COP Deputyship Order - Charging Property

Good morning,

We have another application where caseworker refuses to accept that COP Deputyship Order, allowing the donor to sell the property and "sign any necessary deeds or documents" covers the placement of a charge on the property, as part of the process of getting it ready for the market and allowing local authority to support the donor's care in the meantime.

We pointed out that a similar case was resolved, provided references and repeated our previous disposition, but the caseworker issued a second requisition, refusing to accept explanation given.

It is unfortunate that the issuing judge used a simplified description of deputy's rights, but by virtue of revoking the standard restriction 2(b) ["the deputy must not sell, charge, or otherwise dispose of any freehold or leasehold property"] from the original COP Deputyship Order, their intention is quite clear. Furthermore, if the judge wanted to restrict deputy's rights with regards to the property, they would have specified that charging the property is specifically not allowed.
 
It would be very much appreciated if there was a consistency in HM Land Registry approach to such COP Deputyship Orders, as clearly the intention and indeed the main reason the order was applied for, was to enter into a Deferred Payment Agreement, charge the property and allow time to market it without urgency thus avoiding causing undue stress and hardship to the donor and deputy, as is indeed the main purpose of the Deferred Payment Scheme under the Care Act 2014.

Application reference: X240MYT
I'd be really grateful for any support.

Kind regards, David

Good Morning David - if you are challenging the position being taken by us re a live application then that needs to be taken up with the casework team through the specific application itself. It's not something we would action through the forum
I can see you have been in contact before re progress of said application through our contact form and would suggest you use that channel again to add your comments OR ask the person dealing with the application itself to use the reply to requisition option instead. I can see that they have referred to the 'similar' case title but not provided the wider details you have included here 
EGL114419

Thanks Adam,

I submitted my reply to requisition, and a copy of our support letter to COP, demonstrating the underlining reason for the application. Hopefully the points raised in my reply will be given consideration.

I wish solicitors would pay closer attention to detail, rather than stick to their standard templates, when handling deputyship applications.

Thanks again for your help!
 

David - all noted and appreciated. It's such a tricky area with every case with it's own nuances and hopefully matters can progress positively from here for you 

Good morning Adam,

Coming back to the same application - X240MYT - EGL114419.
The property sale is imminent and I would like to withdraw / cancel our application, so not to delay the sale process.

However the Legal Assistant who handled these matters have just retired, and I wanted to check whether a formal letter on Council headed paper asking to withdraw the application will be sufficient if submitted via Reply to Requisition?

I looked at CN1 but it seems to be for entirely different cancellation matter.

Kind regards,
David

Good Morning David - that is what we will need in order to cancel their application 
Form CN1 is relevant to something completely different

Thanks Adam,

This is now submitted, hopefully will be sufficient.

As always, really appreciate your help.

Kind regards,
David