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

Cases

Re ME [2015] EWCOP 61

14/10/2015

 
The Patient’s (‘P’) daughter, Stephanie, applied to the court to be appointed deputy for P’s property and affairs jointly and severally with her sister Susan.
The Facts
P was born on 9th June 1933 and is an 82 year old woman who has lives in a residential care. P has mixed Alzheimer’s dementia and vascular dementia which was diagnosed in 2006.

P had 3 daughters form her first marriage, Stephanie, Susan, and Tina. P had a daughter Mandy from her second marriage and a son Paul from her third marriage.

P and her third husband moved to Spain in 2007 in a property that they owned 2/3 and 1/3 to Paul. In August 2010 the husband died and P returned to England.

P’s only capital was in the Spanish property, which was worth £130,000. P’s income is s state pension of £170 a week.

Stephanie accused Paul of controlling P’s money without authority and had not made money available to P for her needs. She suspected that Paul was renting out the property in Spain and keeping the money. Stephanie stated that Paul writes a cheque each month for P’s care.

Susan in her Deputy’s Declaration (COP4) stated that she had purchased all of P’s personal items. It stated that the £5,000 over the four years that P has had, little has been spent on P.

Objections
Paul stated that the care fees were paid by direct debit. He confirmed that the property in Spain was not rented out and had been investigated by social services. P was happy in the care home which was the subject of a best interest meeting.

Susan did a ‘U-turn’ and did not agree with what Stephanie was saying about Paul. She suggested Mandy and Paul should be deputies.  

Mandy did not take part in the proceedings.

Tina stated that the allegations against Paul were unfounded and referred to the best interest meeting that Stephanie did not attend. Tina stated that Stephanie had only visited P 4 to 6 times in four and half years. Tina believed that Stephanie had caused problems in the care home.
 
The Law
The court referred to the law set out in Re DGP [2015] EWCOP 58 at paragraphs 34 to 39.

The court considered section 16(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘the Act’) for the appointment of deputies; and sections 1 (principles) and 4 (Best Interests).

The court considered Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when considering appointing a family member to be a deputy.

The court essentially had a discretion to whom it appointed as deputy, but exercised in the best interest of P. 

The court considered Rule 156 of the Court of Protection Rules governing costs.

Decision
The court appointed Tina as deputy.

Although Stephanie was unsuccessful the costs were properly incurred and there was no reason for departure from the general rule.

Discussion
The court would not appoint a professional deputy as the costs would be at least £5,000 for the first year and although possibly less thereafter it will still be significant. In any event at the present time there were no funds readily available to pay for the professional deputy, as the property in Spain had not been sold.

Stephanie had a poor relationship with her siblings and the staff and management at the care home.

The court made a point that a deputy would need to interact successfully with other people involved in P’s care.

Paul had not been proactive with providing P with a personal allowance, or put himself forward as a deputy. There was a further conflict, as he owned a 1/3 share of the property in Spain.

Unlike some of the recent case law, even though there was a poor sibling relationship with Stephanie and her brother and sisters, the application was properly made and therefore the costs were paid out of P’s estate as per rule 156.

It is important to ensure that before an application, or objection, is made that there are genuine concerns regarding the conduct and circumstances regarding the P’s finances and affairs. 

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

    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



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site