How far does CoP go back in financial affairs?

thesmiths

Registered User
Sep 23, 2010
21
0
I have a hypothetical question please ...

It is coming to the point where my parents might have to go into a residential home. I want to hold off as long as possible in registering the EPA we have for them as I don't want the hassle! They would be self-funded so wouldn't need a financial assessment from the local authority.

My question is, if say we transferred a lot of money out of their accounts, but still left enough in there to cover a good 3 or 4 years of care home fees, how far back does the CoP go to look at financial records (if any - not quite sure what they do about looking at their accounts)?

Many thanks!
 

Jo1958

Registered User
Mar 31, 2010
3,724
0
Yorkshire
Hi,
I'm not sure about the accounts but it seems a good idea to register the EPAs as soon as possible in case there are any questions or anything wrong with the forms, you don't have to use them until or unless you need to but having them ready is a good idea. If you leave it until they are unable to sign or understand the meaning then you can't go anything about it.
Best wishes, Jo
 

jenniferpa

Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
39,442
0
Actually you have two (maybe more) issues here.

Firstly, registration of the EPA. You are LEGALLY bound to register that when you believe the donor is losing capacity.

Secondly, the COP probably won't be so interested, but the local authority might if the funds run out.

Look I'm not trying to call names but the action proposed is fraught with peril and potential if not actually, fraud. If someone has already lost capacity then there is no legal way to remove any funds from their account, so that is an issue. If you fail to register the EPA then possibly, someone more unscrupulous could persuade the donor to make another EPA and then register it. Even if that didn't happen if a disgruntled family member decided to raise the issue of the funds transfer with the COP the court could decide that the attorney was unsuitable. And how, frankly, could you explain to the banking authorities/tax man where this major windfall came from?

The biggest problem, however, is likely to be the local authority in the event they need LA financial assistance. There is no "statute of limitations" regarding how far the LA will go back.

Look I really do understand the desire to husband resources, and there is no doubt that the current system is in many ways unfair, but breaking the law seems to be a rather radical way to deal with that inequity.
 

thesmiths

Registered User
Sep 23, 2010
21
0
Hi - thanks for your replies.

Obviously I don't want to be fraudulent or do anything illegal, I was just wondering really! I know that my parents would rather me and my sister had the money rather than having to spend it on care home fees - I didn't think there was a way around it, but thought I'd ask, just in case!
 

sussexsue

Registered User
Jun 10, 2009
1,527
0
West Sussex
I know jenniferpa is technically correct and I guess we all have to play by the rules. But ......

Shame the authorities dont have the same morals and chose to change the rules for all those who paid their taxes and nat.ins. for many years which was meant to pay for their old age care :mad:

Shame also that all us carers go unpaid for putting our lives on hold looking after our relatives 24/7.

.... and jumps off soapbox
 

JPG1

Account Closed
Jul 16, 2008
3,391
0
The Soapbox of Dementia Care

.... and then someone else .... jumps on soapbox. That someone’s me.

Yes, jenniferpa may be technically correct and may also be AS (Alzheimer’s Society) correct.

EPA = register it if you have reason to believe that your ‘Donor(s)’ no longer has/have the mental capacity to handle the affairs. That is the legally, technically and morally correct and required thing to do. Otherwise you may well be accused (at some as-yet-unseen point in the future) of abusing your donated Attorney-ship, given in good faith by someone who trusted you to do the necessary. Don’t abuse that trust.

It’s not the CoP but the SS who ‘may’ be interested. The SS cares sometimes more about financing care than the SS cares about providing care. (But I digress!!)

Tax Office can go back 7 years or more, if it’s convenient, to look into affairs. The SS can also go back 7 years or more, if it’s convenient. (Shame we don’t have similar powers!)

My soapbox contribution goes along the lines of: how inexplicably easy it is for ‘us’ to worry about and to be accused of fraud and/or deception and/or not playing the dementia-financing game according to ‘the rules’ laid down by others (and I’m not for one moment suggesting that dementia is a game; far from it, as most people who know me by now know by now!!!).

The ‘rules’ are stacked against us. And if I’m wrong there, then someone will no doubt show me where I’m totally misguided in my thoughts.

Is there a ‘statute of limitations’ to protect those of us needing dementia care? Even the Human Rights Act doesn’t always provide protection for ... some in need of dementia care.

Where are the statutes that protect us, those of us dealing with the dementia care needed by our relatives with dementia, today and tomorrow and the year after? They are not there. They are just not there. There are no statutes to protect all of us.

Where are the statutes that protect those of us dealing with the rules that have been broken by the care providers, and/or the local authorities and/or the CQC? There are no statutes to protect us, and thereby to protect the Very Best Interests of our relatives needing dementia care.

The current system is not only unfair – it is corrupt, and it has been wilfully corrupted. In the Very Best Interests of ... ... ... please, you tell me, because I haven’t worked it all out, yet.

Corrupt not only in its provision of dementia care often, but also corrupt in its abuse of people with dementia and of those who care for/about them. Shackled, silenced, strung up, tied up in rules and regulations that even the professionals don’t understand.

I apologise if I offend Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer’s Society’s TP Moderators and most importantly TP Members with dementia and caring for those with dementia, but I’ve had my fill of the system currently in place.

I would say husband your resources – or even wife your resources – but do it legally and carefully.

.... jumps off soapbox now, to free the soapbox for anyone else who wants to jump up and exercise their vocals!

Soapbox is available for ... ... ...
 

Nebiroth

Registered User
Aug 20, 2006
3,510
0
I have a hypothetical question please ...

It is coming to the point where my parents might have to go into a residential home. I want to hold off as long as possible in registering the EPA we have for them as I don't want the hassle! They would be self-funded so wouldn't need a financial assessment from the local authority.

My question is, if say we transferred a lot of money out of their accounts, but still left enough in there to cover a good 3 or 4 years of care home fees, how far back does the CoP go to look at financial records (if any - not quite sure what they do about looking at their accounts)?

Many thanks!

You have a legal duty to register the EPA when your parents lose capacity. That judgement is left up to the attorney and I understand your reluctance but the law says you must when capacity is lost.

The Court of Protection probably won't have any interest in financial records - they don't monitor attorneys under EPA's anywhere near as closely as they do with ones that are appointed by the Court.

HOWEVER the local authority would almost certainly be interested when your parents ceased to be self-funding.

What you propose cannot be said to be anything but a Deprivation of Assets. Given that your parents are close to being in care there is no way that you would be able to use the defense of saying that the assets were given away whilst your parents could not "reasonably" forsee they would go into care.

Also, registering the EPA followed shortly by a large transfer of funds would look highly suspiscious - these days the banks tend to demand to know why someone is transferring funds and all the more so if it's being done by a third party. They might well decide to raise it with the CoP, who in turn might rule that the attorney was acting unsuitably.

I think what you propose is fraught with dangers.

I can see why you would want to do it, but unfortunately the system is full of rules to make sure that people can't evade the means tests. The unfairness of those tests is another debate but that's what we have to work with.