Call 01279 215580

What Are The Grounds For Revoking A LPA?

Posted: Friday, 4 January 2019 @ 13:43

Under section 22(3) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court of Protection may revoke a LPA if it is satisfied that: fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the Donor to create the LPA; or the attorney of the LPA: has behaved, or is behaving, in a way that contravenes his authority or is not in the Donor’s best interests; or proposes to behave in a way that would contravene his authority or would not be in the Donor’s best interests.

Revoking an LPA is a very serious step and the Court of Protection will look at all the circumstances, including the gravity of the offending or prospective behaviours.

The Court will also consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to revoke an LPA and ultimately, whether the revocation would be in the Donor’s best interests.

The following case show the approach taken by the Court of Protection in deciding on revocation. The Public Guardian v CS & PL [2015] EWCOP30 The Donor, EL, was diagnosed with vascular dementia in 2009 and appointed her two children, CS, and PL, as her attorneys with the power to act jointly in relation to the sale of her house and jointly and severally for all other decisions.

The LPA was registered on 12 July 2010. The attorneys’ relationship broke down due to differing views on who should control EL’s finances. They each made complaints to the Office of the Public Guardian and accused each other of misconduct.

This led to PL making an application to the Court of Protection in December 2012 to revoke the LPA and for PL to be appointed as sole deputy for EL’s finances. By that time, it was apparent that EL had lost the capacity to revoke her LPA.

Senior Judge Lush took the view that the LPA was not functioning properly due to the animosity between the attorneys and the refusal to respect the Schedule of Agreed Responsibilities. They had also delegated their responsibilities to their father.   

In addition, the Judge believed t the attorneys made gifts to themselves from EL’s funds which were far more than what they could do under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. As a result, the Judge was satisfied that both attorneys behaved in a way that contravened their authority and was not in EL’s best interests.

The Judge ordered the revocation of the LPA and invited a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as EL’s deputy for property and affairs.