Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site

Cases

Re GW [2015] EWCOP 9

19/3/2015

 
This case considers an application under section 22(4)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to revoke and cancel the Lasting Power of Attorney ("LPA") made by GW in relation to property and affairs as the attorney behaved in a way that was outside his authority and not in the Patient’s ("P”) best interests; and an order directing the local authority to make an application to appoint a deputy to manage GW’s property and affairs.
The Facts
The Patient (“P”) is an 80 year old man who lives in a nursing home in Milton Keynes.  P’s wife died in 2001. P has two children, a son BW who is 47 years and a daughter AW who is 42 years.

P has advanced Alzheimer’s dementia.

On 2nd July 2010 P executed an LPA for property and affairs, and an LPA for Health and Welfare to BW and AW to be the replacement attorney.

An application was made to the Office of the Public Guardian ("OPG") to register the LPA: this was registered on 28th September 2010.

Concerns
In May 2014 concerns were raised with the OPG that:
  • There were unpaid nursing fees of £68,895;
  • There was a risk that the nursing home was going to serve notice;
  • P was not receiving any personal allowance from BW;
  • Milton Keynes Council had registered a caution in respect of P’s property;
  • On 2nd June 2014 the OPG had written to BW asking for an account since 2010;
  • On 3rd June 2014 BW visited P for the first time since December 2011, brought him clothes and toiletries and paid £200 towards his personal allowance;
  • On 3rd June 2014 the OPG was contacted by BW’s wife stating that he was unable to respond to their request as he was ‘stressed’;
  • The OPG attempted to contact BW by telephone 6 times;
  • P’s state pension had been dormant since 25th March 2012;
  • On 6th June 2014 a Court of Protection Visitor visited P and concluded that he did not have capacity to revoke or suspend the LPA;
  • On 11th June 2014 Milton Keynes Council confirmed it was willing to act as deputy; and
  • On 8th September 2014 the council informed the OPG that £75,000 had been paid towards P’s care fees.

Objections
BW objected to the application. He stated that he did not know about the investigation and therefore his views had not been taken into account.  He stated that he had been in touch with the council and informed them that the nursing fees could only be paid once the house was sold and therefore would take some time due to the state the property was in and the lack of funds to renovate it to a standard where it could be sold.  BW used his own money to prepare the house for sale. The property was sold in July 2014 and on the morning of completion P’s debts were paid.

On 25th November 2014 Milton Keynes Council wrote to the court stating that it believed that a panel deputy should be invited to act as P’s deputy for property and affairs.  It stated that now the property had been sold it did not think it was the appropriate body to manage the capital released by the sale.

On 30th December 2014 the OPG sought permission to amend its application seeking the court to invite a member of the panel of deputies to make an application to act as P’s deputy.  

BW did not attend nor was he represented at the hearing.

The Law
The Law relating to the revocation of an LPA
If the court finds that the attorney has acted in a way that contravenes or would contravene their authority, or it is not, or would not be, in P’s best interest the court can direct that the instrument purporting to be a LPA is not to be registered, or if P lacks capacity to do so, can revoke the instrument or LPA (section 22(4)).

Decision
The court found that BW’s conduct had been a ‘catalogue of failures’.

Besides the Court of Protection General Visitor ‘s assessment of P, the court obtained a report from an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate on 27th August 2014 who stated that P was very confused and could not tell them about BW, not even his name.

The court found that P lacked capacity and that BW had acted in contravention of his authority and revoked the LPA.  

Discussion
The court did not accept BW’s assertions that the failings were beyond his control and found that the failings were entirely in his control.  He failed to pay the fees and provide a personal allowance and the court stated that these are ‘symptomatic of more serious irregularities in the management of an older person’s finances’.  The court found that he failed to see P for 30 months and failed to engage with the various agencies; and at the time of the hearing BW had still failed to provide the OPG with an account.  The court found that BW’s credibility was an issue and the court did not believe his account that he knew nothing of the investigation or that BW posted P’s bank accounts to the OPG.  The court neither believed, without authentic documentation and a very detailed explanation, BW’s claim for £10,000 for various bills. 

The court stated that failing to provide the OPG with an account would in itself warrant the removal of attorney.

This case highlights the importance of keeping account, liaising with various agencies and providing the OPG with an account and being involved in any investigation.

Read the full text of the judgment on BAILII

Comments are closed.
    Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available. 

    Support the Hub
    This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work.  Click here to contribute.

    Sign up for our free email alert

    We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at  any time

    RSS Feed


    More from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site