Another power of attorney question

elsien

Relative has just moved permanently to a care home. Their place is funded by 117 aftercare due to having being sectioned prior to the move so their house does not need to be sold to pay for care.
Children (in thirties, one with MH problems) have been allowed to live rent free at home all their adult lives. Now that power of attorney has kicked in, should the attorney be getting rent from them to act in the person's best interests with all the problems that might entail with being a landlord, or is it ok to follow the person's prior wishes and continue to let them live there without paying rent (this is not stated in the document)?
The attorney is suggesting that relative's money pays for the usual maintenance etc, and the children pay the day to day costs - water rates, utilitites, etc.
Any comments or pitfalls to be aware of?

agrinnall

Do you think it would be worth the attorney contacting the OPG to see if they will offer any guidance?

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-public-guardian

Linton

From what you say I cant see that charging rent when none was charged previously is in the relative's (R) best interest. I assume that R has 117 aftercare for the rest of R's life. So whether the children are charged rent or not has no impact on R. There is good reason to believe that R would want them to continue living in the house rent free. The split between maintenance and day to day costs seems reasonable. Since no money is paid to R or the attorney representing R it would seem that this is not a landlord/tenant relationship.

However IANAL so the suggestion of seeking guidance from OPG and/or a solicitor could be prudent.

Clearly if circumstances changed so that R had to become self-funding then it would be necessary to reconsider the situation.

Keep_pedalling

What ever financial arrangements are arranged, one thing that the attorney must make sure of is that the house is properly insured. Even if a policy is in place now it may not be valid with the owner no longer occupying the property.

As the donor does not require the income then I see no reason to complicate things by terming them into a landlord. The occupants should be paying the council tax and utilities though.

badmemory

A POA means that the donors wishes or normal practices should be followed where it is in the donors own interests. For example, if they have normally given members of the family a certain amount for birthdays & Christmas then those should continue unless there are financial constraints.

To me that would mean that if the offspring had been living rent (etc?) free then this should continue if feasible. But the donors wishes should come first in this. Therefore if it is financially viable for those childrens lives to continue as before then it should.