We see what wills and probate professionals think of this week’s statement from the retired Court of Protection judge.
This week, former Court of Protection judge, Denzil Lush was reported to have shared his strong stance against the Powers of Attorney system within the UK.
Today’s Wills & Probate have sought the thoughts of other professionals within the industry to see whether anyone agrees with what has been raised in this controversial new debate.
Trevor Worth, CEO & Founder of Portcullis Legals, said: “Whilst fully respecting Denzil’s view gained from his first hand experience, I’m always suspicious when anyone in the public domain has a book or product to promote as it is often accompanied by a good old fashioned, outlandish PR statement to heighten attention.
“Whilst there will always be examples of individuals trying to manipulate the system, the process we have now regarding LPAs has encouraged a huge number of individuals to put this type of protection in place. For the vast majority, it is certainly the best thing they can do to protect their interests should the worst happen.
“The welcome reduction in OPG fees earlier this year has seen an uptake in LPAs amongst our existing client base and if we followed the more heavy handed approach towards the Court of Protection being involved as cited by Mr Lush, it would just discourage individuals from doing anything at all.
“I’m all for processes evolving but this is the archetypal hammer to crack a walnut.”
Clive Ponder, Director of Countrywide Tax and Trust Corporation, said: “I and the rest of the senior staff in Countrywide Tax and Trust Corporation Ltd are bitterly disappointed that a man who has presided over the Court of Protection for many years has had to sensationalise the Foreword to his book in order I assume to sell a few more copies.
“Mr Lush may not trust his family to look after his affairs if he loses capacity, but most of my clients do trust their family to manage their affairs if capacity is lost and would not want an expensive external body like the Court of Protection to interfere.
“If Lasting Powers of Attorney are such a bad choice for those who are looking to entrust their financial affairs and delegate to others, then why did the Court erode the safeguarding of the process by removing the requirement of notifying persons and 2nd certificate providers in instances where no one is to be notified, which was always recommended as a safeguard?
“I am not sure where Mr Lush gets his additional figure of £320 a year for a deputy. It could be far more than this depending on circumstances. Perhaps his comments should have been made whilst he was still in office and in a position to bring about change.
“A report like this could do untold damage to clients who generally are looking for reasons not to put their affairs in order.
“If there are cases where the system has not worked as the story indicates, then one should look how the system can be improved to solve these instances and not knock the whole system.”
George Hodgson, Chief Executive of STEP, said: “A Lasting Power of Attorney gives someone else control over your property and finances and/or health and welfare in the event that you become mentally incapacitated. With this level of responsibility, Denzil Lush is absolutely right to highlight the risks, and his comments emphasise the importance of choosing a trustworthy individual to look after your affairs in these circumstances. If an individual does not have someone that they can trust to appoint as an attorney, a deputyship may well be a better choice. For the great majority of families, however, an LPA works well and provides reassurance that if they lose the ability to handle their own affairs, they have chosen the best possible person or people to manage these for them, preventing their family from the undue worry, delay and cost that may be associated with applying to the Court of Protection for a deputyship order in these circumstances.”
