From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 29/08/2026 20:54, Simon Parker wrote:

However, and this is the real kicker, if the donor has already lost
mental capacity at this point, you will have to go through a long,
expensive court process called applying for a Deputyship Order from the
Court of Protection to manage the donor's affairs. This is complicated, time-consuming and, as I've already said (but worth repeating!), expensive.

I can confirm SP's comments having been through the Deputyship/CoP
process in the last year. I had, however, an unexpected
sting-in-the-tail. My solicitor warned me that based on her recent
experiences it would take at least a year, and probably 15+ months, for
the CoP to approve the Deputyship after the documentation had been
submitted.

She was amazed (and so was the Office of the Public Guardian who
administer the Deputyship), when the sealed Deputyship Order appeared in
3 months!

Once it has been granted, the Deputy becomes responsible for the
financial affairs. I thought I had a lot more time to read up on and
prepare for what was necessary, but was, effectively, thrown in at the
deep end.
--
Jeff

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

In message <nffm7iFtqptU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:14:26 on Sat, 29
Aug 2026, Sparky <"somewhere else"@gmail.com> remarked:

Is it possible to choose the "jointly" option and specify that any
of them can act as replacements for one who is unable to act, or to >>>>have some sort of cascading if/then statement?

This must be a very common concern but I haven't found an answer so far. >>>>

Surprised not to have received any advice ... is there a better
place to ask (other than a random high street solicitor)?

You could google for advice.

Please don't mistake this newsgroup, uk.legal.moderated, for a law
firm or a collective of lawyers.

I spent a lot of time searching before asking here, and also used
several AIs to summarise the documents. There is contradictory
information about wording which would, or might not, be accepted by the
OPG if I want to allow remaining Attorneys to act jointly when one is >unable. Even the OPG guide seems to have contradictory sample text for
the situation.

I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that others would have been through the
same process and might offer advice based on their experiences.

It's a bit random whether or not you'll stumble over someone here with relevant recent (ie not outdated) experience. But asking, is what the newsgroup is for.
--
Roland Perry

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 10:14:26 +0100, Sparky <"somewhere
else"@gmail.com> wrote:

The Todal wrote:

On 28/08/2026 23:12, Sparky wrote:

Sparky wrote:

If I appoint 3 attorneys (say) to act jointly then I understand that
the LPA will fail if one of them becomes unable to act. So,
forgetting to update an LPA to remove that attorney, or being
involved in a joint catastrophic incident with one of the attorneys,
would mean that the LPA would fail.
The other options are
- to appoint "jointly & severally" (not what I want), or
- "jointly for some decisions and severally for others" - but how is
it possible to list all the cases?

Is it possible to choose the "jointly" option and specify that any of >>>> them can act as replacements for one who is unable to act, or to have >>>> some sort of cascading if/then statement?

This must be a very common concern but I haven't found an answer so far. >>>>

Surprised not to have received any advice ... is there a better place
to ask (other than a random high street solicitor)?

You could google for advice.

Please don't mistake this newsgroup, uk.legal.moderated, for a law firm
or a collective of lawyers.

I spent a lot of time searching before asking here, and also used
several AIs to summarise the documents. There is contradictory
information about wording which would, or might not, be accepted by the
OPG if I want to allow remaining Attorneys to act jointly when one is >unable. Even the OPG guide seems to have contradictory sample text for
the situation.
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that others would have been through the same >process and might offer advice based on their experiences.

I suspect exact wording for a variety of situations is beyond a normal
guide.

AIUI these are the main options:

JointlyDefinition:
All appointed attorneys must agree and act together on every single
decision.
Pros: Offers maximum control and built-in oversight, as no single
person can act alone.
Cons: If one attorney disagrees, no action can be taken. If one
attorney dies, loses mental capacity, or steps down, the entire LPA
becomes invalid and stops working (unless replacement attorneys were successfully named).

Jointly and SeverallyDefinition:
Attorneys can make decisions together or act completely independently
on their own.
Pros: Provides high flexibility and speed. If one attorney is busy,
lives abroad, or is unavailable, another attorney can sign documents
or handle tasks immediately. If one attorney passes away or leaves,
the remaining attorneys can still continue managing your affairs.
Cons: Less built-in accountability between attorneys, meaning
individual choices are legally valid even if other attorneys disagree.

Jointly for Some, Severally for Others (Hybrid)
Definition: A mixed approach where attorneys must agree together on
major choices, but can act alone for everyday tasks.Example: Requiring
all attorneys to agree jointly on selling your house, but allowing
them to act jointly and severally for routine utility and bank
payments.
Pros: Combines strict safety for critical assets with practical speed
for daily management.

At the moment I have my two granddaughters acting as Joint, a decision
I've wrestled with that decision and may well have to review it if circumstances change.
--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

AnthonyL wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 10:14:26 +0100, Sparky <"somewhere
else"@gmail.com> wrote:

The Todal wrote:

On 28/08/2026 23:12, Sparky wrote:

Sparky wrote:

If I appoint 3 attorneys (say) to act jointly then I understand that >>>>> the LPA will fail if one of them becomes unable to act. So,
forgetting to update an LPA to remove that attorney, or being
involved in a joint catastrophic incident with one of the attorneys, >>>>> would mean that the LPA would fail.
The other options are
- to appoint "jointly & severally" (not what I want), or
- "jointly for some decisions and severally for others" - but how is >>>>> it possible to list all the cases?

Is it possible to choose the "jointly" option and specify that any of >>>>> them can act as replacements for one who is unable to act, or to have >>>>> some sort of cascading if/then statement?

This must be a very common concern but I haven't found an answer so far. >>>>>

Surprised not to have received any advice ... is there a better place
to ask (other than a random high street solicitor)?

You could google for advice.

Please don't mistake this newsgroup, uk.legal.moderated, for a law firm
or a collective of lawyers.

I spent a lot of time searching before asking here, and also used
several AIs to summarise the documents. There is contradictory
information about wording which would, or might not, be accepted by the
OPG if I want to allow remaining Attorneys to act jointly when one is
unable. Even the OPG guide seems to have contradictory sample text for
the situation.
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that others would have been through the same
process and might offer advice based on their experiences.

I suspect exact wording for a variety of situations is beyond a normal
guide.

AIUI these are the main options:

JointlyDefinition:
All appointed attorneys must agree and act together on every single
decision.
Pros: Offers maximum control and built-in oversight, as no single
person can act alone.
Cons: If one attorney disagrees, no action can be taken. If one
attorney dies, loses mental capacity, or steps down, the entire LPA
becomes invalid and stops working (unless replacement attorneys were successfully named).

Jointly and SeverallyDefinition:
Attorneys can make decisions together or act completely independently
on their own.
Pros: Provides high flexibility and speed. If one attorney is busy,
lives abroad, or is unavailable, another attorney can sign documents
or handle tasks immediately. If one attorney passes away or leaves,
the remaining attorneys can still continue managing your affairs.
Cons: Less built-in accountability between attorneys, meaning
individual choices are legally valid even if other attorneys disagree.

Jointly for Some, Severally for Others (Hybrid)
Definition: A mixed approach where attorneys must agree together on
major choices, but can act alone for everyday tasks.Example: Requiring
all attorneys to agree jointly on selling your house, but allowing
them to act jointly and severally for routine utility and bank
payments.
Pros: Combines strict safety for critical assets with practical speed
for daily management.

At the moment I have my two granddaughters acting as Joint, a decision
I've wrestled with that decision and may well have to review it if circumstances change.

Thanks. I'm familiar with the options but I'm looking for a form of
words in section 7 that would be acceptable to the OPG and would allow
joint Attorneys to continue as joint Attorneys if one of them is unable
so to do.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Sparky <"somewhere else"@gmail.com> wrote:

[rCa] I'm familiar with the options but I'm looking for a form of
words in section 7 that would be acceptable to the OPG and would allow
joint Attorneys to continue as joint Attorneys if one of them is unable
so to do.

Is the OPG approachable enough to phone or email to see if they have any suggestions based on their experiences? After all, they are the ones that
will almost certainly have seen this situation before, and know what form
of words is acceptable.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 21:13:06 +0100, Sparky <"somewhere else"@gmail.com>
wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 10:14:26 +0100, Sparky <"somewhere
else"@gmail.com> wrote:

The Todal wrote:

On 28/08/2026 23:12, Sparky wrote:

Sparky wrote:

If I appoint 3 attorneys (say) to act jointly then I understand that >>>>>> the LPA will fail if one of them becomes unable to act. So,
forgetting to update an LPA to remove that attorney, or being
involved in a joint catastrophic incident with one of the attorneys, >>>>>> would mean that the LPA would fail.
The other options are
- to appoint "jointly & severally" (not what I want), or
- "jointly for some decisions and severally for others" - but how is >>>>>> it possible to list all the cases?

Is it possible to choose the "jointly" option and specify that any of >>>>>> them can act as replacements for one who is unable to act, or to have >>>>>> some sort of cascading if/then statement?

This must be a very common concern but I haven't found an answer so far. >>>>>>

Surprised not to have received any advice ... is there a better place >>>>> to ask (other than a random high street solicitor)?

You could google for advice.

Please don't mistake this newsgroup, uk.legal.moderated, for a law firm >>>> or a collective of lawyers.

I spent a lot of time searching before asking here, and also used
several AIs to summarise the documents. There is contradictory
information about wording which would, or might not, be accepted by the
OPG if I want to allow remaining Attorneys to act jointly when one is
unable. Even the OPG guide seems to have contradictory sample text for
the situation.
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that others would have been through the same >>> process and might offer advice based on their experiences.

I suspect exact wording for a variety of situations is beyond a normal
guide.

AIUI these are the main options:

JointlyDefinition:
All appointed attorneys must agree and act together on every single
decision.
Pros: Offers maximum control and built-in oversight, as no single
person can act alone.
Cons: If one attorney disagrees, no action can be taken. If one
attorney dies, loses mental capacity, or steps down, the entire LPA
becomes invalid and stops working (unless replacement attorneys were
successfully named).

Jointly and SeverallyDefinition:
Attorneys can make decisions together or act completely independently
on their own.
Pros: Provides high flexibility and speed. If one attorney is busy,
lives abroad, or is unavailable, another attorney can sign documents
or handle tasks immediately. If one attorney passes away or leaves,
the remaining attorneys can still continue managing your affairs.
Cons: Less built-in accountability between attorneys, meaning
individual choices are legally valid even if other attorneys disagree.

Jointly for Some, Severally for Others (Hybrid)
Definition: A mixed approach where attorneys must agree together on
major choices, but can act alone for everyday tasks.Example: Requiring
all attorneys to agree jointly on selling your house, but allowing
them to act jointly and severally for routine utility and bank
payments.
Pros: Combines strict safety for critical assets with practical speed
for daily management.

At the moment I have my two granddaughters acting as Joint, a decision
I've wrestled with that decision and may well have to review it if
circumstances change.

Thanks. I'm familiar with the options but I'm looking for a form of
words in section 7 that would be acceptable to the OPG and would allow
joint Attorneys to continue as joint Attorneys if one of them is unable
so to do.

As said I have a personal interest in this, at least if I revise my
LPAs. In what regard does Joint and Severally not meet your needs, or
are you trying to say:

Attorneys A, B, C

If B is not available then A to handle xyz
If C is not availabe then B to handle xyz

Is this a case of not trusting the attorneys to do right by your
wishes?
--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2