Yeah Probably Should Have Done This Properly the 1st Time.

On Saturday May 15th I received the following, single page, judgement from the Court of Protection;



If you cannot view that image it simply reads;



In the Matter of [Grandmother's name]
Order

Made by: District Judge Ralton

At: Archway Tower, Two Junction Road, London, N19 5sZ
Whereas;

1. [my name] has applied to the court by COP-7 for cancellation of a registration of a Lasting Power of Attorney

2. Such an application to the Court of Protection must be made by COP-1 and the appropriate fee paid.

It is ordered that: COP-7 application struck out.

This legal argument is rock solid. Therefore I will not be appealing the decision. I will however be re-submitting the argument using the correct COP-1 form. This form is more complicated and when you consider the several secondary motions I will be submitting at the same time runs to around forty pages. The COP-1 form is highly detailed asking questions about every aspect of all the parties lives. If any one of these is not filled out correctly then it gives the judge cause to strike out the application on a technicality. However if that happens it gives me cause to appeal on the grounds that the technicality is not relevant to the narrow legal question the court has been asked. That question is whether or not an LPA can be registered without a objection by a named person being considered. The answer to that is simply no.

They key secondary motion I will be submitting is my exception from court fees. There are six grounds for exemption from fees. I qualify for five of them. It is worth noting that Judge Ralton has already read the legal argument I will be submitting and has decided that a high profile argument about legal aid reform is the least of the Crown's worries.