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

Cases

The Public Guardian v MO & SDRM [2015] EWCOP 27

7/5/2015

 
This case considers an application by the Office of the Public Guardian (‘OPG’) under section 22(4) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘ the Act’) to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) in relation to property and affairs as the attorneys behaved in a way that was outside their authority and not in the Patient’s (‘P') best interests; and to direct a panel deputy be appointed as P’s deputy for property and affairs.
The Facts
P is a 70 year old woman who has lived in a residential care home since 5th January 2013.  P owned her own property.

P’s was briefly married from 1960 to 1962 and has one daughter, MO.  MO suffers from fibromyalgia, pain all over the body; she has two sons, the elder is SDRM who is 27 years old.

On 8th March 2012 P executed a LPA for property and affairs appointing MO and SDRM jointly and severally to be her attorneys.

An application was made to the OPG to register the LPA: this was registered on 20th July 2012.

Concerns
The OPG’s concerns were:
  • The local authority informed the OPG on 22nd November 2013 that P’s care home fees were in arrears in the sum of £9,739.85;
  • The caller from the local authority stated that P’s bank accounts were overdrawn and that her bank accounts revealed expenditure that P would not require personally; e.g. supermarket payments of £1,978 and other retail payments of £9,591;
  • The Court of Protection General Visitor visited P on 6th February 2014 and concluded that she had advanced Alzheimer’s disease and therefore lacks capacity to suspend or revoke the LPA;
  • MO has failed in her duties and used P’s funds for her own benefit;
  • The local authority were not prepared to act as deputy to manage P’s property and affairs;
  • The Court Visitor alleged that in a conversation with MO, MO stated that she had paid some of P’s debts and mixed her own income with that of P.  MO stated she had sent money to her son and paid money into a Trust Fund for him.  MO was unable to tell the Court Visitor why the bank accounts were overdrawn;
  • The Court Visitor stated that P needed clothing but MO seemed unable or unwilling to provide the most basic items.
Objections
MO denied making these comments to the Court Visitor.

MO claimed that she had a right to P’s home as it was handed down from her grandfather to ensure the family always had somewhere to live regardless of their circumstances.  P had lived with MO at her council property for one year and 3 months, but MO had given this up to move to P’s property to look after her as it was felt that this was in P’s best interest. 

MO was appalled at the allegations against her.  MO confirmed that SDRM had no dealings with it, that he just visited P and discussed with MO how P was.  MO was unable to give SDRM’s address as he had recently moved and had been staying at a friend’s house.

Despite the court orders MO had failed to provide the OPG with an account of her spending of P’s funds. The care fees were now £20,868.98 as MO had defaulted on the arrears plan.  MO had provided copies of utilities bills to prove she had taken over payments relating to P’s property.  P’s bank statements show that before she went to the care home, P paid the utility bills in full and were not shared with MO.  The OPG was standing by its application as MO had failed to provide an account to the OPG, continued to fail to pay the care home fees, the bank statements continue to be overdrawn, and the spending from P’s funds has not been for her benefit.

The OPG further stated that SDRM had not been involved nor contacted the OPG.

Although MO stated that she had filed her evidence neither the OPG nor the court received a copy until the hearing on 17th March 2015.  MO denied that she had defaulted on the payment plan; she had asked the local authority many times to provide a repayment plan but they had failed to do so.  MO stressed all that she had done for P and the stress it was all having on her and her family.

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 accepted the Court Visitor’s findings that P lacked the capacity to revoke the LPA.
The court found that MO had contravened her duties and behaved in a way that was not in P’s best interests.  
The court revoked the LPA and invited a panel deputy to act as P’s deputy for her property and affairs.

Discussion
This case demonstrates the restraint upon attorneys under an LPA and how they are expected to act. In this case the court found that MO had failed to reconsider her financial situation. Once P went to live in a care home she was no longer able to support MO and her family.  MO should have prioritized P’s financial needs with P’s own finances instead of spending it on herself and her family. 

The court preferred the evidence of the Court Visitor and the local authority as they had no reason to make up the evidence against MO.  

The court referred to MO’s statement as ramblings and found that it showed a person at ‘breaking point’, and clearly unable to cope. It was therefore in P’s best interests for her property and affairs to be managed by a panel deputy.

As SDRM did not check or balance what MO was doing with P’s finances and he had no permanent address, the court found it was not in P’s best interest for SDRM to act as the attorney.

It is so important that where an elderly relative has gone into a care home and you have accepted to act as an attorney, that you take care to monitor the spending and keep account of the expenditure you are making, ensuring that the spending is benefiting P. Even if you are an attorney that does not get involved too much, you still have a duty to ensure that the property and affairs are managed properly. Just because the elderly person has gone into a care home does not mean they no longer need their money to take care of them and provide them with money to meet their needs on a daily basis. In the event that there are concerns and the OPG investigates, you must provide them with all the details they request. Otherwise it is likely to result in an application to the court.

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
    Fact Finding
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Property
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination
    Travel

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    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



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