This really is a detailed point of law that I have drawn a blank on so far.
An Enduring POA, ( pre October 2007) doesn't cover health and welfare, only finance and property. The OPG guidance clearly states that an "Enduring" attorney cannot decide where the donor should live.
However if the donor has plenty of funds in savings, and is to pay for care, this is a financial decision as well. Care homes are costly.
I wonder if anyone has any experience of resolving conflicts between health decisions and financial decisions or knows of any decided cases in the law reports that determine the boundaries of an EPA power?
Let me suggest a hypothetical example. My mother sees her dentist. The dentist decides to take out her tooth in her best interests for which he will charge £100. A filling would be £50. As her attorney I can't decide the health issue and must accept what the dentist says. However as her "Enduring" attorney I control her money. I tell the dentist I won't agree to pay £100 and will only pay £50. I consider that to be in her best interests as, unlike the dentist I take finance into account. Who prevails?
There must be many other opportunities for conflict between EPOA holders and others, about carers, homes, etc where best interests have to be paid for and the attorney only considers the person's best financial interests or disagrees as to what best interests are.
An Enduring POA, ( pre October 2007) doesn't cover health and welfare, only finance and property. The OPG guidance clearly states that an "Enduring" attorney cannot decide where the donor should live.
However if the donor has plenty of funds in savings, and is to pay for care, this is a financial decision as well. Care homes are costly.
I wonder if anyone has any experience of resolving conflicts between health decisions and financial decisions or knows of any decided cases in the law reports that determine the boundaries of an EPA power?
Let me suggest a hypothetical example. My mother sees her dentist. The dentist decides to take out her tooth in her best interests for which he will charge £100. A filling would be £50. As her attorney I can't decide the health issue and must accept what the dentist says. However as her "Enduring" attorney I control her money. I tell the dentist I won't agree to pay £100 and will only pay £50. I consider that to be in her best interests as, unlike the dentist I take finance into account. Who prevails?
There must be many other opportunities for conflict between EPOA holders and others, about carers, homes, etc where best interests have to be paid for and the attorney only considers the person's best financial interests or disagrees as to what best interests are.