abuse of lasting power of attorney

securityguy

BobQ wrote: »

I can see what you are saying, but if the elderly person was coerced then surely that is theft. ..

No, it isn't. And it wouldn't help even if it were, because there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of meeting a criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" with regard to the finances of someone who is now incapable of managing their own affairs. The evidence would just be "well, I can't believe she would have given it to her" and that's barely enough to make a civil "balance of probabilities" case. The main witness in a coercion case is going to be the person who was coerced; that's not going to end well.

The local authority can recover at most six months of care costs from the cousin. That is not £200k. It probably isn't £20k.

The local authority can regard the aunt as having the money she "gave" to the cousin. It's not clear what effect that would have on the aunt.

The cousin didn't have a PoA until after the contested transactions.

securityguy

BobQ wrote: »

It is deliberate deprivation of assets the local authority does have a power of recovery particularly if a house is being sold now. This power is against the receiver of the assets.

http://www.stennett-stennett.co.uk/our-services/long-term-care-fees/paying-for-care-and-deprivation-of-capital

I can see a local authority saying its not worth the legal costs of recovering say £20K gifted a few years ago, but a whole house given away today? .

As that article you link to says, "A transfer of capital will be regarded as deliberate if a person transfers an asset out of his or her possession in order to put him or herself in an improved position to obtain assistance."

There's not the slightest suggestion in this story that that is the case.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

* I'm sure no one will like this... oh well*

I'm not quite sure what the OP is concerned about. Is it:

* The aunty? Whom by all accounts is non compos mentis so is not worried in the slightest, is she.

* The OP, who thinks she is losing out. If she had all the money then maybe her relation would be on here complaining instead?

I come from a very wealthy family, I have seen all this rubbish time and again when one of the extended family 'pops their clogs' - in fighting, police, solicitors, hand bags at dawn - the full pony show.

The result? Always the same, the solicitors get a major contribution to their new kitchen extensions, the people warring spend years in abject misery about money and in the end people are left bitter and twisted... then blow me if one of them doesn't die and it all starts up again.

Me? I take no part, simply not interested and do not want to know thanks. I'd rather be happy and have a life, though my mother and sisters are forever trying to get me involved to the extent they now know in very pithy terminology; if money is the subject, just do not call me.

My mother for arguments sake is 87 years old, she was still in 'open trench warfare' with my Uncle who was 93 years old about their fathers estate from when he died in 1985 and who grabbed what from the house when he died... that Uncle has now died and now? Well, luckily she has another brother so now they are at war over the dead brothers will... I kid you not.

Money buys you choice, but there is also a choice to not bother about money, as in the long run it means nothing. If you can eat and pay the bills, really, what's the problem?

You have the OP's word for all this of course not the other relation, so I'd have to say in the fairness of reality, this is what the OP says whilst the other person also has a view that is not being heard.

The OP can obviously do as she likes and will, but personally, I think life is well too short, all too soon we're :A

BobQ

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

* I'm sure no one will like this... oh well*

I'm not quite sure what the OP is concerned about. Is it:

* The aunty? Whom by all accounts is non compos mentis so is not worried in the slightest, is she.

* The OP, who thinks she is losing out. If she had all the money then maybe her relation would be on here complaining instead?

I come from a very wealthy family, I have seen all this rubbish time and again when one of the extended family ...........

Some very wise words Mr F. Fortunately most of us will never be in the position to know.

We only ever have one side of a story but my take was that the OP was interested in "justice". If secretguy's interpretation is correct then I suspect the law will not provide that.

Its a wider issue of course but it seems very unfair that the LA pays despite the person's wealth.

madbadrob

Securityguy put in legal terms what I had been saying from the start. Mr F has stated in far better words what I had said in a previous post. I cannot see what the OP's problem is here other than she feels disgruntled that the cousin is benefiting from her Aunts monies. Whether this is right or not is a moral view point as I can see nothing under the law that would constitute theft and nor can I see any civil court finding in the OP's favour. Civil courts work on the balance of probability and where it is one persons word against another only there is not much chance of the balance being in the OP's favour. At the end of the day she can refer the situation to the DWP and Council Frauds Dept who will if over payments have been made recover it. This wont take back the money the cousin as spent and will just come from the monies from the sale of the house

Rob