RSS Feed

Financial abuse, Court of Protection

I have talked before about how I think Senior Judge Lush has probably the best case load in English justice, and this is another one that doesn’t disappoint.


It is probably the most blatant bit of financial abuse I’ve come across, and I hope that those involved will get what is coming to them.


Re OL 2015


OL is 77 and has clearly worked hard all of her life and built up savings. She had a stroke and signed a Lasting Power of Attorney to allow her son YS and her daughter DA to manage her financial affairs on her behalf. There was a third son, who as far as I can see is blameless.  Neither DA nor YS were young people, and they had proper jobs – they were not young and impulsive, nor should they have been in financial dire straits.


Despite this, they took the money that they were managing on their mother’s behalf and spent it on themselves.

Let’s put it really starkly

In the six months that DA and YS were ‘looking after’ their mother’s finances, she went from having £730,000 to £7,000.

DA and YS on the other hand, had paid off their mortgage, had a loft conversion, bought a new house (entirely with their mother’s money) in which their mother (who paid all of the money) had a 20% stake and DA (who paid not a penny) had a 40% stake and YS (who also paid not a penny) had a 40% stake.

£730,000 to £7,000 in six months, equates to OL’s financial resources dwindling at a rate of £2,800 per day. OR that at the rate of spending, she had about another three days money left.

Or to put it yet another way (going back to Mostyn J * and the Pizza Express case  if OL had instead of appointing deputies, had gone into Pizza Express and bought meals for fifty people a day, for every day over the last six months, she’d probably be slightly better off now.  Or she could have met with the wife in that case and handed over that forty grand in cash EIGHTEEN TIMES and still been better off)

*second best case-load. And to misquote Bill Hicks “you know, after those first two best caseloads, there’s a real big f***ing drop-off”


Senior Judge Lush spells out all of the guidance and law on being a person’s deputy under the Lasting Power of Attorney. If you want to see it, you can find it all in the judgment. A key bit is here


Paragraph 7.60 of the Code says:

Fiduciary duty

“A fiduciary duty means attorneys must not take advantage of their position. Nor should they put themselves in a position where their personal interests conflict with their duties. They must also not allow any other influences to affect the way in which they act as an attorney. Decisions should always benefit the donor, and not the attorney. Attorneys must not profit or get any personal benefit from their position, apart from receiving gifts where the Act allows it, whether or not it is at the donor’s expense.”

I think I can condense all of the guidance and law into this simple sentence of my own, however   (apologies for Anglo-Saxon language)


“If you are appointed as a deputy to manage someone’s financial affairs, it is NOT YOUR FUCKING MONEY”



About suesspiciousminds

Law geek, local authority care hack, fascinated by words and quirky information; deeply committed to cheesecake and beer.

33 responses

  1. I don’t understand how they got away with it for so long.I say this because my mother gave me her power of attorney after she reached 91 and she did live until she was 98 dying in the year 2000 in a new house I had bought for her to be near the family and looked after by a devoted care lady.I had to account to authorities (I forget exactly who) for everything I sold for her including her house and various shareholdings and care expenses;I was very glad to do that so other relatives could have no unfounded suspicions of wrongdoing.
    How on earth did these crooks get away with it?

  2. Miranda Dealler

    The solicitors seem pretty dubious to me. I take it the panel deputy will pursue them as well as the attorneys. The failure to question whether a person with mental confusion should be “giving” £640,000 to their attorneys seems pretty spectacular. Maybe at least one of the people witnessing a LPA or the registration should be accompanied by a doctor’s certificate so put some sort of evidence base under the document

  3. Paul Summerfield

    Miranda Dealler has just hit the nail on the head in this case in referring to the donors solicitor, as this should not have happened because the solicitor is supposed to protect the donor this is where the failure of the court of protection system is failing because it is protecting its solicitors and not the donor.

    Is there any more information on the solicitors or is this being covered up by the court of protection?

    Reading this case yesterday gave me nightmares last night because this case is very similar to what happened to my mother and myself when my two older brothers took my mother to a solicitor in Portsmouth to change her will and become my mother’s attorneys without informing me about what they were doing.

    On top of this it all ended up at the court of protection in London and Senior Judge Lush was the Judge at the hearing as I am feeling a little emotional about this at the moment I will just say that all court procedures were amiss at that hearing, he allowed my mother’s solicitor not to show up at court when my mother’s solicitor had been forced to write a statement on the matter, he allowed my two brothers to take over the court proceedings and he disagreed with me that there is a huge difference in someone losing “financial capacity” to someone losing their “mental capacity “ when they are in fact medically speaking the two mental conditions are in fact “worlds apart” from each other.

    Judge Lush a few weeks later made his judgment that my mother should pay all costs because she wrote to the court of protection wanting me also to be her attorney and refused any appeal in the matter. My mother died just after this judgment via what is known as an Addison’s crisis and this can happen if someone stopped giving my mother her steroids that she needed to keep her alive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    I will write if you want more on this and the huge problem it is getting cases like this to be heard at the court of protection.

  4. Paul Summerfield

    Hold on I have just read Judge Lush Judgement .

    Am I missing something here because I thought.

    1. To become an attorney to someone you had to see a solicitor

    2.. The attorney documents are signed at the solicitor and the documents are sent to the court of protection to be registered when the donor loses or begins to lose mental capacity.

    Is it possible to become an attorney to someone without seeing a solicitor?

    Please don’t tell me you can do it without a solicitor involvement.

  5. Paul Summerfield

    Seems you can register as someones attorney on your own without a solicitor to the court of protection, that is madness, its an open door for someone to be ripped-off in secret without other close relatives being informed until its to late.

  6. Paul Summerfield

    To stop financial abuse in this manner (and what we are seeing here is the tip of an ice burg) is:

    1. A want to be attorney donor must contact a solicitor, it should not be allowed that you can do this ones self.
    2. Before papers are signed the solicitor must contact all close relatives to inform what is about to take place as I think now solicitors only have to tell close relatives by law when they registered it with the court of protection, by then it is all too late.

  7. Ashamed to be British

    What happens when someone is doing the same without any power of attorney, they’re just ruthless and ripping off their mother for all she’s worth?

    I don’t think it can be proved, one of the mother’s is a vulnerable adult who adult social services are letting down, she’s too afraid to say no and is often trapped when she has to sign away her savings, the other mother is now deceased but was conned into thinking all of her money was going on a granny annex so she could be cared for as necessary, all that resulted in was doubling the size of the houe with no intention of ever speaking yo her again let alone taking her in.

    Both these ‘sons’ have literally got away with taking what they want without problem, what does one do about a problem like this?

  8. Paul Summerfield

    What does one do with a problem like this?

    Answer: Do away with the court of protection and let local courts deal with the problem.

    I think there are only three Court of Protection in the country, the court of protection in the past has been found to be ripping the vulnerable out of their own money by not giving them interest rates on their own saving and not giving them there own money when they need it.

    • There are certainly some significant issues with the Court of Protection, but I think that some of the best Judges in the country are currently in the Court of Protection sphere (I think of Baker J, Senior Judge Lush and District Judge Eldergill in particular) and that Senior Judge Lush is probably doing more than anyone to tackle financial abuses by deputies.

      Reform and make more accessible and comprehensible, absolutely.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Well I know you think highly of Judge Lush, but I have given you a good and truthful account of how he conducted proceedings or allowed for proceedings to go out of order. relating to my mother in a secret court. I also can prove that my brothers were paying my mothers solicitor out of their own money. Do you think it right when statements are not allowed to be exchange at the same time between parties, because I don’t for good reason? Do you think its right when solicitors and medical consultants who wrote a statement and a report to the court to be allowed not to show up at the hearing to be questioned on what they had written, why they had written it and why a solicitor refused to see her client breaking solicitor guidelines. Look what Lord Neuberger is saying in the papers, he is on the right track, this stuff goes on because the complaints system is designed not to work and MP’s and Ministers are in fact acting like scared Nancy’s when given the proof of these problems in the secret courts.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Thinking about what you think about Judge Lush I will give you the reason why Judge Lush acted in this way towards my mother, it was because I know someone was pulling his strings in this matter and that person was David Connor Head of Portsmouth CPS during 2001. My brothers John, Keith and cousin Sylvia Jarvis are really quite dim, in fact you have to be dim to try and pull off what they tried to do. John, Keith and Sylvia have been friends with David Connor since childhood. They went to him for help. They went to Connor when I found out that my ex-partner had allowed my children to drink and take drugs from the age of 15 years old, I had also found out about the arson attack on the next door neighbour house by a Jacky Floyd who was staying at my daughters house. Police let her off because she claimed she was coming off the heroin. CPS and Hampshire Police would not prosecute because they feared I would find out about it and I would lay my evidence of contempt of court and perverting the course of justice against Hampshire Police and Portsmouth CPS of what they did unlawfully to me when I found out what and was worried that my ex-partner was allowing my step-daughter to drink and take drugs in her own home a few years before the arson attack.

        Message to David Connor:
        My mother died in such a bad way due to your meddling to stop the truth getting out of what the Hampshire Police and CPS did to me and my children in 2001

      • I haven’t edited any of that out Paul, because I wanted to let you have your say, but I would have to take it down if I was asked to do so by any of the people that you’ve named. (I like you, but I don’t like anyone enough to get sued for, hope you understand.)

      • Paul Summerfield

        If you consider what the mother and her boyfriend did to their two kids in the Hampstead Satanic case was serious child abuse and that the police should have arrested both Mother and Boyfriend when the police discovered the children had been told by their mother & boyfriend to make it all up. Then this is similar to what happened to my two children when I found out that their mother was allowing the oldest at 15 years old to drink and take drugs, the difference is the police and the CPS were in on it too so as to prosecute me for harassment for writing a letter complaining about underage drinking and possible drug taking. There are not one, but two completely different false histories written about me in police statements and police used as evidence to the CPS a court welfare report that incorrectly stated that I only lived with my kids for eight months which supported my ex-partners statement that I only lived at the household with the girls for eight months. Its contempt of court for the police and CPS to do this, its also perverting the course of justice to get a family to totally lie about someone and it is child abuse by the police and CPS to make the children write a totally 100% false history about me so as to convict me for writing a letter to their mother complaining about underage drinking and worried about drug taking being allowed also at my 13 year old daughters house. My children lied about to protect their mother, the police and cps allowed it to happen because they wanted a harassment conviction because the blessed Labour Government set the target prosecution figures which they all had to meet.

        Goodbye Justice
        Hello To a Bent System

      • I think to be fair to the police, once they actually find the mother and boyfriend in P and Q (as well as some of the more active distributors of the false allegations) arrests will probably follow. I think that those involved are being economical with their visibility.

      • Ashamed to be British

        I don’t know Suess … Belinda was very much part of this, yet seem to swan around sticking her face into every camera, untouchable.
        She hasn’t been arrested over the part she played in this disgusting display of child abuse.

      • Afaik, she is not in the jurisdiction. But I don’t want to say very much, because if there is to be any criminal trial, I would not want any discussions to prejudice her right to a fair trial.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Satanic Child Abuse////Parental Alienation Syndrome.

        What I was trying to say here is that if the Police and CPS understood what they were dealing with was serious child abuse (there was evidence of sexual abuse at the time) they should have arrested them and had the matter dealt with in a criminal open court. If this was done the witnesses would of not been living in fear of their lives the father would be able to speak to the press without fear of being in contempt and the public would be able to begin understand how serious parent alienation is. This woman as we all know instead of just targeting the father she went a little further and targeted the whole community around her, the vicar, the school teacher etc. Its important to understand that this mother believes in her mind because she is psychotic that what she is alleging is true and she will put that belief into her children and anyone around her that is prepared to listen to her. That is why it was a mistake to leave this to the secret family court to deal with because it put all the witnesses at risk and mistrust within the public because it was held in secret.

        Vicky Haigh case shows that she has similar abnormality and the same thing happened after she lost her child in the family court she got a Facebook hate campaign going against the father even a MP believed her and its important to understand the Haigh also believes to a large extent also what she is saying is true. This in the end lead to contempt of court proceedings and a number of imprisonments for her followers……..But more importantly it forced the secret court to reveal for the first time what Vicky’s Court case was about so as to protect the father. It was all about Parental Alienation at its worst and it took years for the SS and the courts in this case to understand that it was best to remove the child from the mother, because the child was mentally suffering.

        To a much lesser degree is the mother in the mail last week who ran off with her child after she lost her child in a custody battle because she lied about her ex in court.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Thank you for keeping it in, everything I am saying is true and so I take full responsibility to everything that I am writing as everything I am saying is the best to my knowledge true but I can prove it with evidence. I would not write on your blog if I could not prove it all

  9. Paul Summerfield


    This case happened in Devon where I live about nine years ago, just before my brothers tried to rip my mother and myself off in the same manner.

    Old lady in Devon thinks she has had a break-in at her home calls the police. Police arrive and one policeman befriends her and from then on sees her regularly.

    Policeman suggests to her that he becomes her attorney to look after all her finances and pay her bills. Policeman also goes on to explain that everything will be above board as he will also arrange for a solicitor to make the arrangements and the solicitor will also serve her best interests.

    Old lady agrees to this thinking a Policeman and a Solicitor looking after her finances is the best option for her.

    Attorney agreement signed at a solicitor’s office.

    Solicitor does not inform lady’s closest relatives to what has happened because solicitor does not need to until Lady loses Mental Capacity or is about to when agreement is registered with the court of protection.

    The Bent Copper then drains this old ladies bank accounts.

    Relatives do not find out what has happened until it is to late when there is no money left.

    Copper is sent down for seven years.

    Point about this story is what about the solicitor in this matter, there was no mention of the solicitor in this matter in the newspaper article, no criticism whatsoever!!!!!!!!.

  10. Paul Summerfield

    Court of Protection, Court procedures when dealing financial abuse and a solicitor is involved is to run a ring of protection around the solicitor.

    1. I don’t know if anybody knows this but it is very very hard getting a hearing at the court of protection if you discover that your mum for example is being ripped off by her sons and her solicitor, because you just can’t pay for a court hearing at the court of protection. No, no, no your only way in is to present the court of protection with Proof of your Claims. No proof, no court hearing. This is very strange because if you had proof of wrong doing shouldn’t the court of protection itself send its own representatives to investigate as you have already given the court proof of wrongdoing! Again No, No, No, the court of protection would certainly not do that because they must protect the solicitor involved in this at all costs.

    2. So what Judge Lush did in my case when presented with proof that a solicitor and attorneys are not doing what they should be doing, he begun to protect the solicitor by ordering not exchange of statements at the same time between solicitor and myself (which should of happened), but he ordered that I send my statements and evidence to the court and solicitor and thereafter on receiving my statement and evidence he gives the unfair luxury of a few months for the solicitor and the attorneys to reply in statements. This lead me to having to write a very slim statement with evidence just showing my mother’s solicitor refusing to see my mother, a letter from my mother wanting me to also be her attorney and proof my mothers had mental capacity in a letter from my mother’s consultant. What my mother’s solicitor and my mother’s attorneys were hoping was that I would write a full blown statement laying out what they were up too. If I did that this statement would have been passed onto my mother. So by keeping the statements and evidence slim if they showed my statement and evidence to my mother, my mother would agree with me that all the events in it did happen and that I was not slagging off my brothers, to which she would have disapproved of!!!!!!!!! I also asked during the proceedings for social service and my mother’s doctor to visit my mother and explain to her that what she had signed wasn’t just an agreement for my brother to pay for her bills, but they had now attempting to take over fully all her financial l affairs, both social service and my mother’s doctor refused to do this. The only person that cooperated with the problem was my mother’s consultant.

    3. So my mother’s solicitors had a problem on their hands, they had refused entry to my mother (their own client) at the solicitors office and they had been given the proof that my mother had mental capacity to make decisions for herself, when they refused entry to my mother. So how do they get out of that one? Simples………They arrange for another consultant to visit my mothers, they only allow the consultant to speak to my brothers before he saw my mother and they ask the consultant not to write a report out on my mother’s “Mental Capacity” but my mother’s “Financial Capacity” which she would fail because she suffered from Short Term Memory and so she could not remember if she had paid her bills or not.

    4. When I finally received my brothers and solicitors statements they were just full of personality attacks with false claims of me stealing money by use of their own creative accounting, they claimed £15000 had gone missing from my mother’s account. They wrongly claimed in their statements that my mother took out a loan in 2001 when my father died of the sum of £27000 and its just disappeared and now only £70000 remains in her account but they gave no evidence to support the claim…………..Because it was not true………Because my mother and father together took out a loan in 1999 not 2001 and spent it on themselves as it should have been.

    5. The court hearing at the court of protection in London was totally bent. My mother’s solicitor who wrote a statement to the court on why she would not allow my mother into her office did not show up at the hearing to be questioned about it (Court of Protection Solicitors Protection). I knew under the circumstances of a bent court it was best to be minimal so I just said the medical report does not claim mum has no Mental Capacity but my mother has lost “Financial Capacity” via having short term memory and these two conditions are worlds apart, my mother’s brief disagreed with my comments and I complained and I wanted an adjournment because my mother’s solicitor has not shown up to be questioned on why she refused my mother entry to her office, this was refused, so I shut up and I let the defence take over.

    6. My mother’s brief did not utter one word because my two brothers took over the proceedings. They made false accusations about me with no proof, straying away from their statements and at one point my brother asked me a question and as I was about to answer he said “Shut UP its our turn now” and Lush let it all go by, the whole proceedings was out of order and my mother’s brief did not say one word.

    7. Two weeks later I got Lushes Lush Judgement when he made my mother pay all court costs £2000 for wanting me also to be her attorney and he refused any appeal in the matter. I was really angry that mum had to pay all the costs about this and I knew my mother would also be angry because my brothers had not told anything to mum about the court case. In fact because they did not want my mother to know about it they had to pay my mother’s solicitor £2000 out of their own money for the case to go ahead at the court of protection!!!!!!

    8. My mother then was staying at my cousins house (she was also in on this) they knew I was coming to see my mother to show her the statements that my brothers had written about me and to give her the bad news that this cost her £20000 for wanting me also to be her attorney. That’s when strangely enough my mother died she was rushed to hospital in a very serious life threating condition known as a Addison Crisis which can only be brought about by my mother not taking steroids and she died in hospital a week later.

    • Ashamed to be British

      This made me really sad and angry. I absolutely can relate to how you feel about this, when you can’t trust your own family, it’s amazing what people (yes even your own children) will do for money.

      I’m so sorry you found yourself in this situation, unfortunately I have heard of it happening to several people, myself included … that money will F%^*& them up eventually, Karma ALWAYS comes for those who deserve it, you may not see it, but be assured it’ll happen

      • Paul Summerfield

        Thanks but I did not write this for people to feel sorry for me, but simply to show how bent the system is and how’s it crying out to be changed.. I hope someone shows Judge Lush what he did which lead to strange circumstances of my mothers death just after this case

  11. Paul Summerfield

    Look the truth is and I know for a fact Judge Lush is not a good judge because I personally know that he covers up for solicitors when they do things that are wrong, he has done it to me and my mother Mrs Dorothy Summerfield which in turn caused my mother to die under very suspicious circumstances of foul play or murder when I was about to see her and show her what my brothers had written about me in there court of protection statements.

    In this judgement too, Judge Lush is covering up for the solicitors in this case because there is no explanation of how the attorneys used their mother cash and gave themselves a share of the house, you need solicitors to do that one for you.

    That is what Judge Lush should be telling the public in his judgements of exactly how they pulled it off because it would have an effect of their punishment.

    I think because Judge Lush has given no clear indication of how the Attorneys pulled this off they will be in fact be let off with a slapped hand from the court because their mitigation is no one told us that we were doing anything unlawful.

  12. Paul Summerfield

    Or the court will give this pair a maximum jail sentence because the court will not believe that they did not think they were doing anything unlawful because they were both clever enough to do all of this on their own as Judge Lush’s findings suggest.

    I say suggest because we know nothing about the solicitors involved in this case because they did not attend the hearing as they should of and Judge Lush gives us no details of how these two pulled it off.

    The fact is you can only give a fair sentence on this case if the court has all the details about how they did the fraud.

    I believe that Judge Lush is covering up for the solicitors in this case as he did in my mother’s case.

  13. Paul Summerfield

    [I am sorry Paul, but most of your post was in breach of the comment rules. I know that you need to get this stuff off your chest, and I can tell that it is helping even a little bit to share it, but I can’t put stuff on the site that other people could sue me for publishing. And whilst a small amount of detail about your own case is just about acceptable, the proceedings are confidential and I can’t assist in breaking the law by publishing details that aren’t available in a published judgment about a confidential case. I am really sorry, I don’t like censoring comments, but I don’t have many rules here and this comment broke two of them. Like I said previously, whilst I like you, I don’t like anyone enough to be sued for or prosecuted for. Suesspicious Minds]

  14. Paul Summerfield

    Thats OK I know I was pushing you and myself to the limit and beyond. I respect you for allowing me to do that. The limit for me was writing how my mother died as I have been suppressing this in myself for six years now. I was also a bit shocked also to find out that you can can do it yourself to become an attorney. That is unacceptable because once that thing is registered with the court that person has lost all of his or her liberties……………This should only be allowed to be done at a solicitor for that reason……….The solicitor should inform all close members ot the family to inform them that a EPA (or whatever it is called now) is about to be signed. Not as it is now when the thing is registered with the court…………Solicitor should always be aware that their client is the person that has just lost his or her liberty to signing an EPA IT IS NOT THE ATTORNEYS…………….When the court of protection is giving proof of solicitors breaking the law society guidelines such as not allowing their client to enter their premises or accepting payment from the ATTORNEYS then the court of protection should send down HELL on that firm and close it down.

    • Thank you for understanding Paul, and please continue to contribute.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Well what I am going to do is write this out on my own paper not yours and I be able to include the evidence, its not about one court case but two its also about my daughter and how I lost her to PAS by the authorities unlawfully which includes Hants Police and Portsmouth CPS in fact within these two cases there is a third story because I was around when F4J was being born and the beginnings of it before it was born came out from the Cafcass Talks and the imprisonment of Mark Harris for being imprisoned twice for waving to his daughters back in 2001 when Family need Father were paid a lot of cash by the government to sucksessfuly screw the Cafcass talks up and also not complain when the government forced the authorities to use harassment law on fathers and from what I know its this government move that corrupted the system .

        I would be interested in your view on the fact that the court of protection when proof is sent to them to trigger a hearing that orders are made to parties not to exchange statements at the same time but as in my case I was ordered to send my evidence and statements to the accused for them to reply to and when I did receive their papers I only had about a week to sift though their crap and decide what to do before the court case.

        Is this some sort of legal medieval way the court of protection is using here in exchanging statements?

      • Actually it is pretty rare for simultaneous exchange of statements – in general, the applicant will produce their statement first, then the other parties respond to it sequentially. (The Court can order simultaneous exchange of statements, but it happens quite rarely. For one thing, one of the parties always tries to hold back so they see the other side’s first, and for another, it ends up with later argument that “I didn’t know anything about X, and read it for the first time in her statement, I need to respond”)

      • Paul Summerfield

        I met with some friends tonight they are propriety developers they buy property with cash. When I told them of this case and the attorneys buying a house with the mothers money and mother only getting 20% stake in the house.

        Their answer they gave was no way should that have happened because if you are buying a house with cash the solicitor must know where the money came from because of money laundering laws, so the solicitor knew where all the money came from their mother and that solicitor cut their mothers stake of the house she bought with all her money down to 20% all of this sounds very criminal to me of what went on in the solicitors office!

  15. Paul Summerfield

    Of course the problem is when you catch the solicitors out on breaking their own law society guides-lines, Judge Lush will cover it up, The Law Society will cover it up……………Which is why I believe is the reason why a lot of solicitors treat families as mere sport………..

  16. Paul Summerfield

    The more you look at this confusing judgment the more you begin to understand that all this is going to be covered up, we will just hear no more about this one.
    1. The solicitors who did the paperwork for selling and buying another house knew who’s home it was but the same solicitors wrote up the declaration of trust giving only a twenty percent stake in this person new home. This is legal highway robbery shit.

    2. In this case for the above reason the solicitor firm should have been summoned by the court of protection to explain themselves, but no this does not happen in secret courts and the two attorneys in question show up in court unrepresented because I expect they could not find a solicitor because solicitors don’t like complaining about other solicitors in court.

  17. Paul Summerfield

    Exchange of Statements

    It’s really important for the court of protection to understand when families are arguing over who should be an attorney and the court of protection have been given proof of the family solicitor not behaving as they should as in my mother’s case that statements should be exchanged at the same time. In fact not only that but send one of their boys to find out what is going on!!!!!

    Look at it from the family member that is making a complaint, me, if I wrote anything in that statement that my mother did not know about then the solicitor and my brothers would have taken my statement to my mother and said “Look what he writing about us mum, we haven’t done that mum, you know that mum, look mum, we have not written anything bad about him, we are doing this just to pay your bills, can you write to the court saying you changed your mind and you don’t want him as an attorney.

    If mum phoned me and asked what the hell is going on, I would have nothing to stand on because I cannot show mum my brothers and her solicitors statement because they have not wrote one, yet!

    Don’t forget mum had become isolated since signing that EPA, I lived 150 miles from her, her doctor would not talk to her about it, social service would not talk to her or pay any heed to my warning that mum needed to be on a special diet because of the diabetes type two she suffered from which was a side effect from taking steroids for 40 years it was hard to control because the steroids were causing the diabetes and the only way it could be controlled was mum to be on a special diet, nobody cared about that, except me.

    When I received their statements and evidence which consisted of maladministration by mums solicitor I had all the evidence and statements I needed to show my mother. You see this was the time I planned to see mum after the court hearing when mum was fined £2000 for simply writing to the court asking for me and my brother John to be her attorneys also.

    Then as I said before mum strangely mum was rushed to hospital because she had an addersons crisis which is extremely serious and the cause of it can only be one thing someone did not give my mother her steroids.

    Mum did find out the truth before she died as I took the statements to her while she was in hospital. Her last words to me a week later over the phone about all of this was “She did not want her family behaving like other families and she agreed to me to videoing her telling the court what she wanted and nothing in my brothers statements was true that was the night she finally died.

%d bloggers like this: