There is a lot on this and I am going to be selective here. Sad person that I am I spent a few engrossing minutes reading the thrilling text of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985, which, although repealed, set up EPAs in the first place. Under schedule 5 of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act we read "Any order or determination made, or other thing done, under the 1985 Act which has effect immediately before the commencement day continues to have effect despite the repeal of that Act.", in other words, EPAs made before the change of law continue to be valid. Alas I didn't get all that far because what the 1985 Act has to say is not particularly clear. I think the key bit is this "An enduring power may confer general authority .... on the attorney to act on the donor's behalf in relation to all or a specified part of the property and affairs of the donor or may confer on him authority to do specified things on the donor's behalf and the authority may, in either case, be conferred subject to conditions and restrictions."In your first post you say 'the OPG guidance clearly states that an "Enduring" attorney cannot decide where the donor should live'. I had a look at the guidance and it says 'the attorney has no legal right to decide where the donor lives'.
Having spent several years writing government policy in an unconnected field, I think that word 'legal' in the guidance is quite important.
I don't know if relevant legislation says there's no 'legal right' but as this is guidance, it suggests that the position is not beyond question: it's a different matter if relevant legislation states there's no 'right' for a donor to decide, it then would be beyond question. An attorney who was challenging the authority of any other party trying to force a donor into a care home would want a clear explanation from that party as to where its legal authority lay in relevant legislation i.e. Act of Law, Part number & section number. For completeness the attorney would also want written confirmation from the other party that it would meet all of the relevant care home costs; such confirmation may or may be obtained but forewarned is forearmed.
The fascinating question is, it seems to me, what is meant by "affairs". So @Phil2020 I think you're right that there is a shade of doubt here. Perhaps the definition of "affairs" has never been tested in court? In everyday terms affairs seems pretty wide ranging to me. Where I choose to live is my affair, surely? And if I were to lose mental capacity, wouldn't it be my attorney's affair? Clearly if there are special terms in the EPA they apply, but usually there are none or they just cover things like who stands in if the attorney is unable to act. I am not sure that you can claim a moral right but official guidance certainly can be challenged and if I were in dispute with some officialdom or other I would think it arguable that "affairs" is more wide-ranging than just money and property. It seems a bit much for the OPG to state that an EPA attorney can't decide where the person lives - the law doesn't say that in black and white although there might be a decided case of which I am unaware. I doubt that "affairs" includes health decisions though, whether to have my leg put in a splint or amputated is a bit too specific to be "affairs" I suggest. Unfortunately for those of us who like these legal conundrums the number of donors of EPAs is dwindling and this issue is never likely to be argued before the Court of Appeal!! (Thank goodness, I hear some people saying).
On your point about people being forced into a care home I don't think this can happen unless:
* the person doing the forcing, perhaps the local authority, has obtained deputyship from the Court of protection
* the local authority has issued a Denial of Liberty Safeguards order
Otherwise this would amount to kidnapping.
If there were a situation in which the local authority believed the person had to go into a care home and there was an Enduring attorney who refused to agree on the donor's behalf the local authority would have to apply to the Court of Protection which would decide the issue and might award deputyship to the local authority and cancel the EPA. Basically the CoP over-rules everyone.
One other point about our hypothetical money-grabbing dentist friend, a medical professional determining "best interests" does have a duty under the 2005 Act to consult various people including carers, family et. although of course you can consult a person and then ignore what they think!!