Blocking house sale where suspect coercion and control of elderly parents

petere123

elsien wrote: »

Who is the "we" and why are you so involved in all of this?
There are two sides to every story, and you are currently only getting one of them.

I'm not 'so involved in this', but i understand the presumption that i might be.
There are two sides. There are far more than 2 sides, but i take your point.

petere123

keithdc wrote: »

Do parents have capacity to make their own decisions? People have the right to make decisions that you may view as unwise.

Ok thanks. Not looking for a philosophical debate.
As stated this is real concern about coercion and control, and whether an independent external authority exists.

The answer is probably no. That's what i learnt from helpful replies here. Thanks all that took the time.

da_rule

petere123 wrote: »

Yes, i think so in legal terms, but that takes no accout of susceptibility to coercion and control.


Society might eventually change;as it did from ignoring domestic violence, to now viewing physical AND psychological control as deserving of scrutiny and legal challenge

But you don’t have any evidence of coercion or control, other than the fact that the son speaks up for his parents and maybe makes some decisions on their behalf.

Look at it from the other way, seeing as you admit the 2 people in question have capacity.

They are living in a property owned by their son. They live there because it is easier for them (no stairs or what ever reasons they have) and it means that son can look in on them and help them out more. They want to pay son for living there, they don’t expect to live there for free. They have run out of cash but own a house so want to sell it so they can have some more cash to spend, not just on rent but on other living expenses. Son is helping them sell the house. Yes he may have a vested interest in the sale as it means that the parents will have more cash to pay the rent, but I’m struggling to see anything that can really be challenged.

They may also decide, which I fear is the actual issue, that son who has helped them out should get a bigger chunk of any inheritance for assisting them.

What seems to be lacking also, is what does the sister want to happen? Her brother to be prevented from contacting the parents, which will also essentially mean they are homeless? Then instead of the brother taking the money the state will (and whatever your brother is charging them in rent I can pretty much guarantee a care home for 2 will be more).

If/when a solicitor gets involved he will have to speak to them separately to ensure that they are not being coerced into doing anything, that is standard practice.

You also seem to dodge potentially awkward questions by saying they’re not relevant. The point about the house sitting empty is completely relevant, as selling an empty house in order to realise capital to pay rent/living costs is a completely rational thing to do. It is also reasonable for someone close to the people involved to support them in doing this. Also, the point about what the sister is doing is also relevant. To prove any sort of coercion then you need evidence. Evidence of the brother actually being coercive or controlling (not just speaking up for his parents or communicating their decisions). If the sisters involvement is limited to getting hearsay evidence from third parties and the occasional phone call then gathering such evidence will be all but impossible.

davidmcn

da_rule wrote: »

The point about the house sitting empty is completely relevant, as selling an empty house in order to realise capital to pay rent/living costs is a completely rational thing to do.

Indeed - I'm not sure what the OP's friend thinks ought to happen with the house if they want to block its sale, or why on earth it's already been empty for "many years"? (how many?)

da_rule

The point that often gets missed in these sorts of issues is that the people who are being abused should be put in the middle of and be the focus of any investigation. In this case there should be some key questions:

1) Do they want to live in the flat, together?
2) Are they happy paying rent at the agreed rate?
3) Are they happy with the way their son is acting in relation to helping them manage their affairs?

If the answer to the above is “yes” then there isn’t an issue, regardless of whether the daughter thinks there is.

If the answer to any of the above is “no”, you then need to do a bit of a balancing act and ask, is it better than the alternative? The alternative may be that they have to be separated and live in different care homes. Also, the cost may be many times more than the rent. Sometimes safeguarding isn’t about doing no harm, it’s about doing the least amount of harm, and separating 2 elderly people who want to live together can be catastrophic for their mental and physical health.

petere123

da_rule wrote: »

The options vary greatly depending on whether they have mental capacity to make the relevant decisions they are now making. The law starts off from an assumption that everyone has capacity so it would be up to your friend to prove that his parents don’t (if that is the case). As has been said, the law cannot (and does not want to) stop people making unwise, unfair or just damn right odd decisions - that is after all part of having free will.

1) If they have capacity then they could grant power of attorney to both siblings jointly, although this wouldn’t stop them signing things in their own right.

2) If they don’t have capacity then a child can apply to the Court of Protection for Deputyship. An interim order can also be made to prevent the sale of the house etc.

3) If they don’t have capacity and there is serious safeguarding concerns (which can be evidenced with actual tangible proof, rather than just one siblings resentment of another) then you can apply to the Court of Protection, via the welfare route, to seek an injunction preventing the ‘abuser’ from contacting the victim. Given the circumstances, the ‘abuser’ is the child (and landlord) of the ‘victims’ you are going to need some cast iron evidence before the court will entertain granting such a draconian order.

4) If they do have capacity and they are being manipulated in an unlawful manner it is possible to apply to the High Court and ask them to use their inherent jurisdiction to grant a similar order as set out above.

Any action is likely to be costly and highly explosive (for want if a better word). This is also a highly specialised area of law so you would need advice before proceeding.

The key thing to establish before anything can happen is whether they have capacity, not just to sell the house but also to manage and deal with the proceeds of the sale.[/QUOTE

Thank you. This is an awesome summary. Much appreciated.
I don't think mental capacity, free will and so forth are missing; just that observing the nature of that relationship, and that person (NB) causes concern about where their free will ends, and his influence coerces their ideas to align with what he wants.


This is not sibling rivalry; what is observable is different to what is felt. She (my friend) often can't speak to parents when she calls, because NB answers the phone, and decides whether it is "good" or "convenient" for them. Even though he doesn't live there, and doesn't give them the option of decidign when to speak. I wonder if they even know she called. Whether his intention is coercion and control or more benign, the effect is essentially the same. ie seeking his approval, consent and permission for everything. Deferring to him, even though he is self-serving, manipulative and coniving.
I watch my own elderly parents do this in a way with myself and my 3 siblings who are all good natured and co-operative. We have no agenda, but our parents often seek out our advice and follow it to the letter. That's fine when there are 4 voices with potentially different opinons. But when my friend's parents ask only one person (who is also their landlord even though they own their own habitable house nearby), and he is transparently a self-serving guy, it raises an alarm.

petere123

da_rule wrote: »

The point that often gets missed in these sorts of issues is that the people who are being abused should be put in the middle of and be the focus of any investigation. In this case there should be some key questions:

1) Do they want to live in the flat, together?
2) Are they happy paying rent at the agreed rate?
3) Are they happy with the way their son is acting in relation to helping them manage their affairs?

If the answer to the above is “yes” then there isn’t an issue, regardless of whether the daughter thinks there is.

If the answer to any of the above is “no”, you then need to do a bit of a balancing act and ask, is it better than the alternative? The alternative may be that they have to be separated and live in different care homes. Also, the cost may be many times more than the rent. Sometimes safeguarding isn’t about doing no harm, it’s about doing the least amount of harm, and separating 2 elderly people who want to live together can be catastrophic for their mental and physical health.

Da_rule
Thank you again for your considered advice. I appreciate this probably comes from experience and/or certain knowledge.
I have to give thought to these things before proceeding with anything at all. I think selling the family home (even though they currently don't live in it), and being left paying rent is potentially catastrophic tbh. The 'loss' of a home where they lived most of their looong married life is different to simply not living there. Hoarding is an issue, so that's another concern about disposal and sale of the home.

Genuine autonomous, free will allows people to feel dignified, and adjust to their new reality. It is real, no matter how painful. Coercion and control is not dignified, does not allow people to adjust to a new reality, and is not real.

da_rule

Maybe your friend could actually, you know, go and visit her parents if she’s so concerned. Or offer to have them come stay with her for a week or two for a holiday. Or even just take them out for a day/afternoon.

Observing her brothers response to her doing this would give a good indication of his intentions.

At the moment, it just sounds like a somewhat distant daughter who is aggrieved because her brother, who lives closer and sees the parents more regularly, stands to do better financially than she does from them.

da_rule

petere123 wrote: »

Da_rule
Thank you again for your considered advice. I appreciate this probably comes from experience and/or certain knowledge.
I have to give thought to these things before proceeding with anything at all. I think selling the family home (even though they currently don't live in it), and being left paying rent is potentially catastrophic tbh. The 'loss' of a home where they lived most of their looong married life is different to simply not living there. Hoarding is an issue, so that's another concern about disposal and sale of the home.

eg My father announced a decade ago that he was giving up driving. Didn't hurt a bit for the next few weeks. Having the car sold, collected and driven away did.

Could they actually move back into the house even if they wanted to? Could they manage the stairs, the cleaning, the maintenance etc, especially given the period of time it’s been sat empty?

At the end of the day, if they sign the transfer deed then they will be doing so of their own free will, as that will be examined and evidenced by their solicitor.

elsien

Why would selling the family home be disastrous? They've not lived there for years and may be glad to have the burden lifted. Or accept that at their time of life it is a better option than it just sitting there potentially deteriorating.

I had an elderly relative who abdicated pretty much all decision making to a rather unpleasant and overbearing son, although perfectly capable mentally of still doing so for herself. Because she just didn't want the bother any more at her time of life. I couldn't stand the son, and thought his manner towards her hard to watch at times. But it was what she wanted - to have someone else take the strain. Not beyond the realms of possibility that F's parents are the same.

And if the house isn't sold and they can't pay their rent either at NB's or elsewhere, what would F suggest? Because if NB was no longer providing support and paid carers were going in, that property would count as an asset to be taken into account in any financial assessment.