UK: The secret court seizing money & control over elderly

A secret court is seizing the assets of thousands of elderly and mentally impaired people and turning control of their lives over to the State - against the wishes of their relatives.

The draconian measures are being imposed by the little-known Court of Protection, set up two years ago to act in the interests of people suffering from Alzheimer's or other mental incapacity.

Continues:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222764/Secret-court-seizes-3-2bn-elderly-mentally-impaired.html

If it's a secret, how come I knew about it when I worked in the Finance dept of a council Social Services Dept? And if it was founded two years ago, how come I was able to do this in 1974? I was in the section dealing with "Part III Accommodation", that is, council-run elderly persons homes. There are often disputes over the property and savings of people who are mentally incapacitated, and the relatives do not always have their best interests at heart. Believe me.

If it's a secret, how come I knew about it when I worked in the Finance dept of a council Social Services Dept?

"Secret" sells more newspapers.  Histrionics = sales to conspiracy theorists 

For a less alarmist take on the same story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8772478

Regardless both papers ran the same story. One alarmist, the other less alarmist.
Not sure there is any conspiracy here but that's a lot of money (3.2B) in dispute for a closed court. And over 10% of 'their' business generated complaints.

I thought it was interesting The Guardian quoted Mail on Sunday.

I read 'secret' two ways, at first because it was not so well known but I think secret may have been referencing the fact it is a closed court. Maybe.

There were ways and means before so unsure why they have brought in this Court of Protection.

unsure why they have brought in this Court of Protection.

There has been such a court for a long time. The present one started on 1 Oct 2007 following the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Prior to that time  there was an Office of the Supreme Court of England and Wales (also termed the Court of Protection) that had jurisdiction over the property and affairs of persons who lacked capacity to manage and admister these themselves. At that time the old Court of Protection was part of the old Office of the Public Guardian; the new Court of Protection and the Public Guardian are now entirely separate organisations with different responsibilities. When making decisions about the property and welfare of persons lacking capacity, the overarching principle pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was that any decision made on behalf of that person must be made in his best interests. The guidance given under the Mental Health Acts 1959 and 1983 about the making of settlements or wills could no longer be directly applied to a decision made under the 2005 Act.

When making decisions about the property and welfare of persons lacking capacity, the overarching principle pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was that any decision made on behalf of that person must be made in his best interests.

So, having determined that the relative is not out to just milk the debilitated person's bank account dry to serve his own ends, how is it in the person's best interest that his relative then has to get approval from the government to pay the bills, and how is it in his best interests to have a substantial portion of his money taken by the government in fees?

relative then has to get approval from the government to pay the bills

Which is neither unreasonably withheld or delayed.

substantial portion of his money taken by the government in fees

They are actually quite low, and there is a generous fee exemption scheme.

If you think it's so bad, what do you suggest in its place?

They are actually quite low

Really?

The OPG then charges an annual fee of up to £800 to supervise the activities of the deputy, whether they are a family member or a professional appointee.

Miss Obhrai claims that without her knowledge the local authority, Buckinghamshire County Council, were appointed to run her mother's affairs.

She said: 'They took over running my mother's bank account and charged her over £1,000 a year in fees, and all they were doing was ensuring her rent and utility bills were paid by direct debit.

Low by the standards of a politician's annual expense claim perhaps, but a substantial amount to most people. 

and there is a generous fee exemption scheme.

Wow!  How "generous" of the government to reduce the fees sometimes to allow a person to have his bills paid with his own money. 

If you think it's so bad, what do you suggest in its place?

Here's a "novel" idea:  How about the government keeps its control- and money-grabbing nose out of private affairs unless there is actually something to suggest that a relative is not acting in the best interests of the person concerned?

unless there is actually something to suggest that a relative is not acting in the best interests of the person concerned?

Suggest to whom? And even if anyone is minded to do anything, what then?

Suggest to the appropriate authorities.  Then, if investigation reveals some underhand business going on, action should be taken.

But like a large majority of government employees, you seem to think that the government should be poking its nose into every detail of people's lives, imposing draconian restrictions and taking extortionate amounts of money for doing so, instead of becoming involved if and when a problem arises.

Suggest to the appropriate authorities.  Then, if investigation reveals some underhand business going on, action should be taken.

But like a large majority of government employees, you seem to think that the government should be poking its nose into every detail of people's lives, imposing draconian restrictions and taking extortionate amounts of money for doing so, instead of becoming involved if and when a problem arises.

Well said Paul. I feel exactly the same.

Suggest to the appropriate authorities.  Then, if investigation reveals some underhand business going on, action should be taken.

By which time it's often too late and the money has disappeared and/or been spent.

Not sure what the fuss is here. Most people are able to draft a financial power of attorney before they ever become incapacitated anyway.

By which time it's often too late and the money has disappeared and/or been spent.

And of course, it's much better for some of the money to disappear into a government department even though there's no suggestion that the relative is doing anything wrong. 

But you could apply that basic argument to dozens of situations.  Perhaps we should all get permission from a government-appointed agent each time we want to visit the bank to make a withdrawal or deposit, and pay massive annual fees for the oversight, just in case we decide we're going to rob the place one time?  After all, by the time we're captured afterward the money could have disappeared, couldn't it?   

Not sure what the fuss is here. Most people are able to draft a financial power of attorney before they ever become incapacitated anyway.

The fuss is yet another scenario in which the government is assuming that everyone is guilty until proven otherwise, and penalizing the majority for the actions of a few.   And maybe most people are quite capable of having a financial power of attorney drafted before they become mentally incapacitated, but that's not going to help the rest, is it?

Suggest to the appropriate authorities.  Then, if investigation reveals some underhand business going on, action should be taken.

But like a large majority of government employees, you seem to think that the government should be poking its nose into every detail of people's lives, imposing draconian restrictions and taking extortionate amounts of money for doing so, instead of becoming involved if and when a problem arises.

I'd like to see the survey that shows what the majority of government employees think.

The government are quiet happy to take money out of the pockets of the elderly and disabled why not have another excuse to take more, and say its for their own good, most family who do long term care for their relatives do not just take money off them (I know there are exceptions) but they pay the persons bills or if it is a married couple joint finances ect, can that be classed as taking I do not think so but if Social Services departments had there way I am sure it would (in most cases).

They normally are secret the lay person would not be aware of such measures that may be taken.

The only people who suffer are the public, because when the money has been spent by said government the person is kicked out of the nursing home or what ever lovely place they have been put in and given back to said carers who are then asked to support that person again. (This does happen) or the family is given a bill.