Intentional deprivation of assets

Katykat

Flowerpot man, this is a tricky one and one which may be open to misinterpretation. The person who has POA has a responsibility to administer but also safeguard the persons property and money. If there is nobody available to take on POA, then the Court of Protection would appoint somebody to do this, usually a solicitor. The solicitor would be allowed to claim reasonable expenses from the estate. Now you and I know that what a solicitor may class as reasonable and what you would, may be somewhat different. Therefore, there would be quite a lot coming out of the money as "reasonable expenses".
However, it would be unlikely that a solicitor would be visiting the client much, if at all, and therefore travel expenses probably wouldn't be claimed. Also, it could be argued that even though you live 800 miles away and her son lives abroad, would you not have ever visited her unless she paid for the travel expenses? How did you pay for it before she became incapacitated? As I say, its a tricky subject, and i can see your point of view, but I really cant see that the Court of protection would endorse this expenditure. The LA itself has no authority to declare that this is deprevation of assests and you could just ride it out, BUT, and its a BIG BUT- the LA could then apply to the CoP for your wife to be removed as POA and they may apply for POA, or the court may appoint a Solicitor as deputy. Then, your family would have no control at all, not even over her welfare. I would be very cautious about rhe road you are going down.

theflowerpotman

Thank you to all who have replied. No, MIL did not pay for my wife to visit in the past. However, in the last 18 months we have had to travel (fly) 11 times to visit her. This including the hugely traumatic time surrounding moving MIL from hospital to Care Home {This was like Keystone Cops - no hospital vehicle available, I had to push MIL (in the depths of Scottish winter) by wheel chair from hospital to Care Home.} We can afford to visit once or twice a year, but not this many times. There is no question that MIL would like us to visit as often as possible - believe me, where she is in care is not a fun place - MIL has absolutely no idea as to how she is funded. She certainly has no concept of the notion of "Deliberate Deprivation". She is blind, virtually stone deaf and the only pleasure in her life comes from a visit from her daughter. I personally think it is outrageous that LA's behave in this manner. After all, they are going to get all their money back, with interest, when MIL passes away. Spleen vented! Thank you all again.

Savvy_Sue

If you're not entirely happy with MIL's situation, would moving her closer to your home be a sensible thing to do? I don't suppose it would be a trivial thing to do, but possibly worthwhile.

theflowerpotman

Savvy_Sue thank you. If only it were possible! we suggested that she come to live with us, many years ago but she will not leave her beloved Scotland. Sadly, now, she is far to ill to travel - and, of course, too scared. Being blind ain't great. This is our first experience of the savagery of the system (which is, I believe, a little different in Scotland). Someone who lives her whole life with no thought for herself (she was born into service) and saves diligently, gets exactly the same Care as those who live a wild life and find themselves in penury in their old age. Her wishes would be that we visit. The powers that be say no. A convicted criminal is looked after better, and does not have to pay for his incarceration....

Biggles

I thought residential care was free in Scotland?

theflowerpotman

Biggles wrote: »

I thought residential care was free in Scotland?

Biggles, if only that were true! Bit different to English system as, as far as we can tell, all Care Homes are private. However, just like in England, residents have to pay until all their savings are demolished. We are less concerened about that, MIL's nest egg is tiny (although house is worth a little) but would like to be able to afford to see her more often and have been told we cannot - this would be deliberate deprivation. Hey ho

Torry_Quine

theflowerpotman wrote: »

Biggles, if only that were true! Bit different to English system as, as far as we can tell, all Care Homes are private. However, just like in England, residents have to pay until all their savings are demolished. We are less concerened about that, MIL's nest egg is tiny (although house is worth a little) but would like to be able to afford to see her more often and have been told we cannot - this would be deliberate deprivation. Hey ho

Isn't it anoying that people think care homes are free in Scotland. There are council care homes though, maybe not in your MIL's area.

Savvy_Sue

theflowerpotman wrote: »

Biggles, if only that were true! Bit different to English system as, as far as we can tell, all Care Homes are private. However, just like in England, residents have to pay until all their savings are demolished. We are less concerened about that, MIL's nest egg is tiny (although house is worth a little) but would like to be able to afford to see her more often and have been told we cannot - this would be deliberate deprivation. Hey ho

If you've only been told on here that it would be, I'd encourage you to check it out, either through Age UK or Counsel and Care (you might have to find Scottish equivalents) or the OPG. We can only say how it seems to us. That's not a definite ruling!

3v3

theflowerpotman wrote: »

Biggles, if only that were true! Bit different to English system as, as far as we can tell, all Care Homes are private. However, just like in England, residents have to pay until all their savings are demolished. We are less concerened about that, MIL's nest egg is tiny (although house is worth a little) but would like to be able to afford to see her more often and have been told we cannot - this would be deliberate deprivation. Hey ho

Strange thing, the English language: to my mind, "deliberate deprivation" would be deliberately depriving the poor woman of family visits Far more detrimental to her well-being than anything else at this stage of her life.

They haven't actually said you cannot visit her more often, simply that you cannot use her money to fund your travel. So, in the meantime, and until this is sorted, maybe looking into other ways of travelling and funding it? Like you would have done without POA and before she went into a care home?

I don't mean to come across as unsympathic - and I hope I don't! - but, while I get your point about how she has worked hard all her life, scrimped and saved ... it would seem that her life choices are not the real issue: it is your life choices that are making it difficult for you to give her the attention you wish to give her. 800 miles is quite a trek when all said and done (irrespective of where the funding for travel comes from).

Her lifetime of saving is now paying for the care she needs at a time she most needs it; when her funds have diminished, she will still receive care? When her funds are diminished (and she is still being cared for) how do you propose to fund travelling to see her and carry out duties of POA when you can no longer claim your air fares from her savings? It's a dilema you seem destined to face sooner or later?