Assets whilst in a care home

Errata

I'm beginning to feel as if I'm on trial here and have done something wrong

I'm sorry you feel that, it can't be nice. Sometimes discussions become uninhibited, brisk and robust; I think that's the nature of internet discussion forums which have a broad remit, as MSE has.
I think the particular difficulty with the topic of CHC is that many are deeply emotionally involved and sometimes find it difficult to take a pragmatic view. As I've said before, if people post links to the documents they're quoting from it helps other to take an informed view and make a judgement. That's not always possible, and a clear indication of why that's not possible is helpful, as are the words 'I understand that .......... in my view .........etc'
I feel that any information that's posted is useful, whether it be correct or incorrect - people can take responsibility for their own learning and use the information to delve further into the subject.
My own view on CHC is that if it's felt to be necessary, but assessed as not being necessary after the correct procedures have been followed then bringing in some big guns like an MP, or a firm of soilcitors who understand the subject would be a sensible way forward.
HTH

Trebor16

Morrison117 wrote: »

My sincere apologies for missing out one of your questions, Trebor - I'm afraid I find it very difficult to get through a post that has so many quotes within it. It disturbs the flow of the debate, IMO, and I found your post difficult to read and respond to. So it's possibly for that reason that I didn't respond to all of your questions, but missed one out.

To answer your question: the Court of Protection insisted that the Attorney paid the care home fees, in line with the decision on the day: namely, that the Attorney was seen to be not acting in the best interests of the donor. There was also discussion of the Attorneyship being removed from the Attorney if the decision was ignored, and a Court appointed deputy could then be put in place, with all that that entails.

The question of the dispute about Continuing Healthcare was for another court, said the 'Judge of the day', but the disputed fees still had to be paid, according to the Judge's decision.

The issue of the dispute about Continuing Healthcare having been refused several times over and appealed several times over did not give the Attorney the right to refuse to pay fees required to maintain the Donor in the care home. The dispute about Continuing Healthcare was for another Court, said the 'Judge of the day'.

Timescales were given for actions to be taken by the Attorney. The costs order was accompanied by a full breakdown of all costs incurred by the applicant, names and dates and details of everything involved. Individual bills were supplied as part of the paperwork, all named and dated and fully detailed. The individual sums of money involved were all added up and a final sum was arrived at.

Does that answer your question, Trebor? If not, I am afraid I don't have the time or energy to answer any more. I'm beginning to feel as if I'm on trial here and have done something wrong, which I am not and have not. I have given you the facts of the case based on my own experience and on my own reading of all the papers involved, from start to finish. So I am absolutely confident in everything I have written about this. I have said all there is to say.

You use the term "insisted". That is very different to the Court of Protection actually making an order for the fees to be paid. Was it a case of the judge urging the person to pay the fees or did the judge actually make an order?

If you feel "on trial" then maybe it is down to something personal. Perhaps you dislike being challenged about your views and opinions, but that is no reason to make a statement about being on trial. That is over the top.

Morrison117

I used the word 'insisted' because the Judge insisted - via his decision via his ruling via the ensuing order - that the care home fees should be paid by the Attorney from the donor's funds. The Judge also decided and ordered and insisted that the costs of the case should be paid by the Attorney from the Attorney's own funds and not from the donor's funds. No question of anyone 'urging' anyone to do something - the Judge decided/ruled/insisted/ordered that the fees should be paid according to his decision. That's why timescales came into being and all on paper and all confimed in writing as you would expect from a Court.

There was also discussion of the Attorneyship being removed from the Attorney if the decision was ignored, and a Court appointed deputy could then be put in place, with all that that entails.

That wouldn't have happened if it was just a question of the Judge 'urging'.

I'm not giving 'views' or 'opinions'. I've given the facts of the case. It's the facts that you have been challenging - not my opinions or views, because I haven't given my opinions or views. (I have many on it all - but my opinions won't be given here, because the facts are far more important in this instance to people I don't know than my opinions.)

You appear to be doubting every single fact that I have given because it perhaps doesn't correspond with what you would like to hear/read/see. Now you are selecting one single word - the word 'insisted' - and trying to make it suit your own desires. The word 'insisted' means 'demanded'. To insist on something happening is to demand that it happens. To urge someone to do something means to ask if that person would kindly do something - that's not what the Judge was asked to do; the Judge was asked to decide. That's what the Judge did.

The judge read/heard all the evidence; the judge heard/listened to the arguments from all parties; the judge asked questions of all parties; then the judge made a decision; the judge insisted on his decision being put into effect; the judge made an order that the decision should come to pass and that the fees should be paid in full, in the best interests of the donor.

If or when you get to the Court of Protection in connection with any questioning of your EPA/LPA, if you are an Attorney, and questions as to whether you are acting in the best interests of the donor or not, you will find that the Court Judge will not urge you, the respondent, to do something - the Judge will order you, the respndent, to do something if that is what the Judge has decided/insisted/ordered after deliberation. Alternatively, if the Judge decides in your favour, you will not be ordered to do anything.

Pollycat

In the midst of all this arguing about Court of Protection and what the judge said and what he meant - does anyone wonder how the OP is getting on?

Morrison117

Ianua1, could I suggest that you start a new thread, because the OP's thread has already been diverted form the original purpose. I am sorry now that I contributed to that diversion, and I've been reminded of that by Pollycat.

Meanwhile and with apolgoies to the OP who was asking about assets, the NHS is not the same as the Department of Health.

The procedures and guidelines are not set in place by the NHS. They are set in place by the Department of Health.

I have more to suggest - but I won't do so on this thread which did not start life as a discussion about the CHC guidelines, or the Court of Protection.

So why not start a new thread, ianua1, and copy and paste your last post into the new thread, and open it up for discussion.

(Sorry, I haven't read all of your post but just a fraction of it, ianua1, because I'm conscious of the OP perhaps needing to ask for more help about the original questions of this thread.)

Veryannoyed_3

ianua1 wrote: »

But the procedures are guidlines set in place by the NHS. I have posted below a legal submission my wife gave to the so called 'Independent Review' panel.

The panel disgregarded the submission since they could only talk about the criteria, not the legality of the criteria.

Ianua1, can I ask if you paid for help to present your case to the appeal panel or to put this letter together?

It's a fact that no appeal panel will consider any challenges that the criteria are unlawful so if you have paid someone to help you put together this letter you have unfortunately been misled.

ianua1

Veryannoyed wrote: »

Ianua1, can I ask if you paid for help to present your case to the appeal panel or to put this letter together?

It's a fact that no appeal panel will consider any challenges that the criteria are unlawful so if you have paid someone to help you put together this letter you have unfortunately been misled.

I know they can not talk about the criteria, just as they can't in the review or an ombudsman review. Yes, a solicitor was there in an advisory role. The question you need to ask is why the process won't allow any debate about the lawfullness of criteria. If the law is 100% in support of the process (Coughlan and Grogan compliant), why would there be any argument about it's legality.

Morrison117

ianua1 wrote: »

I know they can not talk about the criteria, just as they can't in the review or an ombudsman review. Yes, a solicitor was there in an advisory role. The question you need to ask is why the process won't allow any debate about the lawfullness of criteria. If the law is 100% in support of the process (Coughlan and Grogan compliant), why would there be any argument about it's legality.

Because you can only challenge the lawfulness of 'something' in a court of law. They are operating according to the terms of their employment - and they are not there to comment on the lawfulness of anything.

Why don't you ask your MP about this? Or is s/he not legal either?

Veryannoyed_3

ianua1 wrote: »

I know they can not talk about the criteria, just as they can't in the review or an ombudsman review. Yes, a solicitor was there in an advisory role. The question you need to ask is why the process won't allow any debate about the lawfullness of criteria. If the law is 100% in support of the process (Coughlan and Grogan compliant), why would there be any argument about it's legality.

Presumably the solicitor presented your case, or did you have an advocate which is a bit different.

I wondered what your solicitor / advocate thought of the appeal panel refusing to hear any debate about the lawfulness of the criteria and whether he or she intervened with some legal argument to support your appeal.

It's great that you are mentioning all these things because they can only help other people in this forum to get a handle on things for their own appeals.

ianua1

Morrison117 wrote: »

Because you can only challenge the lawfulness of 'something' in a court of law. They are operating according to the terms of their employment - and they are not there to comment on the lawfulness of anything.

Why don't you ask your MP about this? Or is s/he not legal either?

You really are having difficulty with this aren't you. Lawful and Legal are two separate things. That's lesson one over. Have you not heard of maladministration?