I would not involve a solicitor unless you have about £30,000 to spare. It's a total rip off. You can represent yourself. You have all the evidence and I'm sure are perfectly more than able to do so. I represented myself in my very complicated case although was objecting to the application plus other issues and I was successful. I'm sure you cam do it!; Good luck. Xx
Did you make any complaint to Chief of Police/IPCC regarding your case?
Did you get a crime reference number from Police when you initially reported your case?
Even though I was EPA (Enduring Power of Attorney) jointly only with my brother who turned out to be a fraudster (he used the EPA without me), he got a solicitor cousin to revoke it and get an LPA instead excluding me this time because he knew that I knew he was a fraudster. I wasn't even notified of the new LPA, I discovered it by chance. My mum thinks I am joint LPA, she's confused and has dementia which brother knew but denied. He's not even used it for the banks and so the banks don't know she lacks capacity and he is operating her account covertly.
Do you know you can still be a victim of fraud/financial abuse whether or not you have mental capacity. The Police were lying to you. This is confirmed in an official document Safeguarding adults at risk of harm: A legal guide for practitioners
Pages 223/224
20.3.4 Theft, gifts and mental capacity
There seems often to be an assumption that if a person makes a gift to somebody else, but is judged probably to have the mental capacity to make that gift, then it could never be regarded as theft. This view often seems to prevail even if the making of the gift is associated with what appears to be serious exploitation. However, legal case law does not support such a blanket approach. This is because there have been major theft cases in the courts, which concluded that in some circumstances it is open to a jury to find theft.
On appeal, the House of Lords ruled that it was not crucial as to whether the man had capacity or not. Instead, it was for the jury to decide whether, in all the circumstances, there was dishonesty, even if the man had technically consented to the money changing hands.
This case supported an earlier one to similar effect.
Stealing from a 99-year-old woman in a care home. A 99-year-old woman lived in a care home. Her affairs came under the control of the two care home owners. They drew cheques on her account and obtained a power of attorney and turned her assets in to cash paid into an account jointly held with the woman.
They argued that the woman had made them gifts, and that if the woman had capacity, it could not be theft. The court held that ‘dishonest appropriation’ in the Theft Act 1968 did not necessarily mean ‘without consent’.
Let me know what you think and your answers to my questions above. Thanks.
