The issues surrounding lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) continue to make headlines. One particular aspect concerns how LPAs are executed. The Court of Protection case, In the matters of AR, HR & MH [2026] EWCOP 47 (T2), reported on 30 September, may illustrate what happens with the execution of a great number of LPAs prepared without the benefit of legal advice. It highlights the real dangers of allowing the unsupervised preparation and signing of LPAs.
The issue in this case was whether LPAs granted by the donors AR, HR and MH were valid and, if not, then the Public Guardian (PG) would seek to cancel their registration. Furthermore, the PG explained that these were ‘test’ cases, with a further 24 matters on hold pending this case’s outcome.
The case involved the actions of the certificate provider. That role is to certify that the LPA has been signed in accordance with the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007 (the regulations), and in particular that: the donor understood the purpose of the LPA and the scope of the authority conferred under it; no fraud or undue pressure was being used to induce the donor to create the LPA; and there was nothing else which would prevent the LPA from being created by the completion of the instrument.
The donor of an LPA must have chosen their certificate provider. There are only two qualifications for this role under the regulations. They are either: (a) a person chosen by the donor as being someone who has known him personally for a period of at least two years which ends immediately before the date on which that person signs the LPA certificate; or (b) a person chosen by the donor who, on account of his professional skills and expertise, reasonably considers that he is competent to make the judgments necessary to certify the matters set out in paragraph (2)(1)(e) of schedule 1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
In these LPAs, the certificate provider was Robert Cornford. Unfortunately for him, Cornford’s role in these LPAs was uncovered by a concerned county court judge. That judge also heard Court of Protection cases and felt obliged to make the senior judge of the Court of Protection aware of the circumstances of the case.
In 2013, a Robert Pannell was convicted of defrauding a company and creditors, and sentenced to five years in prison. He was also disqualified as a director for seven years. It is also recorded that after his conviction, he changed his surname to Cornford.
His business, My Trusted Wills and Estate Planning LLP, included drafting wills and LPAs, and setting up trusts. The judge was concerned that as part of his business, Cornford prepared LPAs and acted as a certificate provider. It was also disheartening to find that he was a member of the Society of Will Writers and that its due diligence had not revealed that his conviction was not ‘spent’, and that he was not asked about it when he joined the society.
The current case examined the required qualifications (see above) for acting as a certificate provider and in particular the meaning of regulation 8(1)(b) of the regulations.
The judge explained that the donor is entitled to rely on the potential certificate provider’s own self-assessment of their suitability for this role. In the case of MH, there was no doubt he was chosen because of what were perceived to be his professional skills and expertise. For the other two cases, AR and HR, the position was less clear-cut as to whether it was a personal or a business relationship. The judge, however, was satisfied that Cornford had prepared their LPAs as part of his business skills and activities. As a consequence, the judge had to consider what professional skills Cornford exhibited.
It was found he had a total of 33.5 hours of basic will estate planning training, but nothing to show any significant professional skill or experience.
The court found that Cornford had not satisfied himself as to the required matters involved in acting as a certificate provider for LPAs. ‘The Public Guardian is concerned that Mr Cornford has given only “generic answers” when asked how he satisfied himself of the specific requirements, and in reality he took no proper steps to consider the matters he purported to certify. The Public Guardian points to the lack of any contemporaneous records of any steps taken by him when acting as certificate provider, and in particular AR’s evidence that, as a GP, he knew something about powers of attorney and so, when it came to creating his, “there was not much discussion” about it.’
Finally, the court considered how the LPAs were executed. As practitioners will know, both the order in which parties to LPAs sign the document and the dating of those signatures are fundamental to their validity. In these cases, it appeared that Cornford had added the date against each party’s signature after all had signed, not on the date they signed. As such, it was impossible to say whether they had been signed in the correct order. Cornford had added ‘Do not date’ stickers to some of the signatures. As the court found, there was no logical reason to do so other than to facilitate signing in an order other than required by the regulations.
The court found that he was not a person competent to act as certificate provider: he did not actually satisfy himself of matters about which a certificate provider is required to satisfy themselves; and the process of execution of the instruments did not comply with legal requirements.
One hopes the Office of the Public Guardian will take notice of this case to ensure the regulations are being followed and that OPG is carrying out checks to identify any invalid LPAs on the register.
Ann Stanyer is a consultant at Wedlake Bell LLP, London
No comments yet