Your experiences of the Court of Protection

[taylorcat]

sidecarjohn, i too feel this way. my dad dealt with everything for Mum and he also passed away just before Christmas time.

I am struggling to work out how to obtain the order i think is required by a pension company. since they are in England and I am in Scotland, we are talking 2 different laws. I had a letter from them today stating that if i give them the name of the care home they will pay it directly there. utterly ridiculous since there are no fees payable at the home and i provide everything Mum needs.

i think an intervention order might do the trick but am having difficulty understanding exactly what forms go with the application despite looking at OPG and scottish executive websites.

 

[Laylabud]

I found the website of the PG office helpful, i also had to phone a couple of times and got very helpful people on the phone (with foreign accent) whilst registering the EPA for my Mum, it took them about 6 weeks from me sending it off to getting it back.
When i got the EPA back i was a little miffed that it cost £120 for them to rubber stamp every page of the EPA and sign it and just sent out a covering letter to inform me of when the EPA was registered, not sure what they have to do at the PG office but i think the cost is a little high.

 

[sidecarjohn]

Update

Our father died on Christmas Eve. He had been responsible for mother's affairs following her decline and her entering a care home. We are now immersed in the legal gravy train that surrounds the Court of Protection legislation. Close involvement identifies a defective process, which is not serving anyone well, other than those charging their fees. Meanwhile, financial issues that were previously simple under father's control, are now complex beyond common sense. It is shambolic, deficient, and worrying.

Contact with 10 Downing Street, the Secretary of State, and MP requesting that the whole issue be in some way audited before chaos truly rules has met with perhaps predictable silence.

Finally, the current wait is for the involved solicitor's representative, a paralegal, to visit mother and "explain" to her the situation, and presumably gain her "approval". Farce is too simple a description. Too many people are destined to be disturbed by this sorry state of affairs.

Various problems I identified with the process have led to a response from the solicitors. The replies and more consideration of this legislation cannot avoid the thought of "legal gravy train". Ultimately, is it right that our mother should have her very limited funds depleted by this?
Notably, looking at the internet pitch of countless solicitors, a "fear" is being generated which implies that it is the wise thing to do if you organise your affairs before mental decline. Perhaps "gravy train" doesn't even come close as a definition.

 

[jenniferpa]

Notably, looking at the internet pitch of countless solicitors, a "fear" is being generated which implies that it is the wise thing to do if you organise your affairs before mental decline. Perhaps "gravy train" doesn't even come close as a definition.

I'm sorry - perhaps I'm misreading your post. Are you implying that you believe that you should NOT obtain an LPA? Because if so, you are totally off base. I'm not saying that some solicitors might not be milking this for all it's worth, but that does not mean that the basic principle is not sound - it is indeed wise to make these arrangements for yourself before you lose capacity. You can even do it yourself, using the forms provided by the COP.

 

[117katie]

Dear sidecarjohn

Am I right in thinking that what you are saying is that the whole process now involved in submitting an LPA, or application to be appointed Deputy or anything else to do with the Court of Protection, is the equivalent of what we are currently experiencing/finding out goes on with the expenses claims of our Honourable Members of Parliament? Namely, a license to print money? A money making machine? A process that is so convoluted that not only will it be costly but it may also deter a lot of people from creating an LPA?

If so, you have my sympathies, because I think you are right.

It is badly constructed as a piece of legislation; it is designed to confuse those of us who are not yet confused.

Sure, I definitely think it is wise to organise one's affairs, financial and welfare, before the possibility of losing one's ability to do so, which is not necessarily always connected with one's mental capacity. Maybe a physical incapacity requires us to take care of our affairs, well in advance of that physical incapacity becoming greater.

BUT, sidecarjohn, I don't think you're off base, as Jennifer perhaps described it.

And I'm afraid I disagree: having filled in all of the 63 pages that were required in our case, I can quite understand why there will be many, many people who will not for one single moment be able to do so. They are the ones who will be fleeced by a system that is unsound.

Of course the principle is sound, but the way this principle is being handled and costed is far from sound. I would place money on the fact that it will be revised and simplified in the not too distant future - why? Because if Solicitors are having trouble working their way through it all, and having to have internal guidelines structured just for solicitors ... then what chance does the Average Person have? Not a very fat one; a very slim one.

It is the system that is totally off base, not sidecarjohn.

I have had a very bad day, discovering that those so-called professionals (huh!) have yet again created another almighty mess, which they will have to get themselves out of. Laurel and Hardy have problems which are insignificant by comparison with the total cockups that I am having to unravel. Unbelievable.

So, sidecarjohn, my vote is with you!

Katie