Skip to main content

DOLS and the mess of the court of protection

The link is to a good article about the problems with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The problem is that the system is so expensive to operate that the people processed by it have little chance of getting sensible responses (although the court of appeal on this occasion almost uniquely has allowed a second opinion).


Anajinn said…
Alzheimer's couple case highlights need for power of attorney
The importance of obtaining a lasting power of attorney has been highlighted by the case of an elderly couple who were charged £44,400 by lawyers after developing Alzheimer's disease.

According to the Daily Mail, Feliks and Rosemary Zakrzewski both suffered from dementia, but because they had not appointed anyone to make financial decisions on their behalf, responsibility for their money was given to a solicitor.

Charges of £200 an hour added up to almost £19,000 in just ten months, while the couple themselves were given just £100 of their own money to spend over a four-month period.

Since solicitors are only answerable to their clients, the couple's daughter Antoinette Tricker, whom they lived with from 2005 until their deaths in 2007 and 2009, was powerless to intervene.

Had the family obtained a lasting power of attorney prior to the couple's Alzheimer's diagnosis, Ms Tricker, or another friend or relative, would have been able to act on their behalf.

Offering words of advice for other families, she said: "Dementia can strike at any time. Plan ahead and get a lasting power of attorney before you too are sucked into this costly world."

Posted by Gemma Roskell
• Power of Attorney News: Expert lasting power of attorney guidance from a solicitor plus lasting power of attorney forms

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…