Lasting Power of Attorney (financial descisions)

beeza650

There doesn't seem to a be a forum section for this type of question so here seems as good as any.
I'm setting up Lasting Power of Attorney so that financial decisions/action can be made for me if I can't but I'm still alive.
I'm father to two young girls and live together with them and their mother. I do not trust her to make particularly astute financial decisions.
Multiple attorneys can act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for others. In other words, some decisions can be made by a single attorney and others need to be agreed by both people. I intend to make my sister and my partner attorneys with my brother listed as a replacement attorney.
What I can't figure is which financial decisions are sufficiently important that I'd want both attorneys to agree. The guidance gives 'selling or letting the house' as an example.
The only others I can think of just now are 'cashing in my pension' before I reach pensionable age or taking a loan of any kind in my name.
Can you think of others please?

AnotherJoe

Isn't two an awkward number of attorneys?

What happens if they disagree over something "trivial", lets say for example, should one kid get some money to go on a school skiiing trip or a gap year abroad? (remember those, hopefully will be back some time)

I can see how a trivial disagreement could turn into something bad between attorneys if one can go ahead and override the others wishes anyway.

If you do go ahead with this, instead of trying to double guess all the areas, how about a monetary amount instead? Either as a number or a % of the amount in the "estate".

beeza650

The idea is that trivial stuff can be controlled by my partner alone but really big stuff like cashing in pension takes a joint decision. Other things considered ‘big’ might be removing any funds from ISA wrapper, and that requires joint agreement. spending of any outside the wrapper can be done by my partner without agreements. She could then be drip fed batches of 50k let’s say. 

It’s a can of worms but I simply don’t trust her not to (a) spend most if it and leave little for my kids. (b) make really unsavvy decisions like cashing in pensions.

eskbanker

Have you considered sharing your life with someone you trust instead?

Attorneys need to be able to demonstrate that any financial decisions taken are in the interests of the donor, and concerned relatives can challenge this via the OPG, so there are safeguards if you really believe that your other half would do something rash....

Keep_pedalling

AnotherJoe said:

Isn't two an awkward number of attorneys?

What happens if they disagree over something "trivial", lets say for example, should one kid get some money to go on a school skiiing trip or a gap year abroad? (remember those, hopefully will be back some time)

I can see how a trivial disagreement could turn into something bad between attorneys if one can go ahead and override the others wishes anyway.

If you do go ahead with this, instead of trying to double guess all the areas, how about a monetary amount instead? Either as a number or a % of the amount in the "estate".

Not really, attorneys appointed to act jointly have to act unanimously, an additional attorney increases the risk of a disagreement. 

Thrugelmir

Don't appoint someone who isn't going to act in your best interests. 

Sailtheworld

If you don't trust your partner to make astute financial decisions then making them a power of attorney sounds even less astute.

Assuming you're quite young it's not very likely that you'll need people to make decisions on your behalf anytime soon. A better approach would be make sure your finances are separated as much as possible and appoint someone you trust as poa.

If you think your partner would likely spend everything, take out loans and cash in pensions at the expense of her own children then perhaps you've chosen the wrong partner.

beeza650

eskbanker said:

Have you considered sharing your life with someone you trust instead?

Attorneys need to be able to demonstrate that any financial decisions taken are in the interests of the donor, and concerned relatives can challenge this via the OPG, so there are safeguards if you really believe that your other half would do something rash....

I think about it every day...but we do like each other some of the time and I want to be with my children 100% of the time. Maybe "trust" is the wrong word - she's just plain not savvy enough/too impetuous. It's less about her doing something that's not in my interests, it's about her doing something that's in nobody's interests. However, regarding the former, her outlook on financial matters is very different to mine, she has no assets or private pension to speak of at 36 despite working full time since 18. I don't expect her to deliberately make financial decisions that would 'harm' me but that day might come.

beeza650

Thrugelmir said:

Don't appoint someone who isn't going to act in your best interests. 

I have to give her sufficient freedom as she will have responsibility for my children (and hopefully me). I can't isolate her from having any access to 'stuff' and having to ask for every penny.
Or maybe I can - and the attorney(s) just provide a suitable allowance. This is what I'm trying to figure out.
Maybe that's better ....give my siblings joint PoA and explain my wishes.

beeza650

Sailtheworld said:

If you don't trust your partner to make astute financial decisions then making them a power of attorney sounds even less astute.

Assuming you're quite young it's not very likely that you'll need people to make decisions on your behalf anytime soon. A better approach would be make sure your finances are separated as much as possible and appoint someone you trust as poa.

If you think your partner would likely spend everything, take out loans and cash in pensions at the expense of her own children then perhaps you've chosen the wrong partner.

Our finances are totally separate and are likely to stay that way.
You've just triggered a thought though. What if (when) we separate, her having PoA doesn't make that much sense. I'm beginning to think siblings is the best idea.

AnotherJoe

beeza650 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Don't appoint someone who isn't going to act in your best interests. 

I have to give her sufficient freedom as she will have responsibility for my children (and hopefully me). I can't isolate her from having any access to 'stuff' and having to ask for every penny.
Or maybe I can - and the attorney(s) just provide a suitable allowance. This is what I'm trying to figure out.
Maybe that's better ....give my siblings joint PoA and explain my wishes.

From what youve said that sounds like a much better plan. And why chnage it after you've separated? You could have it that way before eg right now, if you wanted.

p.s. I hope this is just a belt and braces thing or is there something bad healthwise coming? Fingers crossed for you.

Keep_pedalling said:

AnotherJoe said:

Isn't two an awkward number of attorneys?

What happens if they disagree over something "trivial", lets say for example, should one kid get some money to go on a school skiiing trip or a gap year abroad? (remember those, hopefully will be back some time)

I can see how a trivial disagreement could turn into something bad between attorneys if one can go ahead and override the others wishes anyway.

If you do go ahead with this, instead of trying to double guess all the areas, how about a monetary amount instead? Either as a number or a % of the amount in the "estate".

Not really, attorneys appointed to act jointly have to act unanimously, an additional attorney increases the risk of a disagreement. 

The OP implied they coudl act separately???