Being asked to be a financial POA

Sea_Shell

Would you agree to being a financial POA for a close family member if you fundamentally disagree with how they conduct their finances, and what they spend their money on?  

I'm talking about during the "whilst they have capacity" period.   So you are effectively just their facilitator/enabler, doing their bidding, as it were.

EG they want to you place bets or buy alcohol/food, make charitable donations (to excess) or to take out additional credit, buy crypto etc etc


Would you put up with it*, short term, so that you can be an attorney in their "best interests" if they then lose capacity (and assuming there were no specific instructions in the POA), rather than have to apply to the COP, if the time comes?  

Or would you side-step the responsibility and potentially put other family under pressure to agree to "step up", and cross the COP bridge if it comes?

Thoughts?


* Can you (should you) refuse to do something, even if the donor has specifically asked you to, against their "best interests"? - Obviously nothing illegal 

FlorayG

I would refuse, because you are required to spend their money for them how they want you to and that would be impossibly stressful for you. The person may not lose capacity for years and years.

Flugelhorn

why do they need POA with the attorney actually acting if they still have capacity? You can register the POA but not actually use it until later- though it sounds like this donor might pressure you to do so fairly soon

I would be tempted to agree to do it but say I would only act when they no longer can do so 

Sea_Shell

Flugelhorn said:

why do they need POA with the attorney actually acting if they still have capacity? 

A loss of physical ability.

elsien

No I would not.  

From a purely legal perspective, you cannot act in someone’s “best interests” while they have capacity. He will be instructing you and as his power-of-attorney you carry out his wishes or you resign as his attorney. Or he finds out you’re ignoring him and sacks you anyway.
You can refuse to carry out their wishes any time you like, but then why are you their attorney?

You would also still be his attorney,  at the point he lose his capacity if that happens in the future. 

You can’t override their wishes and preferred ways or spending “in their best interests“ and instead do it your own way at the point they lose capacity.

 Part of best interests is managing the person's money in the way they themselves would’ve chosen. It isn’t that straightforwards, for example if they were perpetually in debt you would not continue that, but it is still a part of it.
So if you fundamentally disagree then just don’t go there. 

Example - sibling won’t touch investments. All his money is in interest bearing savings accounts. He has put in his LPA that he wants it to carry on like that, but if he hadn’t, I would still do that anyway. Because as his LPA I am effectively him, and if he was managing his own money that is what he would carry on doing, even if it was losing money in real terms. it is a risk he has chosen to take when while he has capacity, I do not have the right to over rule  that because my risk profile is different just because he can’t make those decisions for himself 

MattMattMattUK

It would be a straight no from me. 

Spendless

My Dad is struggling with exactly this at the minute. He has POA for his 99yo Mum due to her loss of physical ability. Nan however when she can get out  (in a wheelchair) or if someone will order for her online, likes shopping. Dad dislikes that she buys/orders herself say a dozen underskirts when she already owns 37 unworn ones and is mostly housebound so where/when does she intend wearing them, but it's her money to spend as she wishes even if it is 'pointless' buying. . It's causing a lot of frustration. If you are able to swerve then I think I would. 

Sea_Shell

Thanks everyone.    

It was mentioned in passing that they should "sort something out", and I am likely the Prime candidate (what with me being a MSE and all that    )  but I shall keep my head down and not raise the point, and hope they forget about it.    Does that make me a bad person.   

elsien

No of course it doesn’t. 

Being an LPA attorney is a big responsibility. There is no obligation to do it. And if they have no family members willing to take it on, there’s always the option of appointing a solicitor, although that does come with its own costs. 

Flugelhorn

Sea_Shell said:

Thanks everyone.    

It was mentioned in passing that they should "sort something out", and I am likely the Prime candidate (what with me being a MSE and all that    )  but I shall keep my head down and not raise the point, and hope they forget about it.    Does that make me a bad person.   

definitely not a bad person!  I know, "somebody" must do "something".

I was very reluctant to be POA for my mother as I knew part of it was so that I would be at her beck and call - but there really was no-one else and I just avoided registering it for as long as possible

keep quiet and hope it all goes away 

Sea_Shell

There is also an element of Deprivation of Assets here too.

Not in respect of IHT, but savings being depleted below the assessment limit because they "don't want the government to have it!!" - (sigh)

The usual misinterpretation of the gift allowance.

I wouldn't have thought an attorney is allowed to facilitate DoA?