Are they aware that they will have to submit accounts annually to the OPG, to show what has been spent and where? They will also probably have to pay an insurance bond in case they 'run off with the money'

I think they need to be VERY careful with what they are doing, as everything should be in the interests of their mother. They will be allowed to make small gifts as their mother would have done, eg birthdays and Christmas. As for school fees, someone more In the know will probably be along later, but I would say that is definitely out of order.

Generally I think they are on VERY dodgy ground!

 

Should have said that being beneficiaries of their mothers will does not entitle them to spend her money whilst she isn't still alive.

 

Hi RubberDucky, welcome to TP
No real argument that what they're doing is either questionable at best or just wrong.
As the Mother's care is being paid by the NHS at present then it's unlikely that anyone is in a position to stop them, however, should the situation change then where the money went may be questioned by Social Services as it could be a "deprivation of assets" issue.
Morally it's not something I would do but is it actually illegal? No idea.
K

 

Since when do attorneys have to provide annual accounts to the OPG? I thought that only happened with deputyships? Anyway, school fees and new cars, way dodgy. Even though her care is currently paid for, this could change and they could be had for deprivation of assets. In any case, the money is still their mother's and has to be used on her. You can't give yourself an advance on your inheritance, it doesn't work like that. If they don't spend this money in their mother's best interests they could get in trouble if anyone shopped them to the OPG.

 

Beate is quite correct, annual accounts are for deputies! I've had a few days away and my brain has ceased!

 

Here is some information it is on this factsheet about LPA

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=154

When making decisions, your attorney must follow the Mental Capacity Act. This means that they:
must act in your best interests
must consider your past and present wishes
cannot take advantage of you to benefit themselves
must keep all of your money separate from their own.
If the attorney fails to comply, the LPA could be cancelled. If an attorney has taken advantage of you, this will be investigated by the OPG and the person could be prosecuted. Having an LPA in place can therefore offer you protection from potential future abuse.

 

I have romoved my explanation about LPAs as Beate has beat me to it, note to self , must learn to type quicker

Personally I think what they have done is wrong, however a loan may be seen as acceptable by the powers that be

 

they are out of order, and I think they prob know they are ( hence cashing the bond to build current acc. back up)

whilst it might be acceptable to have SOME money from Mum to change a car to meet her needs, they shouldn't expect her to pay for it outright. They need a car themselves so surely they should pay their share too?

Bathroom might be okay... as long as it is for mothers use and they are sure she is coming home.

 

I guess it's also a question of timing. If they buy new cars and bathrooms now but Mum only comes to live with them in two years' time I am not sure you can argue it was only bought to benefit her. Besides, who would give up total funding which also suggests a care home is best for her needs, to move their mother in?

 

With regard to the car I did hear of a case where a daughter was 73 and her mother was in care on CHC funding.
Because she could only be accommodated in a home 35 miles from where the daughter lived and the daughter visited her most days the daughter's car racked up a very high mileage.
The mother was only supposed to live for 6 months but she was still in the home 4 years later.
The daughter took her car for a service / mot and the garage said the car was ok at that point but if the mileage continued it would need some expensive repairs in a few months.
The daughter contacted the court of protection and it said it was ok to use her mother's funds to buy a new car to allow the visits to continue.
Even if the CHC funding had stopped the mother has enough money to pay her care fees until she was about 115.
I am not sure what would have happened if the mother had got to that age and the LA had got involved with paying the care fees and found out some of the mother's money had been used to buy a car or probably about 3 cars by then.
Sadly the mother passed away about a week after the car arrived.

Claire

 

Even if mum might have made generous gifts in the past, it cannot be considered to be in her financial best interests to pay for school fees or new cars. If the money remains in her accounts, it generates interest which is beneficial to her overall financial position. Selling stocks and shares should only happen where converting to cash would be expected to generate higher returns (not often the case) or where the mother has an immediate need for the cash (equally unlikely if she has full CHC funding).

I do think that this type of thing would be seen as 'deprivation of assets'. However, it may be that even if she loses CHC funding she is wealthy enough to be self-funding for many years, so the LA may never get involved and the sisters wouldn't be 'caught' that way.

So unless they can be persuaded that they are acting inappropriately, the only way anything is likely to change is if someone makes a complaint to the OPG.

Are there any other beneficiaries of the will other than the two sisters? By spending mum's money beforehand on themselves, they are reducing the eventual value of the estate so any other beneficiaries might well feel aggrieved.

When I think how hard it is to get CHC funding, these two are already likely to benefit more than most families because mum is not self-funding, yet they're still greedy for more.

 

I, too, think the bathroom story is dodgy.Is it being made into a wet room suitable for an invalid?
Have the sisters had an assessment from an OT to say what would be suitable?
If the mother returns home there will be amendments needed to be made to the bathroom to enable someone who is not mobile to have a shower etc.
I'm afraid it isn't ringing true unless they have.

I'm thinking the loan is dicey too unless it is done officially with records to show that it is being repaid gradually.

As others have said CHC is regularly reviewed and once the mother stops trying to get out of bed and walk the criteria for this funding could be removed.
From your description of her needs, many have failed to obtain CHC funding for far worse.
It seems it is this unpredictability which might be the reason for awarding it now and this could change.

 

Most of what they are doing is wrong, they seem to be assuming that because they are beneficiaries they can spend her funds on themselves whilst she is still alive.

Visiting cost are arguably OK as is the bathroom conversion but it would be wise to check this with the OPG.

Have they seen the will and therefore know they are the only beneficiaries?

You say she is currently NHS funded and also not short of capital, unless the NHS funding ceases making her self funding and her funds drop to near the upper limit nobody will investigate their handling of her finances unless a complaint is made to the OPG.

 

This is tricky because in these situations there can be a lot of 'it depends'. On the face of it the school fees might raise an eyebrow but, as my mum's Deputy (so a lot more accountable!) I had a similar dilemma. My mum always said she was going to give my sons substantial support through university. She was passionate about education, very much against young people getting into debt, and financially comfortable.

But she got ill before they got to university.

Because the amounts were so significant (as you can all imagine, I'm sure) I put the question, with the actual numbers, to the OPG, as I certainly didnt't feel I could just gift it. I got a very short reply saying of course give them the money, with a little reminder that I don't have to ask as I've been given the discretion to 'gift' in the Deputyship order (which, of course, I knew, but this was a fair bit more than a birthday prezzie... ).

So my sons are having the help grandma promised and the amounts have gone down on the annual reports, and that's that. To be perfectly honest, I was a little surprised but happily so. This is what my mum wanted, it's a real help to my boys, and the amounts make no difference to her anyway, as she has more than enough to cover her excellent care, even if she lives to be 150.

I know this doesn't address all the issues raised, but I do remember having a conversation with one of the OPG people who said quite clearly that it's not all just about pounds and pence.

If the sisters are doing a good job of looking after their mum, and if one of them needs a bit of financial help to put in place some practical aids (like a wheelchair-friendly car etc) then it might be ok.

I can see how it could be argued either way, that they're taking advantage, or that they're doing their best to honour previous wishes (maybe the mum had promised to help with school fees, lots of grandparents do).

My bottom line would be how well the mum is looked after. If she goes to live with one of the sisters and has everything she could possibly want and brilliant care then I'd probably say leave well alone. If she's neglected and the sisters are getting more out of her assets than she is, then there might be a case for contacting the OPG to voice concerns.

 

Mums money is mums money
Would her daughter just take money out of her mums purse when she wanted some before mum got dementia??

In my opinion paying school fees out of mums money, is a form of theft and the bathroom senario seems very iffy to me.... Are they both prepared to pay back the money "borrowed"

For all they really know.... Their mum might have left all the money to cats homes once she died and only told her kids or showed them an old will....

Just my thoughts.


Sent from my iPhone using Talking Point