LPA powers?

SevenOfNine

Mr Seven & his numpty brother (both in late 60's) have both types of LPA registered for dementia father (quite far along the dementia pathway now & aged 92). Brother has suggested selling the father's house, & move him into his own house & provide care for him there.

Some (possibly even all) of the money from father's house sale will be used to pay off brother's wife for her share of their house (she left him & wants her share out of their mortgage free house).

Personally, Mr Seven doesn't want to fall into any unknown pitfalls with this arrangement, so might the best move be for him to officially 'surrender' (can't recall the correct terminology) his role as Attorney. That way responsibility for everything that is done would be the responsibility of the remaining Attorney, his brother, yes?

I should make clear that Mr Seven has absolutely NO interest in ANY of the money from the sale of his dad's property, none whatsoever either now or in the future. We share that view & it won't change, but his own house is father's biggest asset should proper care home fees be needed & we're a bit worried about depriving him of that option.

What we don't want to happen is that father's house sold, brother uses all the cash then can't continue to provide adequate care for the father. This would have swallowed everything that might have paid for a care home for father though it won't have been Mr Seven who deprived his father of his assets nor profited from it!

Not sure it's realistic to say the brother can live in the father's house, we've thought of that, but it's a 60 year old ex council house requiring a considerable amount of renovation.

On the surface it looks like father's needs & brothers financial circumstances would be solved, but what am I not seeing?

getmore4less

Check what happens if an attorney gives up/dies, recall(but can't check atm) it is a bit more complicated than the remaining taking over.

pphillips

To disclaim responsibility an attorney needs to fill out an LPA005 and send it to the office of the public guardian with the original LPAs and any certified copies.

Before they do this they need to check the LPAs to see how they are appointed. If they are appointed to act jointly then after one attorney disclaims, neither of them will be able to act for their father any more. If they are appointed jointly only for some decisions then the remaining attorney cannot make those decisions which the LPA specifies are to be made jointly. If they are not sure how they have appointed then they should contact the office of the public guardian for clarification.

troubleinparadise

Whilst Mr Seven doesn’t want to be involved in what looks like a means of paying off an ex-wife and improving a property to the benefit of Mr S’s NB under the guise of providing care for Mr Seven Senior, surely stepping away would mean that Mr S Sr will have no one to talk on his behalf?

Is NB the caring type? Can you see him coping with the demands of an aging parent with dementia and all that involves? And yes, there will be a need for funds should the need for residential care arise, presuming they haven’t already been spent. It is still necessary to pay for care in the home if assets exceed the financial assessment threshold, and it will be noticed if Mr S Sr’s bank account is empty and the house sale proceeds have vanished.

I hear Mr S’s concerns, but I fear for Mr S Sr’s welfare. And whilst Mr S might wish to avoid conflict, is not interested in his father’s money, and not being implicated in NB’s hare-brained scheme, will he wash his hands of his father too, and tiptoe around any talk of his father, especially if there are concerns, for the rest of his father’s life?

It may all work brilliantly, there may never be any need for residential care, and no worries. But that isn’t usually how these things work out....

Malthusian

SevenOfNine wrote: »

Some (possibly even all) of the money from father's house sale will be used to pay off brother's wife for her share of their house (she left him & wants her share out of their mortgage free house).

Mr Seven Sr can't give the money to the numpty brother. Do you mean that Mr Seven Sr will buy the brother's wife share from her, so from then on the brother and Mr Seven Sr will jointly own the house?

That probably still violates the attorney's overriding duty to act solely in the interests of the donor but at least the attorney hasn't blatantly stolen the money.

In Mr Seven's shoes I would tell the brother in no uncertain terms that a) they are obliged by law to act solely in the interests of their father b) there is no way round it c) if the brother does want to care for the father in his own home, then the father's house should be sold and the proceeds sensibly invested, and used solely to pay his living expenses, which should be fully accounted for.

Linton

As Malthusian says, an Attorney must by law act solely in the best interests of the donor and has no authority beyond this. Any attorney found to have acted otherwise can be held personally responsible for the money. Guidance on the interpretation of "acting in the best interests" can be obtained from the Office of the Public Guardian. The OPG can also help resolve disputes between attorneys.

General info on the role of an attorney, including how to stop being an attorney is available from https://www.gov.uk/lasting-power-attorney-duties

If NB goes ahead with his scheme I suggest that it is reported to the OPG.

Google will find a wealth of other information on being an attorney.

SevenOfNine

Thanks everyone. It's a jointly & severally LPA.

Definitely points made to be considered seriously, particularly seeming to wash Mr Seven's hands of what happens to his father in the future in order to give numpty brother what HE feels is best.

Numpty brother is aware that a ghastly bereavement of our own has left us somewhat emotionally vulnerable, & perhaps he's selling the idea of taking the weight of this off Mr Seven's shoulders a bit too craftily.........for his own ends/gain.

It hadn't even occurred to me that Seven Snr might be better protected if he owned part of numpty brother's house with the proceeds from the sale of his own. But the risk with this also noted & I feel too high & could end up very messy.

I appreciate help with this, I think time to dig in & ONLY consider what is best for the old guy, which is to hold on to his asset for his OWN care needs in the future. :beer:

Malthusian

SevenOfNine wrote: »

It hadn't even occurred to me that Seven Snr might be better protected if he owned part of numpty brother's house with the proceeds from the sale of his own. But the risk with this also noted & I feel too high & could end up very messy.

Very messy indeed, for all parties. NB: "I can't cope with my dad anymore, he'll have to go into care." Council: "He owns a part-share in a residential property worth more than £23k, so he'll have to pay." NB: "But how is he meant to get the money out?" Council: "Sell it." NB: "But I live here too and I can't afford to buy him out." Council: "Tough. And what did you think you were doing investing all the donor's money in a single illiquid property when there was a strong possibility of him needing care in the future?"

You are doing the right thing. If Mr Seven Sr is not struggling with his daily needs at the moment, there is no need to take any action, and if there is, insist on him receiving proper care.

Savvy_Sue

Malthusian wrote: »

Very messy indeed, for all parties. NB: "I can't cope with my dad anymore, he'll have to go into care." Council: "He owns a part-share in a residential property worth more than £23k, so he'll have to pay." NB: "But how is he meant to get the money out?" Council: "Sell it." NB: "But I live here too and I can't afford to buy him out." Council: "Tough. And what did you think you were doing investing all the donor's money in a single illiquid property when there was a strong possibility of him needing care in the future?"

Actually, as Mr Numpty is over 60, he would not be expected to sell the property if he remained living in it.

However, you're spot on with how messy it is, and your a) b) and c) summary is the bees knees.