Posted: Friday, 4 January 2019 @ 13:43
A very interesting and partisan piece in the Mail about the Court of Protection.
A handyman allegedly took £200,000 from woman, 89, after the Court of Protection gave him control of her bank account and he persuaded the vulnerable woman to sign over her bank accounts The agreement was approved by Court of Protection - despite a social workers' doubts.
The Daily Mail asserts "Her insurance firm raised alarm after he tried to take nearly £150,000 more A gardener was able to take more than £200,000 from the bank account of an 89-year-old woman as a result of a ruling by the controversial Court of Protection."
It is very good that the Mail draws attention to this...but it is worth reflecting the CPS has done nothing to take action against the handyman.
As the Mail goes on: "The handyman persuaded the confused and vulnerable woman to sign an agreement that he should control all her bank accounts, savings and property. The agreement – which was approved by the court even after social workers questioned the gardener’s motives – allowed him to put more than £200,000 of her money into his own account. He was stopped only when he tried to take nearly £150,000 more of her savings, causing her insurance firm to raise the alarm and the police to investigate.
But Senior Judge Denzil Lush ordered the LPA to be revoked. He said the gardener had broken its terms in several ways and his claim to a salary was ‘inherently artificial’.
Because there has been no criminal charge ‘it does not imply that his behaviour has been impeccable’, he said.
He ordered that the woman’s affairs should be managed by a publicly-appointed official who will pay her care home fees from the proceeds of the sale of her home.
Although the gardener was investigated by police, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute. He will keep more than £60,000 of the money he took from the woman’s accounts and estate."
So the CPS take no action, no criminal action results, the Court of Protection takes action, yet criticism is directed at the latter institution. The Daily Mail is silent on the former.
Denzil Lush is not only the Senior Judge in the Court of Protection; he is the co-author of book I am reading/reviewing on powers of attorney.
In his book and he does cover the issue of revocation with it being within Section 22(3) of the MCA 2005,(Mental Capacity Act)
2) The court may determine any question relating to—
(a) whether one or more of the requirements for the creation of a lasting
power of attorney have been met;
(b) whether the power has been revoked or has otherwise come to an end.
if the court is satisfied—
(a) that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce P—
(i) to execute an instrument for the purpose of creating a lasting
power of attorney, or
(ii) to create a lasting power of attorney, or
(b) that the donee (or, if more than one, any of them) of a lasting power of
attorney—
(i) has behaved, or is behaving, in a way that contravenes his authority or is not in P’s best interests, or
(ii) proposes to behave in a way that would contravene his authority or would not be in P’s best interests.
So, what is the story with the CPS?