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

Cases

The Public Guardian v SR v NC [2015] EWCOP 32

13/5/2015

 
This case considers an application by the Office of the Public Guardian (‘OPG’) under section 22(4)(b) 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 an order directing that Hampshire County Council be invited to make an application for appointment of deputy for P’s property and affairs.
The Facts
P is a 77 year old woman who lives in a residential care home.

P’s was married but her husband died in 2004. P has a son, NC, who is 54 years old and a daughter SR who is 49 years old.

On 12th June 2009 P executed a LPA for property and affairs appointing NC and SR jointly and severally to be her attorneys. A solicitor witnessed her signature and certified that P had capacity to create a LPA.

An application was made almost immediately to the OPG to register the LPA: this was registered on 24th September 2009.

On 28th October 2011 P, through different solicitors, made a will leaving 95% of her estate to SR and the remaining 5% to NC. In March 2013 SR placed P’s house up for sale, instructing another different firm of solicitors.

NC became suspicious of his sister’s dealings of P’s affairs and made an application to the Land Registry to register a restriction on the house, which was duly done on 22nd April 2013.

Concerns
The OPG’s concerns were:
  • On 1st May 2014 it had come to the OPG’s attention that SR had spent a significant amount of P’s money in the sum of £451,513 on adaptions to her own property (£220,799 cash withdrawals), going away on frequent holidays (£8,993); and bank transfers of £176,755;
  • There were unpaid care fees of £3,668;
  • After writing to the attorneys, NC replied stating that it was SR who was managing P’s affairs and that he had not been involved;
  • The Court Visitor visited P on 4th June 2014 and concluded that P did not have capacity to revoke the LPA;
  • The house was on the market in the sum of £369,950.
Objections
NC did not agree with the order that the OPG was seeking and he wished to be the sole attorney of P’s affairs, and if that was not acceptable then his daughters could fulfill the role. At the hearing NC admitted he made a serious error allowing SR to be named on P’s bank account and that the relationship had broken down in 2011/2012. When NC was informed by the bank that P’s account had very little money left he anticipated the sale of the house and therefore placed the restriction on it.  

SR filed an acknowledgement of service that was in effect blank. At the hearing SR confirmed that she supported the OPG’s application and apologized for her misconduct and stated that she had been suffering from depression for a number of years for which she was taking medication. SR disagreed with NC’s proposal stating that he was more interested in P’s money than her well-being.

The OPG stated that NC had not made any serious attempt to take on his role as attorney, although did enter the restriction. The OPG was also concerned regarding the fraught relationship between NC and SR. 

Hampshire council confirmed it was willing to act as P’s deputy. It confirmed at the hearing that although there had been regular payments the arrears now stood at £7,900.

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)).  The court also referred to the approach taken in Re J [2011] COPLR Con Vol 716, paragraph 75 where Her Honour Judge Hazel Marshall QC stated:

“In my judgment, the key … lies in considering the matter in stages.  First, one must identify the allegedly offending behaviour or prospective behaviour.  Secondly, one looks at all the circumstances and context and decides whether, taking everything into account, it can be fairly characterized as such.  Finally, one must decide whether, taking everything into account … it also gives good reason to take the very serious step of revoking the LPA.”

Decision
The court accepted the Court Visitor’s findings that P lacked the capacity to revoke the LPA.

The court found, unsurprisingly, that SR behaved in a way that contravened her authority.

The court found that NC had not behaved or proposed to behave in a way that contravened his authority, or is not in P’s best interests. Therefore the court did not revoke NC’s appointment.  

Discussion
The court in this case reviewed the Law Commission papers (Mental Incapacity (Law Com No 231) published in 1995, paragraphs 7.51 and 7.58 for guidance as to the rationale behind why the Act is worded in the way it is. The court emphasised that where possible the court should respect P’s wishes as expressed in her LPA and that this was a factor of ‘magnetic importance’.  

The court was concerned regarding NC’s indecisiveness in relation to restoring P’s assets prior to SR’s misappropriation of P’s funds. NC did not want SR to be homeless, nor did he want the police to be involved, and that he would sort P’s affairs out when his daughters finished their A levels in the summer. The court found that this was understandable and showed sensitivity towards SR’s situation. Hampshire stated that they would investigate and look into the matter and may consider approaching the police although SR confirmed that she had been interviewed by the Police and they did not intend to bring charges.

This case is in contrast to earlier decisions made by the court in Re ID [2015] EWCOP 19, where one attorney abused his position and the other claimed that he had left the management to his brother and had no reason to doubt his brother.  The difference however is that first, in Re ID, she had appointed the attorneys jointly, rather than jointly and severally as is in this case. The attorneys in Re ID should have acted jointly rather than let one have free rein and they were both liable for the loss of ID’s estate.  Secondly, in Re ID,  the court did not believe the story that one of the brothers had nothing to do with the management when he had in fact opened an account in his sole name into which ID’s pension and rental income were paid. 

Although the OPG was concerned regarding the relationship between NC and SR the court found that there was ‘no sense of the intense animosity that was evident in other cases’ (such as was in Re ED [2015] EWCOP 26 and Re EL [2015] EWCOP 30).

Although Hampshire was good value for money and experienced the court found that it was in P’s best interests for the LPA to remain in force with NC.

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