Management consultant charges mother £400 for each visit to nursing home – Court of Protection

28 October 2015 by

Court of protectionSF, Re [2015] EWCOP 68 (26 October 2015) – read judgment

This Court of Protection case has, unusually, made the papers, and when you read the details you won’t be surprised. What the judge described as a “callous and calculating” son charged his widowed mother, who suffered from dementia, more than £117 000 for “out of pocket expenses” visiting her in her nursing home.  He had been in charge of her expenses since 2004 when Sheila (the mother) had been admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. But alarm bells only went off after her unpaid nursing bills reached nearly £30 000. The Public Guardian launched an enquiry that led to this hearing of an application for the court to revoke the son’s  (Martin’s) Enduring Power of Attorney (‘EPA’) and to direct him to cancel its registration. The Public Guardian also applied to freeze Sheila’s bank account.

Background facts and law

There was an ongoing dispute in the run up to the application in this case. Martin  claimed that his mother’s care fees should have been publicly funded under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but the Powys Local Health Board contended that, although Sheila was sectioned under section 2, she was never sectioned under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and was, therefore, not eligible for public funding under section 117 of the Act.  In the light of this, the Public Guardian believed that while Martin attempted to resolve this dispute, it would be in Sheila’s best interests that he continued to pay her care fees.

If it transpires that she qualifies for NHS Continuing Health Care and has been eligible for a period of time, then Martin will be entitled to claim a refund on overpayment of care fees.

As it happened, Martin claimed his usual daily charging rate when he was a self-employed independent consultant prior to his retirement. He stated in his witness statement that he did not think this self-remuneration was excessive:

If I had not spent the large amounts of time on this case, then my mother’s estate would still be illegally paying the full costs of care.

The Court’s decision

It did not take long for the judge to issue the order revoking Martin’s power of attorney. One would be “hard pressed”, he declared,

to find a more callous and calculating attorney, who has so flagrantly abused his position of trust. Martin hasn’t paid his mother a personal allowance since June 2014 because toiletries were free in her previous residential care home and he resents having to pay for them now in the nursing home in which she has been living since February 2013. He even begrudges her having her hair tinted.

Indeed, so provoked was the judge by the son’s attitude in this case that he was prepared add his own thoughts to the Public Attorney’s claim, that the amount of £117,289.45 was ‘an excessive amount to claim for out of pocket expenses.” Senior Judge Lush (the new title of the former Master of the Court of Protection) stated that

charging one’s elderly mother a daily rate of £400 for visiting and acting as her attorney is repugnant.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

 

 

6 comments


  1. Judge Lush may find the £400 for a day’s work to be repugnant. Now remind, how much is the fee for an application to the Court of Protection (no matter how simple the case)…

  2. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  3. Simon Carne says:

    The final quoted passage above is interesting. It doesn’t seem to be the principle of charging for a visit which the judge found repugnant. It was the rate of £400. (Surely some mistake.)

  4. SJB says:

    I think the commentary should make it clear that the £400 daily rate included “the work he [Martin] put into the claims against Powys Local Health Board.” [para 27] Had he not done so would his mother have received £82k? [para 21] Perhaps you will follow the case and see whether the court appointed panel deputy even tries to recover the outstanding amount for the period 16/08/10 to 25/02/13? And, if so, how much s/he charges?

  5. Daniel Smith says:

    I wouldn’t say it is groundbreaking news as I live with my mother and have all sorts of problems and if you’ve got a couple of weeks’ spare I will tell you what caused them.

  6. It reminds me of the old jibe that a consultant is someone who borrows your watch then charges you when you ask the time. But I never thought I’d see it played out in real life.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: