Fucking lawyer trying to steal my aunt's estate.

Yeah, yeah…I can see that…

…and I like!

How 'bout a Harrier, and just have him hover there…?

Seconded. And hugs.

This could easily be a partnership scam, where the care home and solicitor are in cahoots.

How can you possibly be barred from seeing your relative, have they got some sort of legal right to prevent this - no they do not, she is not in custody she is in care.

They simply cannot ban you in any sense of the word, what they can do is allow visiting appointments to be arranged and even then ad-hoc arrangments can be made in the advent of urgent matters, but that is the limit of their power.

This is a complete lie.

You need to get to citizens advice.

There is a huge amount of money involved in these things, and a massive tax dodge.

I think you need to contact the fraud division of your local police.

Tris

Quartz, I’ve been lurking in this thread for a bit - but the latest developments are getting me concerned. I don’t know much about the situation with care facilities in the UK, but here in the US they’re nominally supervised by the State governments. If there is any governmental oversight for long term care facilities in the UK, I’d imagine that they’ve got an office that should also be informed of the situation you’re seeing here. As casdave says, it’s a distresssingly well-defined pattern of fraud where the care facility assists a lawyer to fleece their inmates. If your National Health system has any oversight over these sorts of facilities, I’d imagine they’ve got a hotline for just this kind of fraud.

Just one more thread to pull to try to get things fixed over there.

I hope things work out, and that you’ll be able to update us on what the situation is.

Garcious! How can people be so low. In my book there is a special corner of hell for those who take advantage of childeren and the elderly. It sounds like you’ve gotten involved in the nick of time though. Good job, and good luck. Let us know what happens.

As an aside, I have an uncle who is in the same type of situation and his son seems to want to put his father in the cheapest care possible so he can get more money when the time comes. My brother, at my mother’s request, intervened, and got my uncle to sit with a lawyer, just the two of them. Something my cousin wold never let happen.

People never cease to amaze me.

I’ve only been involved in a few of these sorts of fights, but let me make some general comments, a few of which Quartz may flame me for, but nonetheless others in the thread may be interested in.

1/ There are instances where lawyers rip off clients. No two ways about it. They are quite rare. Any arrangement where a lawyer gets direct personal benefit by taking advantage of an elderly client is a strike off, don’t bother arguing, don’t bother applying to practice ever again offence.

2/ There are many, many, many more instances of people (usually family) arguing with other people (also usually family) about elderly people and appropriate control of their property. Each side may use lawyers. One side will often leap to the conclusion that the other is being driven by lawyers. In fact, 99.99% of the time, the lawyer is taking steps to achieve goals dictated by their client. A good percentage of the time (well over 75% in my experience) even the precise steps taken by the lawyer to achieve those goals occurs with full knowledge and approval of the client.

3/ Both sides of the debate tend to think the other is the one doing the ripping off. Both sides of the debate quickly retreat into a bunker comprising the facts they prefer to hear. Getting a good overview of the position by speaking to one side is very often entirely impossible. Each side entirely mistrusts the other, and believes any facts counter to their position are merely lies. Any minor anomalies become glaring clues in a grand conspiracy, despite the fact that in everyday life we all know that shit happens all the time.

4/ In cases involving the vulnerable elderly, the position is made very much worse because they may often be too polite and/or prevailed upon and/or vulnerable to do other than tell both sides what they want to hear, meaning that both sides truthfully think the other side must be lying about what the elderly person wants. **Both ** sides are quite certain that their elderly relative wouldn’t lie to them, so it must be the other side that is lying about what their elderly relative told them.

A person who thinks it improper for for their elderly relative to consult a lawyer about changing their will without consulting them starts a little alarm ringing in my head. But then I don’t know anything much about the situation. And that will remain so, for as long as only one person involved in this situation is a poster in this thread.

I think the problem about the PoA is that it was being changed in favour of the Solicitor’s partner and “an unknown third party”. I gather that any family would find it odd that a relative would hand over their assets to a stranger.

The authorities are now involved. We’ll see what happens.

What’s your point, DM? I was talking about the will, **kfl ** was talking about the PoA.

Besides which, if we want to get on to the subject of the PoA, it is not uncommon for an elderly person to appoint persons other than her relatives as attorneys. They may well be persons suggested by the lawyer if the elderly person doesn’t know of someone suitable. Several of my partners who do this sort of work are attorneys for dozens of elderly people and deceased estates. This sort of thing is particularly common if the elderly person is concerned about her relatives. Like if they’ve been bullying her. Is that what has happened here? How the heck would I know?

I can see exactly where **Princhester **is coming from.

My mother mentioned at some point that she’d written a will and got a couple of people to sign it as witnesses. I have absolutely no idea what’s in her will or whether she’s leaving her money to me, my asshole brother, her church or the neighbour’s cat. And furthermore I don’t care. It’s her will and she can do what she wants. I can totally see where the mention of a will getting relatives running would and *should *get alarm bells ringing.

On the other hand…

After checking Quartz’s previous post it seems that the solicitor has a history of not acting altogether honestly and may well require checking out. As he helped a client revoke a power of attorney without first checking that the client had the capacity to do so I’d be concerned. And while the solicitor may be acting above board in having independent others acting as executors it is not a common practice here and it definitely seems suspicious that people so close to him are being involved.

Its a very tough situation to be in. Of course Aunt’s wishes must be respected and she should be exposed to minimum fuss but I’d say the situation definitely bears looking at by professionals. By which I mean speaking to the police and the Legal Complaints Service ( http://www.legalcomplaints.org.uk/home.page ). WRT the care home banning visitors - they most certainly can if that is Aunt’s wishes. It is her home after all. If there is a suspicion that the solicitor is somehow involved in this banning then **Quartz **can speak to the care home management to find out what’s going on and make them aware of any issues.

I hope this gets sorted out for Aunt’s sake.

Where do you read this?

Where is this said?

Princhester, we clearly have different practices, and different senses of what is normal, neither of which can lay claim to a postion of superior privilege here. I, too, have no idea of the truth of the matter. You may be right, and if you are, then there will be a pissed off solicitor somewhere trying to do her best and being given Her Majesty’s Proctoscope for her trouble. But she’s a big girl.

On the other hand, if she is a fraudster, better to be safe than sorry. I have seen sufficient cases of elderly client abuse by solicitors that my fraud-dar went off the scale at what the OP was saying. The PoA in the name of a stranger, the conflicting accounts, all are things that make me go hmmm.

Add in the information from the related post here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=431450
and the story given to Quartz seems to change from Quartz being cut out in favour of the father and solicitor to father now being cut out altogether. This begs an explanation. And there is no clear indication of any other side of the family being involved in the conflict here - Quartz was the one involved in administration in the first place, and one might have expected some reference to villainous cousins if there was some tug-of-war.

To me, the least bad scenario is family embarrassment and a bit of soul-searching. Awkward and unpleasant, but a lot better than some pathetic loser with a practising certificate pouring family money into a bookie’s pockets. Quartz is fortunate he has family in the trade.

All I would claim to be right about is that there is no reason to think we know what is going on with any certainty. I have no idea who is right in any other sense.

I could comment more on the scenario we are given but I don’t want to get put into the position of theorising hurtfully about things I know nothing about. I agree that the situation is worth checking out, but I see all sorts of possibilities here, every one of which (were I a gambling man ;)) I would consider more likely than the lawyer being corrupt.

I’d close by saying that leaping to conclusions because “lawyers are usually self interested and teh bad”, and entering into 9/11 style conspiracy theories based on minor anomalies and chinese whispers will not help.

I think you need to re-read the OP **and **the linked post.

I did. At least twice. Right back at you. Give me some quotes.

As the authorities are officially involved, I think it’s best that this thread be closed and I have so emailed the mods.

Thread closed.