UKC

Me and the Mrs have no children - we can nominate each other as having Power of attorney if one of us becomes unable to make our own choices but if we both become incapable of doing this (as indeed happened to my parents) we would be struggling. Nominating a relative / friend would be landing someone with a lot of work and no guarantee that they would still be up for it years (hopefully) down the line when needed. A solicitor might deal with the legal stuff but not probably want to do the day to day stuff - chasing meds, gp appointments, placating the neighbours etc. - as well as being expensive. Anyone in this position have a cunning plan ? 

I'm in a similar position. I have nominated my sister in addition to my partner, but only after a frank discussion with her and after obtaining her agreement. I didn't get away scot free - to reciprocate, she's nominated me as the person responsible for her three children should anything happen to her and her husband, with my agreement.

I would imagine that at some point in the future I'll have the same discussion with one of her children - but given that the oldest just turned 10 we're not there yet.

Agree to part amicably, spilt your entire estate and both take up with younger partners thus futureproofing yourselves.

Good luck.

Long walk off a short pier, saves all the hassle. 

Just suggested implementing your suggestion.

Turns out I don't have to worry about old age, and Mrs Ridge will be imminently obtaining ample funding for a younger partner.

Older people dont have to be a burden. In fact they have lots to give.

Now, if you'll just sign this 'power of financial attorney' for me. I can get you on a trip of your lifetime. Helping a village in Angola, clear minefields ...

We're in a similar position. At the moment it's one of my brothers and Mrs J's sister that will have to step up if something happens to us both at the same time. It might need reviewing as time passed. It wasn't until she was on her own and we were in our 40's that dad's sister had that conversation with me and one of my brothers. Personally, having someone to make difficult decisions jointly, was a big help. Possibly because I'm retired the time discussing things with GP's, carers etc. didn't seem to much of a burden. Living three hours away was only an issue a couple of times. There might be a time in the future, when I have a conversation with a couple of my nieces. I wouldn't rule out friends as well as relatives, I have PoA for a slightly older friend. The quality of my Aunties life, during her final few years, was made much better by a few close friends and highlighted to me and my brothers, the benefits of simply  being nice to people. 

worked for Eamon Holmes ...

there is the darkweb death pill option .... euthanasia laws may well have changed by the time we need them ?

That is very decent of you to be POA for a friend given the potential amount of work.. all our friends / relatives are mostly the same age so might not be able / want to do it when it comes to it.

But would they be able/willing to do it now? Climbing/Car accident? Ours were written in our 20's, what is the advantage in putting it off? As you say circumstances change, but IMO that means it might be time to alter your PoA, not write one. I also think it is easier to do when the possible need for it seems more abstract. Mum is in her 80's, hasn't got one and understandably finds it upsetting when the subject is raised. For people who care about you, not having the responsibility might be more upsetting than having it? 

We also have no children and I have always just assumed that when I get to that stage, social services will step in. I have no idea if this is the case, but my assumption is that it would be. I don't even have any nieces or nephews, but we do have some God children. They are still young, but I guess it's possible they will feel inclined to help us out in our dotage. 

I imagine they probably might if they know they are going to be remembered in your will.

Having gone through the process with my step mum a couple of years ago I think I would have done my best even if I wasn't in the will. But it is a lot to ask of a friend/minor relative if they would not be receiving anything.

No cunning plan.  Our POAs are each other and a relative at a similar age to ourselves meaning we could all lack capacity in future. 

We may ask a younger family member once they are old enough as back up but for now the options are limited as that person is too young.

Note that, unless you have the good fortune to drop dead at exactly the same time, that doesn't help the poor person left behind when the other one dies.

A POA can't be used once someone dies.  That's where a Will comes in. 

However if the person requiring the POA is the main breadwinner or normally pays the bills and takes ill such that they can't manage finances etc then having the POA in place can make what's likely a crap situation that little bit easier. 

Yes, I know.

What I was referring was the problem that occurs when one half of a couple dies. If the one left behind has nominated their (now dead) partner as their PoA (or, indeed, their executor), then that's now sadly of no help to them.

My experience is that it seems helpful to have been through the process already, updating an existing PoA for some reason seems easier than the process of applying for one from scratch. The other option is to name mutiple attorneys. I know a number of people who have named their partner and their kids. The friend I have PoA for has named three of us.

Ah, no worries..

That's why we have two people each on our POA and it's written such that they can act separately so POA is still valid if one of us should die. Our solicitor advised us to have at least 2. 

It depends how these things are set up. If it's a joint POA both attorneys have to agree on decisions. If one dies then the POA becomes defunct and you need to do another one.  The issue there being that if the person surviving no longer has capacity they can't sign a new POA and you'll need the courts involved. That's why ours can act separately. 

Executors being dead are less of an issue as that role can be handed over to a solicitor (at a cost).

This seems the best option in most cases. My mum set hers up so all three of her children could have separate ('Severally', I think, in the official language?) PoA, and it made it much simpler to get things done. It seemed that applications I made would also enable my siblings to act, so we wouldn't each have to apply to manage a bank account, say - which I suppose reduces the risk of one PoA acting against the wishes of the others

 "updating an existing PoA for some reason seems easier than the process of applying for one from scratch."

This is worth knowing ....

Slightly off topic, but there was a guy living near here, offgrid in a nice motorhome, he was found dead last week.

Doesn't look like he has any relatives, next of kin etc. No one knows what to do with his motorhome, motorbike etc. It's just sat there off road on a bit of land. 

Interestingly in England with no will it ill go to your next of kin, but can only go 'up' two generations, so grandparents, uncles/aunts, nephews/nieces or their descendants.

I'm Scotland however it can pass up three generations, so can pass to your parents' cousins or their children (through your great grandparents).

If no will or eligible surviving nok I believe it goes to the state 

Adopt some children...

That's a tad extreme!

Die climbing

I am trying and have ALMOST succeeded twice so far (not counting some other near misses). The second time was really, really close

Nitrogen seems to be the preferred option, painless and much less messy for all concerned.

I've been thinking a bit about this recently. Ideally, once life doesn't seem worth living anymore, I'd give away any money I have left as cash, burn down my house with all my worldly possessions, laptop and paperwork inside, then "disappear" where nobody would ever find me (having left instructions with someone not to bother trying). No hassle for anyone.

Errrrrr thanks (I think) but I wasn't trying to kill myself deliberately. They were accidents, sorry for the misunderstanding 

If you live in a semi, terrace or block of flats I think the neighbours wouldn't be too chuffed.

The burning of house and possessions would be unnecessarily polluting. Can't see that would 'ideal'.

A mate of mine's retirement plan (when he was single) used to be to rob a bank in enough style to get him a custodial sentence long enough to see him out!

He's now married with a daughter, so hopefully he's updated his plans accordingly.

Happy to consider alternative methods of obliterating all material traces of my existence.

A lot to be said for getting spent up then social services step in. If one of you has to go into a home because the other is no longer capable of looking after the other then you are going to get cleaned out at £5k a month or more, and when it's all gone social services have to step in anyway.

Just have to accept being ancient isn't much fun. 

Even if you are in a home, they don't do new glasses, missing hearing aids. They just make sure you are clean, fed and watered, get your meds and have a sense of security.

My neighbor told me it's rselfish getting ancient and decrepit. I muse on that. 

I have been looking after my ancient mother for years and years. The impact on your life is massive. 

POA. Nightmare. The state loves you to go down that route but it's a lot of work and if someone complains about you, you need to justify every decision against the mental health act 2005 and adsociated code of practise. Account for all expenses and why. Justify why they had "capacity" 3 years ago, even though the act says capacity must be assumed. All unpaid unless somone explicitly put in the POA document that you could be paid. Why didn't you apply to the Court of Protection to clear that decision at £300 a pop?

I wouldn't wish it on anyone. 

Alternative is applying to CoProtection for guardianship, i think. More expensive, of course, but if you are skint probably state picking up the tab.

I think first things first, go see an advisor to find out how to protect your assets if one of you has to go into care. Bloody awful if the other is fit and well and has to sell everything you own.

As one of the carers who used to come to my mother when she was still at home said "Its important to have nothing, those with nothing get lots, and those with something get nothing". She was being paid £25/hr by the council to take someone out for jollies inthe car who was also getting 24/7 care at home paid by the council. Cost to council probs £20k/month.

I think the women had refused to go into care home or was too rude for care homes to accept, yet was assessed as needing 24/7 care. So had to be sectiobed or something like that.

Enough. Grown up decisions. Good luck. 

Those days of that type of care are a distant memory.

The good news is that  Parliament is moving towards recognising Assisted Dying as the way forward. This is inevitable due to the rising numbes of elder people.

So to the OP...plan for assisted dying as that will be the future.

But you still have to have mental capacity for assisted dying. You might not have that capacity by the time you actually would want to die, so while I see it as a part of the future, I don't think it is the answer for elderly care as not everyone will want or be able to choose it. 

The whole framework on assisted dying will change over the next decade, so just plan for it by discussing it and get it wrtitten down.

Ha ha. Not in calderdale. That is on going. What happens where you are if someone is assessed as needing 24 hour care, has nothing and refuses to go in a home? It's against their human rights, quite rightly, to imprison someone in a care home. The door is locked remember. 

I think the reality is that often people are not assessed as needing 24h care even though they do, in part because it's impossible to provide it. My partner was briefly a carer and had to go to some people at home who had visits 3 times a day, but really needed a lot more than that.

Edit to add: I imagine it depends a lot on your local area, funding available etc.

Agreed, but many could not possibly be assessed as needing less than 24/7. Falling, crapping themselves and spreading it around the house. Wandering off to who knows where with no shoes on, no coat in the rain. And if 'sectioned', my understanding is, the council has to pick up the tab. 

It's not impossible to provide it, but you need someone to fight/pay for it

Eventually my Auntie had 5 visits a day and someone there overnight, working not sleeping, which is important and more expensive, it was all fully funded. 

It's definitely a bit of a lottery, my friend mum had a similar amount of care at home, but it cost them about 10k a month, precovid so probably a lot more now. 

Quite possible, I think it's moving in that direction already. I think many are aware of  DNR, but perhaps the RESPECT form (and stash of assorted drugs) isn't as well known. With hindsight we would have completed it with my Auntie earlier, then we wouldn't have had to overrule the paramedics and nurses, who wanted to transfer her to hospital, in order to put on a drip. 

There are definitely people like this without 24/7 care (which is not good). As Rob mentions just above, they are probably entitled to it, but need someone to fight for it.

Yes, this is true, at least to my understanding. Happened to my Grandma.

Impossible was probably the wrong word to choose. I was thinking about the state of the care system as it currently is and also more broadly about having an aging population and possibly not enough money available to care for everyone into old age as we'd like it to be done.

And was in a much stronger position to fight for it because I had PoA. The decision for her not to go to hospital was definitely only possible because of it. 

It's not a popular view, but in the medium term there is plenty of money available. Nearly a third of pensioner households have wealth of over a million (granted this includes pension and property wealth) only around 15% end up in care home, often only for a few months. It is a lottery if you will need to pay or have the means to pay, far more reasonable to expect someone else's grandkids to provide the funds. 

I think you may be blurring the lines between power of attorney and being a carer.

Power of attorney allows someone to look after your interests and decide how and where you are cared for but I donlt think it should necessarily involve chasing meds and the other things that you mention.

Having endured the upset of seeing power of attorney abused for one of my elderly relatives I would nominate at least  2 people that I trust to hold that role jointly and do it early before my mind started to deteriorate.

For the other practical day to day tasks just make sure that you have adequate savings to pay for decent care.

Interesting, perhaps my view is coloured by the fact all of my grandparents went into care homes, most for several years, resulting in them losing basically all of their estates and then costing the local council a lot of money. They did pass some money on to family, but that may have been done before they went into homes, I can't remember.

I have some sympathy with that approach, Rob, but I do hope you'd do something to pass on your very fine collection of mountain books (https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/whats_on_your_bookshelf_2-1337...) before your bonfire and disappearance, so that some fellow enthusiast could enjoy them and pass them on in his turn ... a highly suitable legacy.

Which highlights what a lottery the current system (or lack of) is, Mrs J's cousin is in the process of selling her mum's house, my dad died suddenly at no cost to the family. 

None of my grandparents own property and had little in the way of savings, I don't remember that being an issue for my parents. The thread title was about preparing for old age, having a plan that uses a possible inheritance to fund retirement and then making sure you spend it all before it's needed to pay for your care, seems to be one some peole feel entitled to, but not one I'm comfortable with. 

I agree with your point about PoA meaning your role is to help agree a care package (and possibly make sure that it is being implemented well) rather than actually providing the care yourself.

Sorry to hear about your experience, but from the other side of the fence, I wouldn't accept a PoA, if I was required to act jointly. It could make a difficult job much harder and I'm not sure that it wouldn't create more problems than it solves. 

Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I think the whole topic of inheritance and who should pay for end of life care is quite interesting, I don't think I have a well thought out view on the matter though.

This is difficult territory and I suspect all that can be said is that it's horses for courses.  In my experience a joint PoA works very well where the nominated attorneys are two sibling children of the elderly person(s), are on good terms, and don't face potentially divisive issues like one of them working, one not, or one local, one distant.  And they had the consent and confidence of other siblings living further away.  Another option that I believe succeeded was for the one close relative to be the 'primary' attorney, with the family solicitor as second, long-stop advising/securing attorney (always useful if the first attorney gets ill or even dies - but of course it may carry costs).  They were also nominated as executors.

I have a sticky problem with a socially isolated cousin even older than myself who simply refuses to discuss conferring a PoA on me or anyone else, or even drawing up a Will and/or executry instructions.  His next-of-kin is his younger brother, long resident in California.  They're on reasonably good terms but my cousin's equally resistant to his brother's efforts to persuade him to bite the bullet, so we contemplate a potentially fraught outcome.   Aaaargh ... 

I know this is thread drift but i wouldn't ask your kids to do POA. They are too old. You are in your nineties they are in their late 60's.They really don't need it. 

£16k/month here for 24/7 at home , but it is really hard to source. 

Perhaps one option would be for people to discuss these things when they do have capacity so that family and medical professionals know the persons wishes should X, Y or Z occur and can act accordingly. 

I have already told my family in no uncertain terms that anything that leaves me with no life quality or any form of dementia or similar cognitive impairment should result in absolutely no treatment except for pain relief. 

for some reason your post about "Die climbing" put me in mind of HG Wells' excellent climbing story

https://alpinist.com/features/little-mother-up-the-morderberg/

Probably depends a bit on which part of the country you are in, but sounds correct.

It's considerably less they you can manage overnight with someone sleeping in the same/next room, who is  able to work the following day, provided they haven't been needed to do more than a few minutes work during the night.

Agreed, which goes back to the point about not waiting too long, before thing about it

So under those circumstances what is the advantage of you having to act jointly? 

With a brother spending half the year in Africa, that's probably shaped my view, but I'm not clear how two attorneys act jointly if they don't have confidence in each other. 

Another option that I believe succeeded was for the one close relative to be the 'primary' attorney, with the family solicitor as second

A friend has similar, with his dad's financial adviser. Not sure if is jointly or severely. 

I've not heard of that, my approach is to have two and reserve, with a view to updating it if one of them is no longer able. 

It was acting as executor that having to get my brother to verify everything seemed like considerably extra hassle. With hindsight it would have been much easier if he had relinquished his responsibility, rather than doing it jointly. 

Similar with my mum, as she gets older it seems to get more difficult to discuss, so less likely to happen. 

It's something you don't want to have to act on, but if you do isn't just after you've retired as good a time as any? Mum is reluctant to make one, if she wanted to nominate the grandkids that would be her decision, but I wasn't ruling my brothers out on the grounds they will be too old. 

How's that going to work? Dementia comes on slowly. You can be cognitively very good but still be diagnised with alzheimer's and be cognitively very good for years, just your memory going down hill. My mother has a memory of about 3 seconds but she can still be fun and crack jokes. Your family won't follow your wishes i am sure. 

Not totally sure what you mean. But honestly i wouldn't ask anybody to volunteer to be an attorney for me, it is too much work and becomes more and more so as time goes on and you both age. The accountability is huge. eg i need to sell the house but it is arguable she still has capacity and would never agree but does she have capacity? oh well let's apply to the court of protection meanwhile money pouring out of the door and then some otherwise sane individual complains to office of publuc guardian you are abusing your position. Hey investigation time. 

I would ask my wife but only in case something out of the ordinary happened and she needed access to my financial stuff. 

Doesn't that cause more problems, I'd be happy if mum nominated my brothers rather than me, but not having a PoA has created problems for a number of friends, who wish there parents had written one. 

I agree the responsibility is significant, but as others have said you organise rather than do the work. I'll be trying to do that for mum with or without PoA, it will be easier with 

Again, doesn't not having PoA make all that stuff more, not less likely? 

I'm not sure anyone really needs it, and there's a lot of trust involved along with the responsibility. On balance it seems most likely that children are most likely to maintain dedication to the obligation.
I suppose there could be a place for professional PoAs, obliged to act objectively in their clients' best interest, but while there'd be a lot to be said for knowing the ropes in terms of getting PoAs recognised by institutions I could also imagine a significant amount of the drive to get things done would be lacking for someone with no ties beyond a contract

The burden you are putting on a loved one is too big an ask. You see it all the time if you look. In the supermarket, for example, the very old looking after the ancient. 

Totally with you on this. Assuming you all the 'right' person all you are doing is giving them the legal power so that their role is that little bit easier.

I'm very glad the paperwork is in place for my parents if required, I have a pretty good idea of their values and wishes and even without the paperwork would step up to support them. Recently talking with my Mum (about a family friend) she said that she trusted me that if required I would make the best decision for her regarding long term care.

It's also in place with myself for my uncle/aunt which is much more complicated and more of an obligation, we have never been close and don't live locally, but I'm the only family member of the younger generation and I will do my best if required.

And therein lies the problem!

As a species we can be rather selfish in expecting others to have their lives prolonged in order to protect our own feelings ;(

Someone can be in cloud coocoo land but happy. Just because their memory is gone doesn't mean they can't enjoy things whilst they are happening and still have a good quality of life.

I know from bitter personal experience that there is a time to let go, but with the right support you can all enjoy quality time together before it gets to that point.

The problem is that if they have expressed the wish to be let go then you need to be very, very certain that they are genuinely happy before taking the decision to overule that wish.

Point 1. Would need more info to comment.

Point 2. POA finance or POA health and welfare. IMO the latter is easier without, i don't have it so social services and medics make the calls so couldn't be easier. The former isn't an organisational role. You are paying the bills and managing the assets.

Point 3. No, impossible it could happen if no POA. If someone daft enough to apply to CofP for guardianship, i think it is called, then yes. Otherwise court appoints a deputy, or some such, in which case no it couldn't happen they would take responsibility. 'It' being massive amount of work for aged family member acting as attorney.

At these late stages of life money doesn't really matter, it is all going to the care home anyway. Other methods such as a court appointed deputy are much more expensive but relieve pressure on by now very old attorney.

Remember, when the last CEO, or whatever title he used, of the Office of the Publuc Guardian retired he said he would never use a Lasting Power of Attorney. 

No.. If you have POA for health, you have the power to make decisions cincerning your mothers welfare if she lacks capacity, if you don't have POA then you have no say. 

If you have POA for finance you have responsibilty and accountability, in law, for making all financial decisions that your mother can't make her self. And for which you can be brought before the court to justify many years down the line. 

All ok when you are a sprightly 50 year old but when you're 70 not so easy. 

 Burden is the wrong word. Responsibility is the right word in the case of a  family. You are looking at it from the wrong way round. That is what families do they take on responsibility. 

Yes i think that is fair. But the point i am, i suppose now, repeatedly making is that it is unappreciated, by those who haven't done it, just how much work it is. And in the "simple", a person appoints a POA situation, it doesn't really work if someone lives, as they increasingly do, for a very long time and that attorney themselves gets to be old and decrepit as well. So the "responsibility" gladly taken on becomes over the course of many years a burden unless the family had a more sophisticated approach whereby younger people take over once "the kids" have got too old. 

I've done it, granted it was only for 5 years, but as I've said it was a responsibility, but not a great deal of work and one that I accepted when I signed the forms. It would have been more work if I'd had to apply to the court to become a Deputy, not sure if  that makes me daft or responsible

I don't know of any “kids“ who haven't felt the responsibility to become Deputies for their parents. The above would be more time consuming and costly for them. Wouldn't those who were comfortable with a professional Deputy simply refuse to be an attorney?

I think that is one of my frustrations with mum, she isn't giving us the choice, which we feel might make our lives more challenging in the future, not less. Not sure if that makes me or mum selfish. 

I think you have a point about planning ahead, but that requires a more detailed PoA rather than none. We're expecting people to work until they are close to 70, that sounds far more demanding to me, than acting as an Attorney, even for several years. 

Right, but with the subject's money.

Which needs to be authorised somehow, and can't be if a bank doesn't recognise your authority over an account.

This is possibly all drifting a little from the original theme of the thread, but at least illustrates the fundamental nature of the PoA as a fallback in case of declined capacity. Certainly it's not ideal for people in their sixties and beyond looking after people past ninety, but having a PoA granted is, as you mentioned, primarily for administrative purposes, to allow for assistance with things that may become too difficult or complicated for the applicant, from someone they trust

Given the present overcrowding and brutality in prisons, he might have wanted to reconsider......

Or he might just get early release if there's another load of rioting.

Thinking about it my Auntie didn't get a PoA until she was in her 80's, what prompted her getting one were the problems she had incurred because she didn't have one for my Uncle. The main was was not being able to sell the house and move to a more suitable property for her needs while he was in a home, but there were several others. 

Again, just my experience, but my Aunties decline wasn't linear, after her first few falls she made a reasonable recoveries and consequently, at times, had less care and more responsibility at times. At times it felt like we were making joint decisions and planning her final few years, going back to my Auntie not being able to sell their house, I wouldn't have been as confident with court appointed depury making those decisions. 

That's what makes dementia so cruel 😞

With dementia if my wishes aren't followed I'll potentially take Robert D's approach but without burning my house down. Tragically that decision might have to be taken when I'm mostly OK cognitively but waiting too long could risk me not being able to remember what I want to do.

My family understand and will respect this. 

Don't go full pyro Robert, I could do with a house near the Highlands. I spend half my life up in Scotland with work and mountaineering. Double whammy on your final carbon footprint contribution too - no house fire and you'll slash my fuel consumption to pieces. 

I'll have my people start drawing up the paperwork

In response to a few points made by posters:

If the person has no valid will (England/Wales), the management of the estate goes to the Treasury Solicitor, who can distribute to those would would reasonably be expected to inherit. The remainder goes, in typical archaic fashion, to the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster who have benevolent funds and distribute to charities. After costs...

From personal experience, the Health LPA is of reasonably limited use, since the doctors are responsible for making the decisions; however the power of attorney will at least allow you to get information from them, as without it they may refuse. In the situation where the GP advises that your relative needs to go into care, it makes the process of dealing with care home staff more straightforward. Don't just stick them in a home though; it's a very difficult time for them as it's very likely the last place they want to go, and need time to get used to the idea and grieve for their loss of independence. A "holiday" respite visit to the home is an excellent starting point.

The Finance LPA is pretty essential if you need to manage their affairs for them; many banks etc will refuse point blank to speak to you unless you have one. Sometimes you can get away with knowing their PINs and passwords etc.

You don't need legal help to get the LPAs. Apply online at gov.uk, cost £80 odd, as opposed to £££s with help from a solicitor.

Also consider making an Advance Decision, where you can specify your wishes in detail about what should and shouldn't be done to you if you are unable to say for some reason. This is information for medical staff, not a will. They probably won't agree to burn you in your house though.

Having been through the process with both parents and helped friends do the same, I'm astonished that there isn't more general advice available about how to do all this. You'd have thought there'd be a CareHomeWise or something, a bit like the PensionWise scheme.

ff

Are you sure.

This was not our experience and I'm not aware that the law has changed so radically  in the last 15 years.

If a person dies with no will there are a very clearly defined set of rules on who should administer the estate and who will benefit.  These benefactors are pretty much exactly who you would expect them to be.

We administered mums estate the treasury solicitor was not involved at all and all of the assets remained with the immediate family.

Did your mother leave a will?

Isn't that only if a relative doesn't apply for Letters of Administration, the equivalent of probate without a will? I've just helped a friend's wife do this. As Tim says there are then clear rules as to what proportion of the estate go to her and what to the kids. As the wife it seemed obvious that she had the right to apply, but the kids or other relatives could have. 

Yes your correct - that's what I am getting at - ideal would be a 'POA plus' - would do all the financial big decisions but also the day to day details.  Thinking back to my parents they would have really struggled if me and my bro had not been organising the day to day stuff.  I suppose the answer would be that if it came to us both lacking capacity the POAs would need to 'sign us over' to a decent care company. This would be ok till the self funding money ran out and it would then be pot luck with Social Care.

In my experience a H and W POA wasnt really necessary but may have helped in certain circumstances. 

I saw this with both my grandmother's, who like many of their generation had always left financial matters to their husbands and didn't really have a clue how to deal with such things after they were widowed late in life.

My mum enacted a POA for her mother, this meant Mum could just get on and do the best and was needed as Granny was very confused and potentially vulnerable. Small decisions like birthday presents she discussed with Granny, whilst things like toiletries, clothes and care fees she just dealt with. (As a close relative I was notified and given the opportunity to object when the POA was enacted, which I assume is an extra level of protection against someone having it activated when they are still in good mental health, or concerns that the chosen nominee may not act in the best interests of the person)

My Dad never needed a POA, but his mum requested that he and my uncle took care of all her financial matters, so they were both added as signatories to her accounts and my uncle (who lived closer) took over all her financial matters. Unlike a POA though my Granny was still able to sign cheques and make financial decisions if she wanted to, this was fine as she was still mentally alert but just didn't want the responsibility - we did have the paperwork for a POA if required.

The other side of the coin is to just get someone's PIN and then (technically fraudulently) access their bank as needed, which I'm sure it's not at all uncommon. Personally though I think the legal and official channels are far better as they protect both parties.

There was no will.

The process and the way that the estate must be divided are very clearly and fairly defined.  It is a simple process that need not involve any solicitors and no money or assets other than any inheritance tax that may be due goes to anybody other than the family.

I'm afraid that's not the case... the courts would be required to appoint someone for you. I'm not sure who pays for that: it might come from the person who they're acting for.

This is something I've started to ponder. We're in our early 40s, and have no children. We have a 2 year old nephew on one side, and a 6 day old niece on the other side. For now, we could appoint our siblings (there are enough of them to share the job). But in the future potentially our nephew & niece could end up with POA for their parents and 3-4 aunts & uncles. That seems like a lot for one person, and a tad unfair.

Yes, sorry, I wasn't sufficiently clear. There are various processes that happen before the TS gets involved. I was interested in where the money actually goes when it goes "to the Crown".

They would however be in line to inherit from all of you - so would end up rather well off.

I wouldn't worry - there'll be a few more nephews and nieces along soon who can share the burden (and inheritance) in the future.

It basically goes to various relatives according to the intestacy rules. Not sure what half aunts are? 

Technically doesn't it depend on where you live? Not sure many Cumbrian's would be happy with it going to the Duchy of Lancashire (Cornwall perhaps less so) ? 

It helped me, but I think that is unusual. It's probably telling that 15k Financial Deputies were appointed by the Court last year, but only a few hundred Health ones. 

Isn't one of the differences between the medical and financial POA's that while you are capable of making decisions you can't delegate the medical ones to the attorney, but you can the financial ones?

It does. Basically our Glorious Monarch gets all the unclaimed dosh (bona vacantia) from the Duchy of Lancashire, which he inherited from his mum, and William gets the money from Cornwall, which Charles previously had. It's good being a royal. The Guardian has done some digging:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secre...

Regarding the rest, the Crown realises the market value of the assets, and puts that in the Consolidated Fund, so just like taxes and IHT, etc. There doesn't appear to be any charity involved in that at all, unsurprisingly.

According to Wikipedia the Duchy of Lancaster owns, amongst others;

The Lancashire Survey is made up of five rural estates comprising a total of 3,900 hectares (15 sq mi)[27]

Myerscough Estate – held since the 13th century.

Salwick Estate

Wyreside Estate

Whitewell Estate – 2,400 hectares (9+1⁄4 sq mi) in the Forest of Bowland

The Yorkshire Survey – 6,800 hectares (26+1⁄4 sq mi)[29]Goathland estate – 4,100 hectares (15+3⁄4 sq mi)

heather moorland, managed as grouse moors, most of which are a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)[30]

Cloughton estate – 1,000 hectares (3+3⁄4 sq mi) of arable land on the Yorkshire coast

Scalby Lodge

Pickering estate – mix of arable and livestock farming

Pickering Castle, North Yorkshire

Pontefract estate – a single large farm and several commercial properties

Pontefract Castle

"They would just move abroad and take all their wealth with them"  is often given as a reason for not taxing the wealthy more. Squirrelling all that away in the Cayman Islands would be quite tricky. 

That was with the old format where there was just a single form that covered both medical and financial. 

As I said she never lost capacity, just had no inclination to take on financial responsibility after her husband death. Hence adding their sons as signatures on her accounts, which gave them the ability to take control without her needing to relinquish anything.