CASE STUDY: Robert Howard Protects Attorneys from Unjust £45,000 Local Authority Demand
Navigating the transition from self-funding residential care to Local Authority assistance is often a financial minefield. For siblings "Jane" and "John," acting as joint attorneys for their father, "Burt," this transition turned into a legal nightmare when the council demanded they personally repay £45,000.
The Background: Family Care and Practical Realities
Burt had lived in residential care for three years due to mobility issues. During this time, Jane and John acted as his Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for both Health and Finance.
To fund his care, Burt’s home was sold. Over the years, a staggering 90% of those sale proceeds went directly to his care home fees. While Burt was a "self-funder," he maintained mental capacity. He remained active in family life—ordering items online, treating his children, and giving cash gifts to his grandchildren.
The Conflict: The Local Authority Steps In
By mid-2025, Burt’s funds had depleted to the point where he became eligible for Local Authority financial assistance. During the mandatory financial assessment, the council reviewed Burt's bank statements.
The council calculated that Burt had spent approximately £45,000 on gifts and personal items over the three-year period. Despite the fact that Burt had full capacity when he made these choices, the Local Authority took an aggressive stance:
They classified the spending as "deliberate deprivation of assets."
They demanded that Jane and John, as the attorneys, repay the £45,000 personally.
They pressured the siblings to explain how they would pay this debt from their own personal funds.
Distressed and facing a life-changing financial demand, Jane and John contacted Robert Howard Wills and Powers.
The Legal Intervention: Challenging the "Debt"
Robert Howard immediately identified that the council’s demands were legally flawed. He launched a robust defense based on three pillars of law:
1. The Mental Capacity Act & "Unwise Decisions" Robert reminded the council that under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, an individual with capacity has the legal right to make their own decisions—even if the council considers those decisions "unwise." As Burt had capacity at the time of the spending, his attorneys were simply facilitating his express wishes.
2. The Law of Agency Robert argued the fundamental principle of the Law of Agency: an attorney acts on behalf of the donor. Any perceived "debt" resulting from Burt’s spending was Burt’s alone; it was legally inappropriate for the Local Authority to pursue the children personally for these funds.
3. The Capital Limit Disregard Robert pointed out that the council had failed to allow any sum at all for the mandatory capital limit of £23,250 —a vital disregard that the council had overlooked in their calculations, together with the “elephant in the room” - the payment of 90% of the proceeds of sale of Burt’s home towards his care fees.
The Result: No Further Action
After firm representations by Robert Howard, the Local Authority realized their position would not hold up in court. They conceded and dropped all demands against Jane and John.
A Final Word
Sadly, Burt passed away shortly after the dispute was resolved. However, his children were able to honor his memory without the crushing weight of a £45,000 legal battle hanging over them.
This case serves as a vital reminder: Local Authorities are not always right. If you are an attorney being pressured by a council regarding care fees, professional legal representation is essential to protect your rights.
Is a Local Authority challenging your actions as an Attorney? Don't face it alone. Contact Robert Howard Wills and Powers today for a free initial consultation.
Office: (01924) 965570 | Mobile: 07803 276780 | Email: rhowardwills@gmail.com
Jane and John were delighted with the result of the representations made on their behalf.
