LPA query as result of BBC R4 investigation

Spivved1987

 The will is such an essential tool of making sure that money stays in the family!

I'd suggest it's often the contrary reason - the intestacy rules will ensure the money stays in the family.
Surely a will is of most use when you want at least some of your estate to go outside the direct family ?

Okay, that's fair enough. Perhaps I should have written "The will is such an essential tool of making sure that control of money is retained from beyond the grave!"

Anyway, it's all getting away from my original point. In the case of the unfortunates highlighted in the programmes, can anyone argue that they would not have been better protected by the Court of Protection than by the LPA?

badmemory

Most of us know exactly what will happen to our money etc if we die without a will.  If you lose capacity it could be your local authority etc, who will quite happily ignore your wishes.  My mother in hospital having lost capacity was not allowed to have us present other than to visit only.  Until I went in waving the POA.  They were going to send her into a care home without even telling us where they were sending her, because we had no right to know.

Bobziz

I've not watched the programme, but if the CoP registered the same person as the attorney for over 30 people, then that suggests to me that they are not likely to protect me very well. I would therefore do all I could to find an individual that I could trust.

Savvy_Sue

badmemory said:

Most of us know exactly what will happen to our money etc if we die without a will.  If you lose capacity it could be your local authority etc, who will quite happily ignore your wishes.  My mother in hospital having lost capacity was not allowed to have us present other than to visit only.  Until I went in waving the POA.  They were going to send her into a care home without even telling us where they were sending her, because we had no right to know.

And that was presumably a Health and Welfare PofA? Because applying for Deputyship through the Court of Protection will only cover finance. And - back to the OP - WILL take a long time, and create a black hole period during which financial decisions cannot be made. 

I think that if I was unable to identify suitable Attorneys among my relatives and friends, I'd be making careful enquiry of any professional I might want to appoint, and attempting to establish a strong professional relationship with them. Yes, it will cost money, but the thought of having someone recommended to me while I'm not in full control of my life (in hospital / care home) currently does not be bear thinking of! 

mebu60

Spivved1987 said:

 The will is such an essential tool of making sure that money stays in the family!

I'd suggest it's often the contrary reason - the intestacy rules will ensure the money stays in the family.
Surely a will is of most use when you want at least some of your estate to go outside the direct family ?

Okay, that's fair enough. Perhaps I should have written "The will is such an essential tool of making sure that control of money is retained from beyond the grave!"

Anyway, it's all getting away from my original point. In the case of the unfortunates highlighted in the programmes, can anyone argue that they would not have been better protected by the Court of Protection than by the LPA?

The unfortunates in the programme would have been better protected by an LPA if they'd created them beforehand and appointed attorneys they knew and trusted rather than a stranger. And they were failed by the Office of the Public Guardian not spotting the same person registering multiple LPAs.

My LPAs are both in place and registered, attorneys being daughter, partner, brother and old friend. The attorneys know my wishes. CoP would bring in delay and they have no idea what I would want. 

mebu60

Spivved1987 said:

mebu60 said:

Spivved1987 said:

mebu60 said:

Delay. And might not adhere to your wishes if you'd set them out in an LPA yourself. 

What wishes would you have which could not be expressed in your Will? I don't think there is any likelihood that a rich person would die intestate.

An LPA would come into play while you are still alive if activated. What is in your will (if any) is irrelevant.

Being wealthy is no indicator that someone will have a will. 

Being wealthy is no indicator that someone will have a will.

Well, I suppose a recent lottery winner who is thick, or somebody whose money has been made by largely dealing in cash (ie iffy money), might not have made a will. The only other category of 'rich' person who might not make a will is an oldster who maybe bought their council house in London and doesn't realise how much it is worth. I find it hard to believe that you will be able to find anybody outside of those categories with serious wealth who hasn't made a will. The will is such an essential tool of making sure that money stays in the family!

You'd like to think but no, sadly you are wrong, I know several examples. One couple, bright, hard working, savvy, set up their own business (her initially, he joined later when safe to leave his secure job), built it up, lovely house in great location, pool, recently sold the business for well into seven figures. They have two children. No wills. Despite my regular prompting. And no doubt their accountant and lawyer too. 

Spivved1987

I fully intend to make appropriate LPAs. But as I said in the original posting, my puzzlement was occasioned by a rich and knowledgeable man saying he wouldn't use an LPA. It's in the last episode of the programme, which is available on BBC Sounds if anybody wishes to listen.

elsien

Spivved1987 said:

 The will is such an essential tool of making sure that money stays in the family!

I'd suggest it's often the contrary reason - the intestacy rules will ensure the money stays in the family.
Surely a will is of most use when you want at least some of your estate to go outside the direct family ?

Okay, that's fair enough. Perhaps I should have written "The will is such an essential tool of making sure that control of money is retained from beyond the grave!"

Anyway, it's all getting away from my original point. In the case of the unfortunates highlighted in the programmes, can anyone argue that they would not have been better protected by the Court of Protection than by the LPA?

No, because the court of protection is for people who have lost capacity and the majority of the people in the radio four program had capacity. 

So what should have happened is the attorney should have consulted them and only done things with their full agreement. The problem is that once you’re in a care home and cut off from your normal social networks, you become institutionalised very quickly. Any of those people could have revoked their power of attorneys much earlier than they did, but you need to be aware of that possibility and also have the confidence to do it. 

I was also puzzled why they hadn’t appointed people that they knew, because some of them did have close friends and relatives. But I think that probably came down to timing when they were already vulnerable which to me indicates the need to think about it before you’re in that position. 

 The OPG is overwhelmed, underfunded and not really in any position to be keeping tracks are very much. 

Having seen people with court-appointed deputies, there are slightly more controls in that people have to submit accounts, but there’s not necessarily much more oversight than that.

badmemory

I suspect that they didn't appoint someone they knew because someone who would seem an authority figure came to them & "suggested" what they should do.  Even if fully "with it" once institutionalised & it doesn't take long, you tend to be compliant.  This is a good reason why those POAs should be done asap.  With my mother she did it only months before it would not have been possible, the change was so rapid.  I did mine a few months later after the very scary OMG moment.

Keep_pedalling

I actually just got round listening to the program, and the remarks the OP was referring to seemed rather grange to me, the guy was saying the he personally would not make one at it was scary that 8 million people had done and that most unnecessary. This is an idiotic point of view as although it is true that many won’t be needed no one knows if one will be needed or not but not having one in place when necessity kicks in can cause massive problems for your loved ones.