estate Planning\u2019s YouTube channel, and dozens of pages on their website, discuss revocable and irrevocable trusts. In this video, Pugh claims that revocable trusts avoid probate and are \u201ccommonly used in estate planning\u201d. They do not and they are not. Indeed American citizens who move to the UK are usually advised to terminate revocable trusts, because of the uncertainty as to how the UK system characterises them<\/a>:<\/p>\n

In this video, Pugh says that \u201crevocable and irrevocable is more to do with tax status\u201d and that you can \u201cclose\u201d an irrevocable trust with an \u201cadvancement of the trust period\u201d. None of this has any meaning in English law.<\/p>\n

And this, from \u201cfrequently asked questions<\/a>\u201d on the MP Estate Planning website, suggests the firm is actually setting up \u201crevocable trusts\u201d for their clients:<\/p>\n

\"Can<\/a><\/p>\n

We asked MP Estate Planning about this. Mike Pugh told us:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou have identified instances where legacy or internationally sourced educational material has used terminology more commonly associated with US trust law.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where those terms have appeared on UK-facing pages, we agree that they are not the correct terminology for English law and we are reviewing and updating older content accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n

This appears to be untrue. This wasn\u2019t \u201clegacy or internationally sourced material\u201d. It was Mike Pugh speaking in their own videos, for a UK audience, mixing up UK and US concepts in the same video.<\/p>\n

A website full of \u201cAI slop\u201d<\/p>\n

The MP Estate Planning website has hundreds of pages containing false claims about English law and UK tax:<\/p>\n

This page<\/a> says the first step of probate is to submit the Will to a probate court. There is no \u201cprobate court\u201d in the UK \u2013 you apply for probate using a form or online<\/a>. Courts only become involved in contested cases. A dozen<\/a> pages<\/a> on the MP Estate Planning website used to refer to probate court, in the context of UK probate. Since we wrote to MP Estate Planning, these have been changed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A page on \u201casset protection trusts<\/a>\u201d says that life interest trusts and interest in possession trusts don\u2019t trigger immediate inheritance tax charges \u2013 that is incorrect<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This page on \u201csettlor interested trusts<\/a>\u201d is extremely lengthy, and long on generic waffle (\u201csettlor interested trusts occupy a distinct position, offering flexibility and control.\u201d) but its list of tax issues omits the key point that a settlor interested trust is usually something that tax planning tries to avoid because the trust settlor remains taxable on trust income, and it\u2019s a gift with reservation.<\/p>\n

This page on \u201chow to put your house in a trust in the UK<\/a>\u201d discussed using a \u201crevocable trust\u201d \u2013 but that\u2019s a US concept that has no equivalent in English law or UK tax law. Multiple<\/a> pages<\/a> discuss \u201crevocable trusts\u201d. Since we wrote to MP Estate Planning, they\u2019ve been rewritten<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This page about \u201cinheritance tax allowances for married couples<\/a>\u201d talks about the IRS $15m gift tax exemption. This page on \u201cHow much can you gift each year without paying inheritance tax<\/a>\u201d says the \u201cThe annual gift exemption allows you to gift up to $18,000 per recipient per year\u201d. There is of course no gift tax in the UK. But the MP Estate Planning website has dozens of pages<\/a> warning about gift tax.<\/p>\n

Similarly, multiple pages<\/a> discuss the concept of an \u201cattorney-in-fact\u201d. It\u2019s not a concept in English law.<\/p>\n

This page about deeds of variation<\/a> goes on for pages, talks about \u201cgift tax\u201d and repeats meaningless phrases like \u201cseveral notable cases in UK law highlight the importance of Deed of Variation regulations\u201d (there are no such regulations).<\/p>\n

A page on \u201cPreventing Nursing Home Takeover<\/a>\u201d said \u201cOptions for funding care and government support, like Medicaid, might be available\u201d. Medicaid<\/a> is a US programme that can cover medical costs for people on low income. It is, obviously, not available to anyone in the UK. The new page is fixed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There are then many pages full of misinformation, many with little to do with tax or trusts. A page about dementia<\/a>, for example, incorrectly describes the laws around incapacity, and includes an entirely invented quote attributed to the Alzheimer\u2019s Society.<\/p>\n

This page<\/a> says that if a UK resident gifts assets to a spouse living abroad, they may need to report the gift to HMRC.\u00a0There is no such rule.<\/p>\n

Then more mundane errors: a page entitled \u201cHow to legally avoid inheritance tax: 2026 edition<\/a>\u201d says business property relief and agricultural property relief provide 100% relief \u2013 that was no longer correct after the 2024 Budget<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There are over a thousand articles on various aspects of tax and trusts, and over three million words \u2013 and it\u2019s full of errors. You can see a complete list here<\/a> and here<\/a> \u2013 note how the edit times are often only a minute apart (and you can also see, at the top of the second files, all the edits made after we approached MP Estate Planning in March 2026). <\/p>\n

The obvious explanation: the website is mostly AI-generated \u2013 it\u2019s what\u2019s often called \u201cAI slop<\/a>\u201c.<\/p>\n

We expect the website was created in this way to maximise MP Estate Planning\u2019s Google hits for people researching tax and trusts. It is, however, deeply irresponsible, because it\u2019s providing people with false information.<\/p>\n

If an accounting or law firm behaved in this way then we expect there would be serious regulatory sanctions. MP Estate Planning, however, is entirely unregulated.<\/p>\n

A mysterious business failure<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning is not Mike Pugh\u2019s first Will writing venture. Before that, he incorporated a company called Maplebrook Wills Ltd<\/a> in 2017. It provided similar services to MP Estate Planning, as well as selling a \u201cfranchise opportunity<\/a>\u201d to use its software, brand and templates in your own business.<\/p>\n

Maplebrook Wills never appears to have had the success of MP Estate Planning. The business filed \u201cmicro-entity\u201d accounts for 2019<\/a>, 2020<\/a>, and 2021<\/a>. Its final filed accounts in 2021 showed total net assets of just \u00a385,841. It then failed to file accounts for 2022, Pugh resigned as director (replaced by someone who appears to be his wife), and the company entered liquidation.<\/p>\n

The liquidators\u2019 initial 2023 statement of affairs<\/a> made this look like a fairly ordinary small-company collapse: about \u00a3169,000 was owed to creditors, including about \u00a378,000 to HMRC. But the later documents suggest there may be much more to the story.<\/p>\n

Most strikingly, the liquidators\u2019 2025 report<\/a> says that HMRC had now submitted a claim for \u00a31,735,520. That is an astonishing figure for a small company. The report treats that claim as unsecured, not preferential<\/a>. If so, that means it is not for VAT, or PAYE income tax or national insurance (which rank as secondary preferential debts in an insolvency). The \u00a31.7m must, therefore, be something else \u2013 most likely corporation tax and\/or very large HMRC penalties. <\/p>\n

We don\u2019t understand how so small a company could run up a \u00a31.7m tax liability; to owe that much in standard corporation tax alone, a business would need to generate roughly \u00a39 million in profit (and the accounts suggest this business\u2019s profits were less than a tenth of that figure). Whatever the explanation, something appears to have gone badly wrong. And, at the same time, the preferential debts went up to \u00a3176,807.<\/p>\n

The impression that something went very wrong is supported by the liquidator\u2019s report that the director and bookkeeper have failed to cooperate with investigations into the company\u2019s final trading period:<\/p>\n

As previously reported<\/a>, my statutory investigations into the company\u2019s affairs remained ongoing. Creditors are aware that these investigations concern the movement of the company\u2019s assets and liabilities since the last set of formal accounts was prepared, as well as transactions undertaken during the company\u2019s final trading period.<\/p>\n

Throughout the reporting period, I have continued to make extensive efforts to determine whether the transactions identified during the company\u2019s final trading period were made in the ordinary course of business. I have also continued enquiries into the movement of assets and liabilities during the same period to ensure that such movements can be accurately accounted for.<\/p>\n

Despite repeated requests issued to the director and the company\u2019s bookkeeper, I have not received sufficient information to progress these enquiries.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, following the period under review, I have formally instructed my Solicitors, Freeths LLP, to assist in obtaining the information required to advance my statutory investigations. Freeths LLP are currently reviewing the material available and will advise me on the appropriate next steps in due course.<\/p>\n

I will provide creditors with a further update in my next report.<\/p>\n

That is unusual language for what was supposedly a straightforward small-business failure. The liquidators are investigating transactions in the final trading period, movements in assets and liabilities after the last filed accounts, and have had to instruct solicitors because they say they have not received enough information from the director and the bookkeeper. That does not tell us what happened. But it does suggest the liquidators believe there are serious unanswered questions about the company\u2019s affairs.<\/p>\n

We can only speculate about the detail. One notable fact is that the Maplebrook franchise business<\/a> appears to have been transferred to a new company, Maplebrook EDGE Network Ltd<\/a>, incorporated before Maplebrook Wills Ltd went into insolvent liquidation. It is possible the liquidators are examining whether assets were moved out of the company for less than full value. But that is just a possibility.<\/p>\n

Currently we have no explanation why a small company with roughly \u00a390,000 of initial non-tax unsecured creditors should suddenly owe \u00a31.7m to HMRC.<\/p>\n

The central mystery is a simple one: how did a company that looked, on paper, like a small will-writing business end up facing an HMRC claim of \u00a31.7m?<\/p>\n

This due diligence report<\/a> from business intelligence firm Tech City Labs<\/a> contains further information on MP Estate Planning, Maplebrook Wills, and other connected companies and individuals.<\/p>\n

Accounts that make no sense<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s MP Estate Planning\u2019s balance sheet<\/a> for its first full year of trading, 2024:<\/p>\n

\"MP<\/a><\/p>\n

And here\u2019s the balance sheet for 2025<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"Mp<\/a><\/p>\n

The 2024 figures here bear no relation to the figures in the 2024 accounts:<\/p>\n

Fixed Assets: The original 2024 accounts show \u00a33,179. The 2024 comparative column in the 2025 accounts shows \u00a3209.<\/p>\n

Current Assets: The original 2024 accounts report \u00a3410,277. The 2024 comparative in the 2025 accounts reports \u00a3267,565.<\/p>\n

Creditors (due within one year): The original 2024 accounts list \u00a3404,280. The 2024 comparative in the 2025 accounts lists \u00a3153,548.<\/p>\n

Total Net Assets\/Equity: The original 2024 accounts state the company had \u00a39,176 in net assets. The 2025 accounts state the 2024 net assets were \u00a3114,226.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t a rounding issue, formatting issue, or taxonomy issue. These are just fundamentally different numbers. The accounts weren\u2019t restated, there\u2019s no prior year adjustment<\/a>, and no note explaining the reason for the changes.<\/p>\n

We have no explanation for this.<\/p>\n

The 2024 accounts were filed using the Companies House online service (probably by Mike Pugh or someone at MP Estate Planning). The 2025 accounts were filed using professional accountancy software by \u201cLC Accounting\u201d. We believe it\u2019s this small firm in Somerset<\/a> \u2013 we wrote to them asking for comment, but didn\u2019t hear back.<\/p>\n

The pitch and the reality<\/p>\n

What is a trust?<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning, and many other unregulated firms, sell trusts as a magic box that makes your assets disappear from the taxman and your creditors. The reality is that trusts are much less mysterious, and much less able to achieve these objectives.<\/p>\n

A trust is a legal arrangement for holding assets. The key idea is that legal ownership (whose name is on the title) can be separated from beneficial ownership (who is entitled to benefit). <\/p>\n

Every trust has:<\/p>\n

Trustees: the people (or a company) who hold the assets legally and make decisions. Trustees must act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and follow the trust deed. They can be personally liable if they get it wrong.<\/p>\n

Beneficiaries: the people who can benefit from the trust (for example, by receiving income or capital, or by living in a property).<\/p>\n

A settlor: the person who creates the trust and usually provides the assets.<\/p>\n

A trust deed: the document setting out who the trustees and beneficiaries are, and what powers and rules apply.<\/p>\n

Trusts are used for many legitimate reasons (for example, to manage assets for children, to provide for a vulnerable person, or to control how family wealth is distributed). But they come with real-world consequences: trustees have duties, paperwork and often ongoing administration.<\/p>\n

Diagram connections<\/p>\n

From Settlor to Trustees (Label: Transfers assets)
\n From Trustees to Trust Assets (Label: Legal Ownership)
\n From Trustees to Beneficiaries (Label: Beneficial Ownership)<\/p>\n

Newspaper headlines<\/a> often give the impression that trusts avoid tax. However, for most normal people, trusts are not good tax planning vehicles. Precisely because of their historic association with tax avoidance, successive Parliaments have built an extensive set of rules around them:<\/p>\n

A gift into trust is a \u201cchargeable lifetime transfer<\/a>\u201d \u2013 inheritance tax at 20% of the value of the property put into trust (after the \u00a3325k nil rate band).<\/p>\n

The trust is then liable to an \u201canniversary charge<\/a>\u201d of up to 6% on its value (above \u00a3325k) every ten years.<\/p>\n

If you \u201cgive away\u201d an asset but keep the benefit (for example, you keep living in your home rent-free), tax law will often treat you as still owning it, whatever labels are used in the documents. <\/p>\n

You can be hit with a capital gains tax charge when you put assets into trust.<\/p>\n

The trust itself is subject to capital gains tax and income tax, and its distributions to beneficiaries are also taxed.<\/p>\n

This is a very simplified summary of what is a very complex and frequently-changing set of rules.<\/p>\n

The pitch<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning UK Ltd<\/a> was founded by Mike Pugh, a Canadian who came to the UK in 2017. He claims to have a solution to \u201cALL THE MODERN THREATS\u201d. Meaning: inheritance tax, care home fees, divorce and creditors:<\/p>\n

\"whe<\/a>\"About If<\/a><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a complete client proposal from MP Estate Planning:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

There are four separate tax claims here:<\/p>\n

You can put assets in trust but avoid the 20% entry charge and 6% anniversary charge.<\/p>\n

You can give assets to your children but still live in your house, and avoid the \u201cgift with reservation of benefit\u201d (GROB) rules.<\/p>\n

Another loophole lets you give your house to your children, and still live in it, thanks to a 1999 case.<\/p>\n

And you can give your rental properties to your children, but get them to \u201cgift\u201d the rent back to you, so you still live off the income.<\/p>\n

Our starting point is that lifetime trusts are poor tax planning for most people. They often result in more inheritance tax because the spouse exemption and residence nil rate bands aren\u2019t available to trusts.<\/p>\n

The MP Estate Planning structures we reviewed are, however, worse than that: they have no tax benefit and likely trigger a series of unnecessary tax bills.<\/p>\n

One experienced adviser told us that the tax claims made by MP Estate Planning were so egregiously bad that they looked like fraud.<\/p>\n

The following sections look at each of these claims. We put our criticisms to MP Estate Planning and they told us they\u2019d respond \u2013 they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

1. \u201cPresto magic\u201d to avoid the 6% anniversary charge<\/p>\n

The inheritance tax changes<\/a> in the 2024 Budget created a huge demand for inheritance tax planning. That\u2019s caused an influx of unregulated firms offering inheritance tax solutions that are \u201ctoo good to be true\u201d.<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning\u2019s pitch of \u201cevery home in a trust\u201d has the immediate problem of the 20% entry charge and 6% anniversary charge every ten years, each on value over \u00a3325,000.<\/p>\n

But Mike Pugh has a solution: trustees can simply shift the excess over \u00a3325k out of the trust and, \u201cpresto magic\u201d there\u2019s no tax to pay:<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve seen how they implement this:<\/p>\n

\"NOW<\/a><\/p>\n

This does not work:<\/p>\n

An obvious point: all the claimed advantages of the trust: inheritance tax avoidance, protection against divorce and care home fees, are now limited to the first \u00a3325k of value. That\u2019s pretty pointless, given that the first \u00a3325k of value is exempt from inheritance tax anyway. We expect most of MP Estate Planning\u2019s clients have houses that are either worth more than that, or will likely be worth more than that in the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s unclear how this is supposed to work as a practical matter; it\u2019s even possible the trust is void for lack of certainty.<\/p>\n

The fact the settlor can receive back value from the trust means<\/a> that it\u2019s classified as a \u201csettlor interested trust\u201d, and so there\u2019s an up-front capital gains tax charge on the disposal of the property to the trust (unless main residence relief applies). Hold-over relief<\/a> is unavailable. Any income from the trust (for example rental income) is taxable in the hands of the parent\/settlor<\/a>.<\/p>\n

When and if the value of the trust property exceeds \u00a3325k then the way the trust is drafted means there is a reallocation from Fund A to Fund B, and a transfer of beneficial ownership to the parent\/settlor. That\u2019s probably a capital gains tax disposal<\/a> at market value<\/a>. So any rise in value over \u00a3325k, even just as property prices rise over time, may trigger a 24% CGT charge<\/a> (although how this would work in practice is not clear).<\/p>\n

One of the main purposes of the trust is to avoid the 6% anniversary inheritance tax charge. This is achieved by the Fund A and Fund B mechanism, which we regard as contrived and abnormal. MP Estate Planning promote this structure. It follows that MP Estate Planning had an obligation under the Disclosure Of Tax Avoidance Schemes rules<\/a> to disclose the structure to HMRC. We understand that they did not.<\/p>\n

This trust could well mean that the parents lose the main residence capital gains tax exemption (because they no longer own the house). That\u2019s a serious tax downside which MP Estate Planning never mentions.<\/p>\n

We discussed this structure with a leading tax KC \u2013 he said he thought the trust was \u201ca poorly drafted mess and would cause more problems than it solved\u201d.<\/p>\n

2. Avoiding GROB with a school uniform<\/p>\n

The most obvious inheritance tax planning is to give your house and other valuable assets to your children \u2013 provided you live for seven more years, the assets are outside your estate<\/a>.<\/p>\n

You are perfectly entitled to do this if you are really making a gift. But if the gift is just on paper, and you continue to benefit from the property, then your \u201cgift\u201d is ignored for inheritance tax purpose thanks to the \u201cgift with reservation of benefit<\/a>\u201d rules. The classic example is: I give my house to my children, but I continue to live in it. It\u2019s a \u201cgift with reservation of benefit\u201d and disregarded.<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning say there\u2019s an easy solution:<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh is referring to the rule in section 102B(4)(a) Finance Act 1986<\/a> \u2013 it was introduced specifically for the situation where an adult child lives with a parent to look after them:<\/p>\n

\"102B<\/a><\/p>\n

The key elements<\/a> are that there is a gift of an undivided interest in land (e.g. \u201cparent gives half the property to the child\u201d), the donor and donee occupy the land and the donor doesn\u2019t receive a benefit from the gift. <\/p>\n

The first thing MP Estate Planning get wrong is that they don\u2019t know what an undivided interest in land is. Here\u2019s their attempt to create one:<\/p>\n

\"\u2014\u2014\u2014 _<\/a><\/p>\n

One person cannot hold as \u201ctenants in common\u201d. It\u2019s a hopeless failure to get within section 102B.<\/p>\n

Even when they get that right, MP Estate Planning have a bizarre idea of what the word \u201coccupy\u201d means:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

In other words, they think that a child will \u201coccupy\u201d the land for this purpose if they visit their parents occasionally, keep belongings in the house (such as a school uniform), and have access to the property and a key. That is contrary to the normal human meaning of \u201coccupy\u201d. Some advisers interpret the section as permitting children to live elsewhere primarily, provided they visit most weekends and holidays. However MP Estate Planning\u2019s view that you \u201coccupy\u201d a property if you visit it a few times a year goes far beyond anything our team has seen.<\/p>\n

We therefore view this planning as well outside mainstream tax planning; we believe HMRC would challenge it if they became aware of it, and we don\u2019t think the taxpayer would have any material prospect of success.<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning suggest the planning is more effective if the child receives the gift and then lives with the parents. That is obviously correct \u2013 indeed the planning works if the child lives with the parents (and in our view that would continue to be the case if, for example, the children were at university but retained a bedroom at their parents\u2019 house, and stayed there for some weekends and most holidays). However the problem is that children tend to leave, and at that point<\/a> the reservation of benefit rules will apply.<\/p>\n

We believe one of two things are happening. Either MP Estate Planning has misread \u201coccupy\u201d in s102B(4)(a) as \u201cable or entitled to occupy\u201d (the test in a preceding section<\/a>), and don\u2019t realise that section 102B(4)(a) requires actual occupation. Or this is an attempt to fool HMRC with a school uniform.<\/p>\n

One experienced adviser described it to us as \u201cutter nonsense\u201d. Another, a tax KC with trusts tax expertise, said \u201cit doesn\u2019t look like they\u2019ve read the legislation\u201d.<\/p>\n

There is a further even more obvious problem. We\u2019ve seen a case where MP Estate Planning advised that the \u201coccupy\u201d strategy worked to prevent a gift with reservation of benefit where property was put in trust. It cannot. Section 102B(4)(a) requires that the \u201cdonee\u201d occupy the property. When property is declared on trust then the \u201cdonee\u201d is the trust, and a trust can\u2019t occupy anything. This point is usually well<\/a>\u26a0\ufe0f understood<\/a> by advisers.<\/p>\n

3. Using a 1999 licence loophole that doesn\u2019t exist<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning claim to have found another loophole, and one which has existed since 1999:<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh is very vague here, but we\u2019ve seen documents where Estate Planning claim that you can put your home into a trust, exclude yourself as a beneficiary, but still carry on living there under a \u201ctrustee licence\u201d. They say this means there is no \u201cgift with reservation of benefit\u201d.<\/p>\n

We saw an email to a prospective client in which an MP Estate Planning employee said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe design allows the settlor to retain occupation under a trustee licence, not a beneficial right \u2014 ensuring no \u2018gift with reservation\u2019\u2026<\/p>\n

No rent or benefit is reserved.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is a hopeless argument. The gift with reservation rules look at whether you have given away the property whilst still \u201cenjoying<\/a>\u201d it. The legal form used \u2013 lease, licence, or anything else \u2013 is entirely irrelevant<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There is a straightforward, well\u2011known way to make a gift of a home effective while you keep living there: you pay the new owner a full market rent for the rest of your life. The legislation expressly allows for this. MP Estate Planning\u2019s pitch is the opposite: they say there is a \u201ctrustee licence\u201d and \u201cno rent\u201d. If that is what happens in real life, it is hard to see how the arrangement can be anything other than a reservation of benefit. <\/p>\n

The 1999 case they refer to is Ingram v IRC<\/a> (1999). The case is nothing to do with licences vs leases (there is a nice explanation of Ingram here<\/a>), but in any event Ingram was effectively overriden<\/a> by legislation<\/a> in 1999.<\/p>\n

Quite aside from not working, the structure has the significant downside of losing the parents\u2019 main residence capital gains tax exemption.<\/p>\n

There may again be an obligation for MP Estate Planning to disclose the scheme to HMRC under DOTAS; we understand that they have not done so.<\/p>\n

A tax KC we spoke to described MP Estate Planning\u2019s approach as \u201cbaffling\u201d, saying \u201cI have no idea what they think this can achieve\u201d.<\/p>\n

4. Gifts that ignore an anti-avoidance rule<\/p>\n

In principle it\u2019s easy to avoid inheritance tax: just give your assets to your children. But there\u2019s an obvious problem: most retired people who have assets live off the proceeds of the assets.<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning say you can have your cake and eat it: put rental properties into a trust, but still receive the rent from the properties:<\/p>\n

\"Income<\/a>\"Gift<\/a><\/p>\n

The idea is simple: the trust mandates the rental income to the beneficiaries (the children) and they pay tax on it, and then give the money back to their parents.<\/p>\n

And MP Estate Planning say that, as long as there\u2019s no written agreement, it\u2019s fine:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf there is any hint that there is a written arrangement in place, the planning will potentially fall foul of the associated operations provisions (IHTA 1984 s268).\u201d<\/p>\n

This is very wrong.<\/p>\n

The \u201cassociated operations<\/a>\u201d rules allow HMRC to treat a series of connected transactions and steps as a single arrangement when determining whether a transfer of value (like the gift of rental properties) has taken place.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the definition:<\/p>\n

\"268<\/a><\/p>\n

There is no requirement in the legislation, caselaw or HMRC<\/a> guidance<\/a> that the \u201coperations\u201d in question are in writing (and HMRC give an example in their guidance<\/a> where successive gifts are subject to the rules). <\/p>\n

In HMRC v Parry<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that, applying Macpherson<\/a>, the associated operations rules may apply if steps form part of and contribute to a scheme intended to confer a gratuitous benefit. Whether such a scheme exists is a question of fact, and may be established by evidence showing how the steps were intended to operate together; it does not require a formal written arrangement. <\/p>\n

In this case there is clearly a scheme: the gift of the properties and the return of the income are clearly intended to operate together. This, after all, is what MP Estate Planning are selling. We therefore think it\u2019s reasonably clear the \u201cassociated operations\u201d rules will apply, so that for inheritance tax purposes the gift and the return of income would be analysed together as a single scheme.<\/p>\n

The effect is that the arrangement must be analysed as a single scheme, so that (for inheritance tax purposes) the parents continue to benefit from the rental income. The \u2018gift with reservation of benefit\u2019 rules will, therefore, immediately bite. The consequence is that the full capital value of the properties will be treated as still belonging to the parents\u2019 estate when they die, and heavily taxed. The structure therefore fails in a rather messy, entirely pointless, and highly expensive manner.<\/p>\n

High risk landlord tax planning<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning seems to be trying to move into general tax planning for landlords, and are adopting some planning that we would characterise as extremely high risk.<\/p>\n

A slide from an MP Estate Planning podcast<\/a> is suggesting that a landlord holding properties directly could form a partnership for a year, then incorporate the partnership, and have no capital gains tax or stamp duty:<\/p>\n

\"lf<\/a><\/p>\n

The idea appears to be that the landlord first transfers their properties into a newly-created partnership \u2013 so, for example, if they own property with their spouse, the married couple are the partners in the partnership. They run that partnership briefly, and then transfer the partnership business to a company. The promoters claim that this avoids capital gains tax, stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax.<\/p>\n

This planning is extremely high risk. <\/p>\n

In principle a partnership can in some circumstances incorporate its real estate business without stamp duty land tax \u2013 but if there is a scheme of transactions<\/a> to establish the partnership and then incorporate then the section 75A anti-avoidance rule<\/a> means that SDLT will likely apply. If someone is obtaining the advice in this slide from MP Estates then it will be reasonably clear there was a prior arrangement. Waiting one year, or five years, makes no difference.<\/p>\n

The capital gains tax planning could in principle succeed \u2013 there is potentially incorporation relief<\/a> on the transfer of a business to a company. However it is a technical and difficult relief which normally requires the landlord to be carrying on a genuine property business, not merely holding investment properties, and can be hard to apply where the property is mortgaged. HMRC are scrutinising incorporation relief claims at the moment<\/a>, and the law is about to change<\/a> to require incorporation relief claims to be filed with HMRC.<\/p>\n

We would suggest landlords carefully consider whether the tax and other benefits of incorporating justify the risk of high capital gains tax and stamp duty land tax charges. A competent tax adviser will always explain the level of risk and the worst case downside. When an adviser doesn\u2019t do this, in our view it raises a large red flag.<\/p>\n

Saving probate costs<\/p>\n

Elderly people are often worried about the future costs of probate. Mike Pugh says they should be, and his trusts can solve the problem:<\/p>\n

\u201cBy putting your largest asset into a trust, you can help to reduce future probate costs, as probate\u2019s often geared on the size and complexity of the estate. <\/p>\n

If your house doesn\u2019t form part of the estate, it doesn\u2019t form part of the price analysis.\u201d<\/p>\n

In our view the opposite is the case: the complexity caused by MP Estate Planning\u2019s trusts will greatly add to the cost of probate. That would be the case even if the trusts were correctly structured and drafted \u2013 but they are not. We are aware of one case where the heirs of an MP Estate Planning client had to engage a KC at great cost to resolve the difficulties MP Estate Planning had caused.<\/p>\n

The Society of Will Writers tells its members<\/a> not to make this claim:<\/p>\n

\"2)<\/a><\/p>\n

Divorce protection<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning heavily markets their trusts as a way that can financially support your children after you die, but if your children divorce then their spouse will have no claim on their assets:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe divorce rate in the UK is 42%. What if your child gets a divorce? Your child\u2019s future Mr. or Mrs. Wrong could walk out with half your life savings if your assets are not in a trust. Don\u2019t leave money to children. Leave it to a trust. A trust will never get a divorce. A trust is the only thing we have that will make money stick to blood\u201d.<\/p>\n

We spoke to barristers and solicitors specialising in chancery law, family law, and nuptial agreements, and they all expected the trust would fail to achieve this.<\/p>\n

Divorcing spouses have been successful<\/a> in arguing that an ex-spouse\u2019s ability to benefit from a trust is a matrimonial asset (even where it\u2019s a discretionary trust) and should be part of the divorce settlement. Courts can and do make orders reallocating trust assets<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The decided cases have involved trusts where the trustees were genuinely independent, and beneficiaries could therefore argue that they weren\u2019t necessarily going to have access to the trust assets. In the MP Estate Planning trusts we reviewed, the beneficiaries are also the trustees \u2013 the trusts are therefore highly vulnerable to attack in divorce proceedings. They\u2019re simply part of the \u201cproperty and other financial resources<\/a>\u201c of the child, and part of the \u201cmatrimonial pot\u201d in the same way as any other asset. The arrangement achieves nothing.<\/p>\n

The courts often don\u2019t need to award trust assets to a spouse \u2013 they can simply adjust the allocation of other assets to reflect the expected value of a trust interest (although this \u201cjudicial encouragement\u201d doctrine has limits<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Society of Will Writers tells its members<\/a> not to make this claim:<\/p>\n

\"6)<\/a><\/p>\n

Bankruptcy protection<\/p>\n

Mike Pugh promises that trusts will protect your estate from insolvency (as well as divorce and care home fees; more on that below):<\/p>\n

\u201c
So what happens if you do not set up a trust?<\/p>\n

Well, if you own anything, it can be taken from you.<\/p>\n

If you don\u2019t own it, it can\u2019t be taken from you. And that\u2019s what a trust does.<\/p>\n

A trust removes you as the sole legal owner of an item. Therefore, you can\u2019t lose it in a future divorce or to care fees or to taxes or litigation or bankruptcy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similarly, their October 2025 proposal<\/a> lists \u201cProtection against future Bankruptcy\u201d as one of the primary benefits of the \u201cMP Estate Protection Plan\u201d.<\/p>\n

This is all variant of the \u201cdeed in the drawer\u201d structure that\u2019s been used for centuries. As one judge summarised it<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe phenomenon of the \u201cdeed in the drawer\u201d is one that is now frequently encountered. X appears to be the owner of a property, and people lend to him or otherwise deal with him on the footing that he owns it. But if X becomes bankrupt or the subject of enforcement proceedings a deed is produced which shows that in truth he holds the property upon trust for somebody else. In some cases these deeds are simply not authentic. In other cases they are authentic, but simply not noted in any public register.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is misleading. First, for almost all the elderly people MP Estate Planning are targeting, bankruptcy is not something they realistically should be worrying about (the bankruptcy of their children is a more reasonable concern; but that\u2019s not the claim made in the above video). <\/p>\n

Presenting bankruptcy as a \u201cmodern threat\u201d is scaremongering. But if someone does go bankrupt, it is absolutely not the case that they \u201ccan\u2019t lose\u201d property if it\u2019s in a trust:<\/p>\n

Gifts into a trust will be set aside<\/a> if made within two years of your bankruptcy, or five years if you were insolvent at the time. <\/p>\n

A gift made at any time can be set aside<\/a> if a court is satisfied that the gift was made for (amongst other things) the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of a person who is making, or may at some time make, a claim against him. <\/p>\n

Given the explicit marketing claims made by MP Estate Planning, it would be difficult to argue that protecting assets from creditors was not a primary purpose of setting up the trust.<\/p>\n

The Society of Will Writers tells its members<\/a> not to make this claim:<\/p>\n

\"9)<\/a><\/p>\n

Care home costs<\/p>\n

The rising cost of social care is a significant financial challenge for local authorities, and now accounts for 40% of all local authority spending<\/a>. To try to control this, almost all<\/a> local authorities only cover the cost of social care for people with assets of less than \u00a323,250<\/a>. It has been politically challenging<\/a> to find a better solution. In the meantime, firms like MP Estate Planning market trusts as a solution to avoid having to pay for social care. The idea is to reduce your assets to below \u00a323,250, or at least make sure your house never forms part of those assets.<\/p>\n

There are rules in the Care Act which disregard any steps people take to avoid these rules deprive themselves of assets. MP Estate Planning appears to have not read these rules.<\/p>\n

In this video, Mike Pugh says people who\u2019ve been diagnosed with a serious illness should put their property into trust, and that will stop local authorities assessing them to make a contribution if they later require long term care.<\/p>\n

He for some reason starts talking about the Insolvency Act (which is irrelevant):<\/p>\n

\u201cSo let\u2019s remember that the CARE Act states that only if there\u2019s a foreseeable need for care would you be crossing any lines\u2026<\/p>\n

\u2026 <\/p>\n

Let\u2019s clear up the misunderstandings around deliberate deprivation. <\/p>\n

The deliberate deprivation stems from the Insolvency Act. It is criminal to try to hide assets from creditors. That\u2019s a criminal offense. And so if you\u2019re going to go bankrupt under the Insolvency Act, you\u2019re not allowed to place assets into a trust.<\/p>\n

Here, what we\u2019re talking about, however, is a potential future care element. That means there are no creditors today. You don\u2019t owe any money for care, you\u2019re not in care, and there\u2019s no foreseeable need for care. So that means you are welcome to place your property in the trust now.<\/p>\n

The statute has a simple purpose test<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"Notional<\/a><\/p>\n

The statutory test is not \u201cforeseeable\u201d. That word is taken from the statutory guidance<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"12)<\/a><\/p>\n

This is just making the point that foreseeability is relevant when determining what the \u201cpurpose\u201d of a transaction was. We don\u2019t believe the guidance anticipates a trust structure being sold specifically to avoid paying care charges. The courts in practice<\/a> determine \u201cpurpose\u201d from surrounding circumstances. In the view of Care Act specialists we spoke to, it would be reasonable for a local authority to decide that someone who\u2019d bought the MP Estate Planning structure had \u201cdeprived themselves for the purpose of decreasing the amount that they may be liable to pay towards the cost of meeting their needs for care and support\u201d. Local authorities could obtain disclosure<\/a> of MP Estate Planning\u2019s advice in order to establish this. <\/p>\n

They\u2019d be aided in this by the statutory guidance<\/a>, which gives putting assets into trust as a specific example of \u201cdeprivation of assets\u201d:<\/p>\n

\"Has<\/a><\/p>\n

Some local authorities have expressly identified \u201clifetime trusts\u201d (like those created by MP Estate Planning) as examples of asset deprivation. It\u2019s notable that the people selling these trusts are almost always unqualified and unregulated, whilst actual qualified solicitors<\/a> warn against them<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It is therefore quite wrong for MP Estate Planning to confidently suggest it\u2019s all about \u201cforeseeability\u201d, and ignore both the wording of the statute and the references to trusts in guidance:<\/p>\n

\"Protection<\/a>\"Pro's \u20acte<\/a><\/p>\n

This is a particularly egregious error because the video above flashes onto the screen a clip from guidance from Age UK<\/a>, which makes clear that it\u2019s fundamentally the intention behind a disposal which is relevant:<\/p>\n

\"4<\/a><\/p>\n

The Society of Will Writers tells its members<\/a> not to make this claim:<\/p>\n

\"1)<\/a>\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

The trust defaults the mortgage<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning claim that you can put a property into trust without telling your mortgage lender<\/a>. This is false. Most standard residential mortgages contain strict covenants prohibiting the borrower from transferring interests in the property (including beneficial ownership) without the lender\u2019s express written consent.<\/p>\n

As UK Finance told us when we investigated another trust structure in 2023<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cTransferring ownership of a property into a trust without informing your lender and seeking their consent would most likely be a breach of a mortgage\u2019s terms and conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning go further, and claim you can mortgage a property that\u2019s already in a trust:<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThe property can be taken out of the trust, mortgaged, and then put back into the trust\u201d<\/p>\n

This is very poor advice.<\/p>\n

Taking the property out of trust doesn\u2019t fix the fundamental problem that most mortgage terms prohibit transferring ownership of the property.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s worse than that. There are now potentially two capital gains tax events (the trust disposing of the property to the parents, and the parents disposing of it back into the trust). If the value of the trust is over \u00a3325,000 then pulling the house out triggers an IHT exit charge. Then, when they put the house back into the trust after getting the mortgage, it triggers a new 20% IHT entry charge (on the value over \u00a3325,000). Their \u201csimple\u201d workaround could easily cost the client hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax every time they want to fix their mortgage rate.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a nonsensical explanation we saw from MP Estate Planning:<\/p>\n

\"*<\/a><\/p>\n

The \u201cequitable value\u201d is not a legal concept. The mortgage amount and the market value are almost always different. The lender is not the \u201clegal owner\u201d of the property. A real estate law specialist we spoke to concluded that whoever wrote this has no understanding of mortgages.<\/p>\n

Incompetent advice<\/p>\n

We have seen a series of badly drafted documents and incompetent responses from MP Estate Planning personnel:<\/p>\n

We saw one trust where a mother was declaring a trust with her daughter as a trustee and discretionary beneficiary. The trust document listed the daughter as the settlor. When challenged on this, the adviser at MP Estate Planning didn\u2019t appear to understand the difference between a settlor and a trustee.<\/p>\n

An MP Estate Planning adviser did not understand that the fact value could pass back to the settlor<\/a> made it a settlor-interested trust. He responded that \u201cAny tax related matter should be dealt with by an accountant\u201d: but no accountant was involved when they established the trust.<\/p>\n

We also saw one trust deed with one of the worst drafting errors we\u2019ve seen:<\/p>\n

\"\u2014<\/a><\/p>\n

Under the \u201cExclusion of Settlor and Spouse\u201d there should be a clause preventing the settlor and their spouse ever benefiting from the trust. This is necessary to prevent the settlor interested trust rules applying, causing (amongst other effects) an up-front capital gains charge. But instead someone accidentally duplicated the text of the next clause (\u201cApplicable Law\u201d) into \u201cExclusion of Settlor and Spouse\u201d. That\u2019s a serious error, because it means the trust likely will be a settlor interested trust.<\/p>\n

And, as noted above, we saw another deed where MP Estate Planning tried to create ownership as tenants in common, and failed (because they didn\u2019t realise that requires two or more people):<\/p>\n

\"\u2014\u2014\u2014 _<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s believe of our team that this kind of error is most likely caused by people with no legal qualifications drafting complex legal documents. Drafting trusts over land is a \u201creserved activity\u201d that can only be conducted by solicitors and certain other qualified professionals \u2013 if unqualified staff are indeed drafting these documents then that\u2019s a criminal offence<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The scale of the problem<\/p>\n

A recent recruitment video claims that, in the first six months of 2025\/26, MP Estate Planning made \u00a31.66m in fees, with huge growth year-on-year. That implies they\u2019ll bill at least \u00a33m in fees this year.<\/p>\n

\"What<\/a><\/p>\n

MP Estate Planning are unusual in publishing their pricing on their website<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"Product Wills Single<\/a><\/p>\n

However, most of their clients are buying multiple products, and so these prices quickly add up \u2013 we understand overall fees in the tens of thousands are common (and indeed that would be necessary for a team of this size<\/a> to make \u00a33m in revenue). Mike Pugh says:<\/p>\n

\u201cI do know that my competitors that offer the sophisticated high end stuff, they tend and \u2013 I\u2019m talking Magic Circle and inside the M25 \u2013 they tend to charge either two percent of asset value or 10 percent of tax savings.<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re saving five million pounds, they could charge up to half a million\u2026 and I\u2019m nowhere near the M25 \u2013 I\u2019m in Bristol and we do not charge big city prices.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019re in the tens of not the hundreds of thousands.\u201d<\/p>\n

The claim that firms charge 2% of asset value or 10% of tax savings is, in the experience of our team, not correct. Legal\/tax fees of \u00a3500,000 would be for very large estates, not people worth \u201cmere\u201d millions.<\/p>\n

The response from MP Estate Planning and Mike Pugh<\/p>\n

We asked MP Estate Planning to respond to the most significant points in this report:<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s our original email asking for comment:<\/p>\n

And then, after MP Estate Planning acknowledged receipt:<\/p>\n

\"Dan<\/a><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s their response. It reads like a press release, and doesn\u2019t answer a single substantive point (other than the unconvincing \u201cediting\u201d explanation for their May 2023 video, as noted above<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"whe<\/a>\"why<\/a><\/p>\n

This is our response to that letter:<\/p>\n

\"Dan<\/a><\/p>\n

We received a further reply \u2013 this time with responses to the \u201cnon-existent head of legal\u201d and \u201cuse of US terminology\u201d points that we regard as deliberately misleading:<\/p>\n

\"Mike<\/a>\"Reference<\/a><\/p>\n

We gave then Mike Pugh a final chance to respond substantively:<\/p>\n

\"Dan<\/a>\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

Pugh told us we\u2019d receive a response to our technical questions: we never did. Nor did we receive an explanation as to why his previous small business went bust owing HMRC \u00a31.7m.<\/p>\n

Text and images \u00a9 MP Estate Planning (UK) Ltd republished here for purposes of criticism and review, and in the public interest.<\/p>\n

Many thanks to B, S1, K and I for telling us about their experiences with MP Estate Planning (UK) Ltd.<\/p>\n

This was a particularly complex investigation which we couldn\u2019t have undertaken without a large team of lawyers and tax specialists, all acting pro bono. This article was written thanks to:<\/p>\n

Inheritance tax: SH for her invaluable initial analysis, then further work from P and M and additional review from J2 and SH (again).<\/p>\n

Other direct tax: D and Rowan Morrow-McDade (who found the 2023 video with the nonsensical claims about main residence relief)<\/p>\n

Stamp duty land tax: J1 and Rowan, again.<\/p>\n

Real retate finance: P<\/p>\n

Care Act: V and Y.<\/p>\n

Family law: T.<\/p>\n

Insolvency law: A and I with additional review from C.<\/p>\n

Corporate structure and business history: M.<\/p>\n

Additional research and data: business intelligence provider Tech City Labs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Plus numerous other practitioners who read through late drafts.<\/p>\n

We usually can\u2019t name our contributors, partly because it could be professionally awkward for their current employer, and partly because of concerns about retaliatory legal action.<\/p>\n