Wallop!

I've just filed paperwork with the Court of Protection. For the three applications I've made along with supporting evidence the total runs to 55 pages. Apart from making a satisfying thud when you plonk it on the desk this means it is far to long to post up or copy out here. These are the edited highlights though;

COP-44A Form. This is the fee exemption or remission form. I've sought a full exemption on the grounds of the applicant's (me) circumstances. I have also submitted two forms of proof of my circumstances. This application is bombproof and means that any appeals, hearings or other time wasting from the court will be done at the taxpayers expense. If the UK government pushes ahead with the welfare reforms they have announced today then I will still qualify for a full exemption on the grounds of means testing. So if that's the route they want to go down they'll only be wasting their own time.

COP1 Form. This is the main application form the important questions are;

• Q. 5.1 which asks "Please state the matter you want the court to decide." I have answered this by writing "Whether a LPA can be registered without an objection by a named person being considered by the Office of the Public Guardian?" It is impossible for the court to answer yes to this question. The best they can do is use their discretion to rule that the legal technicality has no significant impact on the case.
• Q. 5.2 which asks "Please state the order you are asking the court to make." I have answered this by writing "Cancellation of the LPA's on the grounds that the statutory instrument does not exist." This is a perfectly reasonable and rather simple order to request from the court.
• Q. 5.3 which asks "How would the order benefit the person to whom the application relates?" I have answered this by writing "It will protect her from the consequences of the LPA's being used. So far they have been used to obtain inappropriate medical treatment including the prescription of opiates." This should be enough to prevent the court using its discretion over the importance of the legal technicality.
• Q. 4.2 asks for details of any other person who the applicant thinks should be notified. The donor and attorney have to be notified. Here I have included the details of my younger brother because it's easier then explaining why I haven't.

COP-1 Annexes A&B. These support the COP-1 application and include very detailed questions on every aspect of the donors medical care and financial situation. Apart from obvious things like the names of her GP and an approximate value of her property I've just left this blank answering most questions with the word "Unknown." I have included an explanation for this which I will get onto later. On the COP-1A form question 2.8 asks for details of people who visit the donor regularly. Here I have included my brother and Helen (the cleaner) defining her role as "cleaner". The court may request further information from her but as she really providing medical care without licence or insurance and isn't paying tax on her earnings I can only advise she stays out of it. I only included her because again it's easier then explaining why I didn't.

COP-3 Form. This is an assessment of mental capacity that needs to be filled out by an appropriate professional. I simply haven't submitted one instead included an explanation of its absence.

COP-24 Form. This is a witness statement form on which you submit any written information that isn't covered in the main form(s). I have used this one to lay out the argument which is an objection was raised with the OPG well within the time limit. They acknowledged the receipt of that objection. They have also acknowledged that they failed to include that objection in the case file. I also wrote "While I have included COP1A and COP1B forms with this application they are incomplete. This is because over the five years I have witnessed the attorney (my father) has gradually removed the donor (my grandmother) from decisions about her property and healthcare. As a consequence she is unable to provide answers to these questions. The attorney is unwilling to provide these answers and forcefully objects to me raising any questions about the donor's property or healthcare." Apart from being true this provides an acceptable explanation of why the information is missing. It also serves to further remove the courts freedom to rule the technicality is not important to the case by raising the suggestion if not the accusation that there is something more serious going on in the case.

I then went on to write; "I have not included a COP3 Form. Apart from the problems mentioned above the donor is an elderly lady with poor mobility. Therefore subjecting her to an assessment of mental capacity would be an unnecessary inconvenience that, I my opinion, would have no bearing on the question the court has been asked to rule on. Also I have serious doubts over the donor's local healthcare providers ability to provide such an assessment. However if the court feels that such an assessment is required I have no problem with it appointing an appropriate professional to carry one out." Again this is all true and explains why no COP-3 form is included. It also puts pressure on the court to prove that it is not simply using the proceeding to subject an elderly lady to a fishing trip.

At the same time I also made a COP-9 application to exclude the solicitor (D White) from the proceedings. This the same argument I used last time. Re-opening the case would lead to questions about his professional conduct. In a previous application he abused his position as legal advisor to try and keep the case closed and charged the donor £250 for the privilege. Therefore it is improper for him to represent anyone other then himself in the proceeding.


As for what happens now the Court could use the lack of information in the COP-1A&B annexes or the lack of a COP-3 to strike down the application. However this will give me grounds to appeal because the reasonable thing for the court to do if it requires more information is to request that information from the relevant party. Obviously when it does that it will have to demonstrate why it requires that information and in this case I'm not sure it can. I will also be able to appeal if they strike down the application on the grounds that the technicality is not relevant.


Just for the record this was all done by last Thursday evening. It's just because I couldn't file it until today I decided to do all the photocopying at leisure.