A donee under a Lasting Power of Attorney, or a court-appointed deputy, holds very substantial power over someone who cannot protect themselves. They can operate bank accounts, sell property, and in the case of personal welfare powers, decide where the person lives and what treatment they receive. When that power is misused, the person harmed is by definition the person least able to complain about it.

The law provides several routes: supervision by the Office of the Public Guardian, the court’s powers to remove and replace, a challenge to the validity of the LPA itself, and where there is dishonesty, the criminal law. This article sets out what each is for and when to use it. How the roles arise in the first place is covered in the guides to Lasting Powers of Attorney and deputyship, and in the wider wills, probate and incapacity overview.

What abuse actually looks like

It rarely announces itself. It usually presents as a pattern of small things that only look wrong when assembled.

Financial warning signs

  • Unexplained withdrawals or transfers, particularly regular round-sum amounts, or activity that does not match the person’s known needs.
  • Assets transferred into the donee’s name: a property, a car, a joint account added “for convenience”, an investment moved across.
  • New borrowing secured against the person’s property, or a mortgage taken out on a flat that was owned outright.
  • Bills going unpaid or care fees falling into arrears while there is money in the accounts.
  • A decline in the person’s standard of living that does not match their means: worn clothing, an unmaintained home, cheaper care, missed appointments.
  • Refusal to account. A donee or deputy who will not answer straightforward questions about where money has gone, or who becomes hostile when asked, is a serious signal.

Relational warning signs

  • Isolation. Other family members are told the person is too tired for visits, calls are not put through, visits must be supervised by the donee, and contact steadily reduces.
  • Sudden changes to arrangements: a new will, a new nomination, a change of address, a move to a different care setting, made shortly after the donee took control and without discussion.
  • The person seems anxious or fearful in the donee’s presence, or their answers change depending on who is in the room.

Any one of these has an innocent explanation. Several together, and especially isolation combined with financial change, is the pattern that warrants action.

The Office of the Public Guardian’s role

The Office of the Public Guardian, part of the Ministry of Social and Family Development, registers LPAs and supervises donees and deputies. It is the usual first port of call, and it is free.

Its supervisory function includes receiving and looking into complaints, requiring donees and deputies to provide information and accounts, visiting or arranging for visits where appropriate, and reporting to the court where matters need judicial determination. Deputies in particular are usually subject to reporting obligations set by the court order appointing them, which gives the OPG a documentary baseline against which to test what has happened.

When raising a concern, be concrete. Set out who the person is, who the donee or deputy is, what specifically you have observed, when, and what documents you have: bank statements, correspondence, care home records. A precise chronology is worth far more than a general expression of unease. The OPG’s role, remit and contact routes are described in the guide to the Office of the Public Guardian.

Where there is immediate risk to the person’s safety, do not wait on an administrative process. Call the police on 999.

What the court can do

The Family Justice Courts have wide powers under the Mental Capacity Act in relation to a person who lacks capacity. In this context the significant ones are:

  • Revoking an LPA entirely, where the donee has behaved, or proposes to behave, in a way that contravenes their authority or is not in the donor’s best interests, or where the LPA was invalidly made.
  • Removing or replacing a donee or deputy, and appointing someone else, often a different family member, a professional deputy, or in some cases the Public Guardian.
  • Ordering accounts. The court can require a donee or deputy to produce a full account of dealings with the person’s money and property. This is frequently the decisive step, because it converts suspicion into evidence.
  • Making orders about the person’s property and affairs directly: freezing accounts, setting aside or reversing transactions, directing that assets be recovered or restored, or authorising specific decisions.
  • Making declarations about whether a person has capacity for a particular decision, and about the lawfulness of something done or proposed.

Applications are supported by affidavit evidence. Where matters are urgent, such as an imminent property sale or funds about to be moved, the court can be asked for interim orders.

Challenging whether the LPA was valid at all

A separate line of attack is that the LPA should never have taken effect. The main grounds are:

Lack of capacity when it was made. A donor must have had the capacity to make an LPA at the time of signing. Where an LPA was executed after a dementia diagnosis, or during a period of hospitalisation or acute illness, this is worth examining. Medical records from around the date of signing are the key evidence. How capacity is assessed is set out in the guide to how mental capacity is assessed.

Undue influence. The donor had capacity but the decision was not truly theirs: they were pressured, isolated, or dependent on the person who benefited. Courts look at the relationship, who arranged the LPA, who was present, whether the donor had independent advice, and whether the terms are what this donor would have been expected to choose.

Fraud or forgery, including a signature that is not the donor’s or a donor who was misled about what they were signing.

Failure to meet the formal requirements: defects in execution, witnessing, certification or registration.

The certificate issuer’s function is to guard against precisely these problems by confirming that the donor understands the document and is not acting under pressure. That safeguard is real but not absolute; a certificate does not make an LPA unchallengeable.

Where there is dishonesty: the criminal dimension

Misusing a vulnerable person’s money is not only a civil matter. Depending on the facts, ordinary offences such as criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery or theft may apply, and the Mental Capacity Act itself creates offences relating to the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of a person who lacks capacity, and to false statements made in connection with an LPA.

Report suspected dishonesty to the police. A criminal investigation and civil or protective proceedings can run in parallel, and they do different jobs: the criminal process addresses the wrongdoing, while the court’s Mental Capacity Act powers are what actually get control of the person’s affairs back into safe hands.

Recovering the money is a third question again, and may involve tracing assets, setting aside transactions, or a claim against the donee personally. Move early, because funds that have been spent are usually gone.

When it is disagreement rather than abuse

Not every conflict is abuse, and it is important to be honest about the difference before escalating.

A donee or deputy must act in the donor’s best interests, applying the statutory framework. They are not required to do what other relatives think best, to consult everyone, or to reach a decision the family agrees with. A donee who decides that a parent should move into residential care, or should sell a flat, or should not have a particular treatment, may be making a decision others hate and still be acting entirely properly.

Where the disagreement is genuine, the sequence is: ask the donee to explain their reasoning; put concerns in writing so there is a record; consider mediation, which is far cheaper and less destructive than litigation; and only then consider an application, and only if there is evidence the decision falls outside what a donee acting in good faith could reach. Courts are not receptive to applications that amount to a family disagreement about care preferences.

One genuine ground for concern in this category is a donee who is not making decisions at all: failing to pay bills, ignoring care needs, or being uncontactable. Inaction can be as damaging as misconduct, and the court’s power to remove a donee covers both.

The overlap with elder abuse

Financial abuse by a donee usually sits alongside other harm. The person may also be neglected, isolated, or subject to emotional or physical abuse, and the LPA is simply the instrument that made the money accessible.

Where the adult at risk cannot protect themselves, whether through mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, the Vulnerable Adults Act provides a separate protective framework, including powers to enter and assess, to remove a person to a place of temporary care, and to make orders restraining contact. It applies whether or not there is an LPA in place, and can be used alongside Mental Capacity Act proceedings.

Where the person still has capacity but is being pressured, the answer is different and simpler: an adult with capacity can revoke an LPA at any time, and the process is set out in the guide to revoking or changing an LPA. What they usually need is not a court application but independent contact, away from the donee, and support in exercising a right they already have. If you want advice on your own situation, we can connect you with a licensed Singapore law practice.