Suspicious

securityguy

Indeed. Other than by the exotic route of the court of protection, the only person who can make a power of attorney is themself.

Keep_pedalling

The only people to be notified are the ones the donor has requested to be notified. The certificate provider is the main check on whether the donor is doing this under pressure or not.

I can understand why someone might twist someone's arm to do a financial LPA but not a medical and welfare one, which would indicate a great deal of trust on her part.

If he is also her executor, then he is behaving as an executor should, no one else should have access to her property without his consent.

Flugelhorn

Don't you have to have 2 certificate providers, if you only have one then there are people who "have to be told"

paddy's_mum

porkypig1 wrote: »

Yes he probably had a lot more contact with her and that raises suspicions.

Snidey comments aren't helpful

I can't see any snidey comments but there you go....

So far as I can see, the man is behaving exactly according to the laws he is bound by and in a firm and responsible, albeit perhaps tactless, way.

If asked, no doubt he would say that he wishes to be able to show that his every action is correct and displays integrity and accountability.

Perhaps the old lady's choice of him as her POA and executor (rather than any member of her family) has led him to believe that all of you merit suspicion. Same coin just a different side of it.

Could it be that as a friend of her late husband, he was executor of that estate and so she has knowledge that means he can be trusted now. A quick check of her husband's will/probate might be of interest and perhaps settle the family's distrust and unease.

securityguy

Flugelhorn wrote: »

Don't you have to have 2 certificate providers, if you only have one then there are people who "have to be told"

No. There is only one certificate provider (Section 10) and "people to be told" (Section 6) is clearly optional without caveats. Rather than theorise inaccurately, wouldn't it be easier to just look at the forms?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511210/LP1F-Create-and-register-your-lasting-power-of-attorney.pdf

They are hardly difficult to read.

There are limitations on who can be a certificate provider which are clearly intended to prevent undue influence within families and small businesses:

Restrictions – the certificate provider must not be:
• an attorney or replacement attorney named in this LPA or any other LPA or enduring power of attorney for the donor
• a member of the donor’s family or of one of the attorneys’ families, including husbands, wives, civil partners, in-laws and step-relatives
• an unmarried partner, boyfriend or girlfriend of either the donor or one of the attorneys (whether or not they live at the same address)
• the donor’s or an attorney’s business partner
• the donor’s or an attorney’s employee
• an owner, manager, director or employee of a care home where the donor lives

I have highlighted the clause which I suspect is going to be the subject of much legal action in the future, as "partner" and "boyfriend or girlfriend" are not defined anywhere and the "whether or not they live at the same address" takes it out of even the definitions that the DSS might use (the arguments the DSS get into are about whether someone in fact does live at the same address). In the OP's case, if it turned out that the mysterious helpful man is in fact the certificate provider, this might be of interest, but the legal implications (and, indeed purpose) of post-mortem challenges to PoAs are dubious, especially as there is so far no suggestion that a PoA was mis-used.

Flugelhorn

securityguy wrote: »

No. There is only one certificate provider (Section 10) and "people to be told" (Section 6) is clearly optional without caveats. Rather than theorise inaccurately, wouldn't it be easier to just look at the forms?

sorry, no need to be snappy - has it changed ? Did Mother's a year or so ago - had enough trouble agreeing on one certificate provider let alone two ! Ended up with a couple of "people to be told"

Keep_pedalling

Flugelhorn wrote: »

Don't you have to have 2 certificate providers, if you only have one then there are people who "have to be told"

That was the case when we did ours in 2015. Our children are our attorneys, so no one else really needed to know, but because we only had one certificate provider we put down our IFA as the sole person to be notified.

The new forms which came into service in 2016, now leave notification of others totally optional.

In the case the OP has brought up, it sounds like the LPA has been in place for some time so they probable did either have to notify or have 2 CPs, but it was never a requirement that people to be notified had to be close relatives,

Mojisola

porkypig1 wrote: »

He is a stranger to the family, who had no idea he was Power of Attorney.

The family weren't estranged and don't know why this stranger tried to organise the funeral.

Yes he probably had a lot more contact with her and that raises suspicions.

Look at it from an objective viewpoint - the family weren't estranged and yet they were happy to let a 'stranger' help aunt out and she didn't answer the phone for two weeks but no-one in the family thought it worth calling round to see if she was alright but now that there's a substantial inheritance available, the family all want to be involved.

GDB2222

As others have said, the executor should lock up the house, look after the personal effects, and arrange the funeral.

The OP needs to ask a few questions to put his mind at rest:

1. Is there a will, and is it genuine?
2. Does it name the interloper as executor?
3. Was undue influence brought to bear on the aunt to make this will?

paddy's_mum

porkypig1 wrote: »

This stranger...has told the undertaker he has 'gone above and beyond legally with a solicitor'.

If this guy was transparent then why is he avoiding the family

I am finding it increasingly hard to grasp the root of the family's suspicion when I look at the two comments in the OP.

If (and I realise that it is only supposition at the moment, both on our part and on that of the Original Poster) the man has indeed gone to a solicitor and taken legal advice, how is he being less than "transparent" - because he won't yield to demands from the family members?

Looking also at the comment in the OP that the 'stranger' is "most likely beneficiary" which appears to have no basis in fact or evidence to support the assertion, I begin to think that the old lady knew her family very well!