View source for Re John (2010) COP 14/10/10

''The donor made an LPA using the "old" form prescribed in 2007. She appointed an original attorney and a replacement attorney, but the replacement attorney's Part C omitted his date of birth, and it could not be inferred from the instrument that he was at least 18. The usual practice of the Public Guardian in such a case is to request a fresh Part C, but this could not be done because the donor had lost capacity (see [[Re Sporne (2009) COP 13/10/09]]). The instrument was registered, with registration being limited to the original attorney, but the attorney then applied to court to have the defective Part C "reinstated". The Public Guardian was joined as a party. The court ruled that the LPA was not in the prescribed form because of the failure to include the replacement attorney's date of birth. As the court was satisfied on the evidence that the replacement attorney was in fact at least 18, it exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA (which is set out in the summary of [[Re Nazran (2008) 27/6/08]]) to declare that the LPA was to be treated as if it were in the precribed form. (Note: in the case of LPAs made using the 2009 prescribed form, the attorney's date of birth must be included in Part A, so the practice of requesting a fresh Part C is not applicable, although limited registration may be possible if there is another attorney whose date of birth has been given.) '' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG website.

'''Title:''' Re John (an order of District Judge Ralton made on 14 October 2010)

'''Heading:''' Attorney's date of birth missing

==External link==
{{#bailii:no tran}}

{{lpa-summary-link}}

[[Category:LPA cases - formalities]]

[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]