Analysis
MRJ was born in 1932 and formally diagnosed with dementia in March 2009. In December 2011 her psychiatrist confirmed she had no capacity. Prior to moving into a care home at Christmas 2013 she had lived in sheltered accommodation.
On 3 March 2010 MRJ signed both a health and welfare and financial lasting powers of attorney appointing JT (her daughter) and KT (her grandson and JT’s son) jointly and severally. The attorneys applied to register the LPAs and the health and welfare LPA was registered on 11 June 2010.
There were technical defects with the financial LPA which prevented registration until 5 September 2013. This meant that the Public Guardian had no authority to intervene in MRJ’s financial matters until that date.
MRJ’s income from various state benefits was £223.67 per week and from a private pension of £90 per month. Following concerns that KT and JT were abusing MRJ both emotionally and financially Suffolk County Council applied to the DWP in June 2012 to be appointed as her appointee to manage her state benefits. The council then applied to the Court of Protection in December 2012 for an order to be able to receive the occupational pension and then in April 2013 applied to be appointed her deputy for property and affairs.
On 21 May 2013 the Public Guardian applied to revoke the health and welfare LPA following a complaint about the attorney’s conduct. The council produced a 181 chronology of instances between May 2010 and October 2012. On 15 February 2011 an injunction was issued by Lowestoft County court requiring KT to vacate MRJ’s property and not to approach within 100 yards of it and not to abuse her carers.
Following no response from the attorneys the lasting power of attorney was revoked on 25 September 2013 and as it was believed that the misconduct was not solely confined to health and welfare the attorneys were suspended from acting under the financial LPA and the council appointed as an interim deputy on 27 September 2013.
On 18 October 2013 JT submitted an application to discharge the order and return the powers of attorney to her and her son on the grounds that she had never used her mother’s money for her own use, she and KT gave 45 hours per week of care and that the local authority had misinterpreted the family dynamic. KT filed a similar application on the same day.
A social worker from the council carried out a detailed investigation showing that KT used internet banking to move nearly £2,500 of MRJ’s money to himself or his company over a six-month time period. Online payments were made to amongst others uniformdating.com, Sky broadband and British Gas although MRJ did not have to pay for heating nor electricity at the shelter housing. MRH had no computer nor access to broadband. KT alleged to the police that the numerous withdrawals from cash machines were used to let the housing association hold cash for her. Following transfers by KT MRJ was left with £20 cash to cover the entire month. During this period neither KT nor JT had any legal authority to deal with MRJ’s financial affairs.
On 3 April 2014 the hearing took place. KT did not attend due to work commitments and JT was too ill to attend.
Held (confirmation of the earlier orders):
- 1) JT and KT have acted in a way that has contravened their authority and has not been in MRJ’s best interest.
- 2) The orders to revoke the health and welfare LPA and suspend the financial LPA are confirmed. As well as this the financial LPA is revoked and Suffolk County Council appointed to act as deputy. The revocation is in MRJ’s best interest. It is a necessary and proportionate response for the prevention of crime and for the protection of MRJ’s right to have her financial affairs managed competently, honestly and for her benefit.
- 3) KT has callously and cynically manipulated the online bank account to his own advantage. By allowing MRJ to only retain £20 per month for her own use and enjoyment he prevented her socialising and participating in activities.
- 4) JT has failed to act in MRJ’s best interest by consistently allowing KT to abuse MRJ both financially and emotionally and by colluding with him.
Continue reading "Re MRJ, JT and KT v Suffolk County Council & anr Case no: 12256266"