abuse of lasting power of attorney

madbadrob

Then as joint signatory there is not a thing you can do about the improvements or money taken before the LPA was granted. If your relative made your cousin a joint signatory only then you may have a recourse via claims through court but if they made them joint account holder then there is nothing in law that can be done and they could legally empty the account as the money is deemed to be theirs

Rob

joan_lancaster

Thanks for comments.
Would the local authority not be interested in £200,000 which, should my aunt live long enough, would have paid the nursing home that they are now paying for?
As for the bank account, I think that my cousin was a signatory, is that the same as joint account holder? I have evidence from other family that she was coerced and blackmailed into allowing this (My cousin and ? her mother told my aunt they wouldn't look after her otherwise).
If a power of attorney does not permit other people to take all your money, who would be interested in investigating this should you have concerns? Even if we wrote off the money spent before the LPA, now she has LPA and is still spending, who could help, given that I cannot obtain receipts dates etc.?

RAS

A joint bank account means that the money belongs jointly to both signatories.

Hiowever if you are a signatory on someone else's bank account, the money belongs to the bank account owner not the signatory.

troubleinparadise

I'm not sure that there is much more you can do at this point - you have flagged up your concerns to all those involved, and it is down to them to take whatever action they deem appropriate now.

There may be some investigating going on behind the scenes at the LA/SS, but they are not obliged to inform you.

I would just suggest keeping an eye on things, and keeping a diary of events as a record.

The welfare of your aunt is paramount in this situation, and it may be that whilst you are uncomfortable about what is happening re her money, if she is going to be looked after well in her (now!) spruced up house, so be it.

I suspect that the LA is more interested than you might realise in the truth of your aunt's assets, as all are very strapped for cash and demands for their funding are great, and a close look will probably be taken as time goes on...

securityguy

Would the local authority not be interested in £200,000 which, should my aunt live long enough, would have paid the nursing home that they are now paying for?

Yes, they might. However, they have no powers to investigate misdeeds or prosecute, they can just cut the funding your aunt is receiving. They would reassess your aunt's entitlement to funding on the assumption that she still has access to the two hundred grand, and leave up to her solving the problem of laying hands on it. If your primary interest is protecting your aunt's interests, rather than the rather more nebulous interests of the council tax payers, how would this improve matters? The usual situation for deprivation of assets is that the recipient of care funding is actually still the beneficial owner, and has engaged in a paper transaction to remove the asset from their affairs (for example, signing your house over to your children while remaining living in it). This isn't the case here.

As for the bank account, I think that my cousin was a signatory, is that the same as joint account holder?

No, but the chances of being able to use the distinction to recover the money are approximately zero.

I have evidence from other family that she was coerced and blackmailed

Evidence? You mean "would stand up in a criminal court" kind of evidence?

Witness: "she was blackmailed and coerced"
Barrister: "what did you do about this? Who did you inform at the time?"
Witness: "but everyone knew!"
Barrister: "who did she tell that she was being blackmailed and coerced?"

My cousin and ? her mother told my aunt they wouldn't look after her otherwise

Perhaps they did. What of it? It isn't illegal (in general terms) to say, "well, auntie, you can come and live with me, but you'll need to sell your house in order to build a granny-flat extension on ours", and there would be no test that you couldn't have a new kitchen while the builders were in. Courts are both unwilling and unable to unpick such transactions unless there is very, very clear evidence of extreme pressure being applied.

If a power of attorney does not permit other people to take all your money, who would be interested in investigating this should you have concerns?

That is the responsibility of the OPG. However, I thought you said that all the spending pre-dated the grant of the PoA?

given that I cannot obtain receipts dates etc

Why do you think you're entitled to them?

joan_lancaster

I did say that all of the spending pre dated the grant of the p of a to date. However it is continuing with a property of my aunts about to be sold.
I do not think i'm entitled to receipts, it's just that the OPG say they can do nothing without them.
My aunt is not going to ever be in this wonderful house (which incidentally is not her house) as we've just heard that social services who were attempting to teach my cousin to be a carer have deemed her not to be responsible or capable!
Hence my aunt stays in a care home, which is good as I agree with social services on that one.
And my aunt is unaware and lacks insight into any of this. It will ultimately make no difference to her. She will remain in a nursing home for the rest of her days.
Naively, I would like to see justice done.

securityguy

"However it is continuing with a property of my aunts about to be sold."

Ah, I'd missed that, looking back at your original posting.

That's straightforwardly illegal: your aunt is selling an asset (sale under a PoA is effectively your aunt doing it, not the attorney) while claiming benefits. Of course, it was ongoingly illegal, too: she had an assert which was (presumably) not declared. But you need to consider very carefully what the effect of telling the council will be.

"Naively, I would like to see justice done."

Do you know what your aunt's will says? If you and your cousin are both named, you will look self-interested. If it's just your cousin, or
your cousin is the residual beneficiary, then one could argue that the harm done is only to the LA and you're somewhat tilting at windmills (I mean, you might "win", but it's not clear what that victory would entail).

joan_lancaster

The council have been told about the property. So maybe they are taking it seriously then...I'll tell them again for good measure.
My aunt has 2 sisters (one of them being my cousin's mother, the other one my mother) and a brother. My aunt told my mother (before she became incapable of making an informed decision) that her money was divided equally between these 3 siblings.
Can anyone advise about Court of Protection to remove p of a?

joan_lancaster

Have been in contact with social worker who says that a financial assessment is taking place. I asked if they would ask for money back that has been spent and she assured me it would (assuming it shows on my aunt's bank statements). There is hope.
It does seem odd though that it is only just taking place when she says she put in the referral for financial assessment 4 months ago.
Anyway better late than never.

securityguy

I do struggle to see quite what it is that you are after.

Your cousin took money from your aunt to which she may or may not have been entitled, but there was no PoA in force and there's very little chance that a legally sustainable case could be made.

You've now reported that to the LA as deprivation of assets. Deprivation of Assets is not an offence for the person who ends up with them, it's an offence (or, at least, grounds for cessation of benefit) for the person who gave them away. So if Alice signs her house over to Bob, and then goes into residential case, the LA can treat Alice as though she still has the asset (or the income from it) and assess her appropriately. They cannot, however, under any circumstances bring an action against Bob, ask for the house back, or anything else: he received perfectly good title. The issue is not that the transfer was invalid, rather that Alice should not have made it.

To repeat: a finding of deprivation of assets does _not_ provide a mechanism to recover the asset. It is a misdeed by the donor, not the recipient, of the asset.

So in this case, what you appear to be heading for is the authority demanding money from your aunt that she no longer has, and then treating her as having fraudulently claimed benefits. This will not, under any circumstances, obligate your cousin to make good the shortfall. That she is an attorney now is beside the point; she wasn't an attorney then. You are going to end up making your aunt's position significantly more complex to no good purpose, and you are allowing your (justifiable) anger over what has happened to cloud your judgement. Stop. Seek legal advice. If your main concern is your aunt's happiness now, then it may be that (sadly) letting your cousin get away with it is the best thing. Sorry.