I was told to obtain a guardianship order for my wife. I don't have time with all of her care. Is there a way around this?

Can you hire a nurse and/or an aide to come in for a day and do all of the errands you have on your 'to do' list? How about another family member? If that individual can't handle the care, he/she may be able to be the 'known face' for your wife while the hired team does the actual care. I don't know how long you have been at this, but no one person can handle 24/7 care for extended periods of time. And there are outside matters that need to be handled. Alternatively, some attorneys will come to your home (at an additional charge). But that will mean you are away from your wife anyway. Good luck.

I agree with geewiz. You need to get some additional help whatever happens or doesn't happen with the guardianship. You can't be the only caregiver 24/7 and keep your own physical and mental health. Start making some phone calls to see what help there is available for you. How old is your wife? If she's not a senior, I'd start with the United Way or your local congress person to see what help there is available. If she's a senior, then call your local Area Agency on Aging to see if you can get her some help. Is she on Social Security Disability? Tell us more and you'll get some very good advice from the other caregivers on here who have experience with your situation.

Hi geewiz & blannie thanks very much for answering, I have been a carer for 10 1/2 years it is extremely destructive, and to see the one you love slowly depreciating away.

My problem has always been I never trusted our system, in my business I saw a lot of malpractice and so did my wife also being a carer herself.

I feel sometimes that I have died and return the hundred times, determined to help my wife all the way if possible, it sounds as if you are both in the united states, I'm sorry to say there is far more corruption in all authorities over here in the UK more then the states, it is only because of the wonderful communication that you all have, it even goes for your lawyers, I am sorry to say that we have a bunch of collaborating rats that cannot be trusted.

Keep up the good work in communicating with each other over there, it is the only thing that can protect you from wrongdoing, but they will always try if there is money involved.

colinberry. I am so sorry for your wife's condition. I am English but have lived in the US since 1977. I had fondly hoped that there was less corruption in the UK than the US. Why do you need Guardianship for your wife? As her husband can you not legally make decisions for her if she is not capable? Sorry I don't actually have an answer maybe someone else in the UK can help.

Hi Veronica, you could have been married a lifetime and it does not matter by law, the minute you lose mental capacity in the UK or the US you basically our own by the government, Court of protection in the UK I think its call guardianship in the US, the spouse would have to apply for a guardianship order, something that very few people know of until you're confronted with it, in my case my wife's brain injury I believe it also goes for dementia and Alzheimer's patients.

Well I could give you tremendous amount of information on it, some of it pretty scary, this website I believe you cannot post the link and it does not have private messaging service but if you are interested give me your name for a website that does.

Colin, if you already have a decade's experience of dealing with this then clearly you're having problems with the OPG, your local authority and the various brain injury charities, carers' organisations and so on that I would otherwise recommend. What's the difficulty with arranging for a carer to come to your home, while you're there, to give you the time you need for the paperwork?

You're rather implying some kind of skulduggery back there, I assume it's related to your wife's claim for compensation. What went on?

Hi Countrymouse, after my wife's accident a group member from, Families Against Court of Protection Theft, got in touch with me after watching my videos on my wife's accident.

They warned me about the possibilities of what could happen to my wife and me because there is a huge amount of compensation involved. I must say everything that they had warned me about has come true.

The professor at Bart’s Hospital told me what you see is what you get, there was nothing else they could do for her, after knowing the problems I could get seeking for help, I decided that I was prepared to go it alone, without any intervention of the authorities.

After listening to what the group had to say, and the entire problem these poor people had to go through just because they love their family member. I had decided to help them by making a video on their strive to obtain justice for their family member, the daughter in the video I made was jailed for 3 months for talking about her mother's case, apparently this is quite common.

Well as for my wife's claim for compensation after 10 1/2 years, what the people in the group told me came true, I have just got the police fraud department to look into our case, and waiting their reply,

After experiencing such horrors with the accident the last thing we needed was a corrupted legal and judicial system, as far as getting the authorities involved, we certainly do not need any more problems on our hands.

Yes. Sadly your and your wife's story seems to have a good deal of the self-fulfilling prophesy to it.

So what is your purpose in applying for guardianship at this stage? The process itself, while tedious, doesn't seem to be a real obstacle. What would you like to achieve, exactly, in terms of caring for your wife and planning a decent quality of life for both of you?

Were you in fact able to receive any compensation?
Over here applying for disability is the same nightmare even if you have private disability insurance. You end up having to hire a lawyer who will take 25% of the settlement even though you are responsible for the tax on 100% of the award.

Hello again.

I've been watching your videos to try to find out what happened exactly; but wonder if you would mind clarifying? Here's how far I've got:

Your wife suffered head and back injuries as a result of being hit by improperly stored stock at a branch of Costco. I know Costco stores well, I can visualise this - the way packaged appliances are stored on their multiple-storey metal shelving. It must have been a terrifying shock for her, and a terrible thing to happen.

She was taken to hospital - what, straight to Barts, or was she treated anywhere else first? (Not Chase Farm, I hope…)
What were the diagnoses?
What treatment did she have to undergo?
How long was she in hospital?
What was the final prognosis on discharge?

Did Costco admit liability? Straight away or after a bit of a tussle?

What action was taken by the Health & Safety Executive?

Costco's insurers made you an offer of £100,000 as compensation for both your wife's injuries and your consequential losses. But these were separate claims, seeking damages for different things happening to two different people. What offers were made to whom? Who was handling your claims?

Did you accept a settlement? Was this the original offer, or did you get any further with negotiations?

At what point did this matter get to court? Was it your action that put it there, or the insurers'?

So was a settlement eventually reached and awarded to your wife? Was it an improvement on the original offer?

Moving on to the question of your wife's capacity: is it the case that you felt she should reject the offer, and at that point Costco's insurers submitted in court that she lacked the capacity to do so?

If so, hence the intervention of the CPP: if it was found that your wife lacked the capacity to accept or reject an award of damages, it would equally be the case that she would lack the capacity to give you Power of Attorney. That being so, the CPP would take over the management of both her suit against Costco and of her financial affairs entirely. This is when you ought to have applied for guardianship; why didn't you? Or did you?

It seems to me that a comparatively straightforward claim-offer-negotiation- settlement process, with a fully insured and reputable company that appears to have accepted liability - has become a Kafkaesque nightmare. I don't suppose for a moment that one particular party or another is wholly to blame for that; but when you're dealing with an incredibly complex structure like civil law you need to be careful whose advice you're listening to. And I have to say, speaking only for myself, that the last people I'd take advice from is a group of conspiracy theorists working to their own agenda. I'm sorry if this sounds hurtful, I'm sure you've made lots of really good friends with genuinely upsetting stories; but what favours has their intervention done you or your wife?

Colin, you have not been well served by FACT. Paranoia is not your friend. That's not to say that I imagine everything in the garden is rosy. There are, I agree, deep-rooted problems with all of the issues you're facing: compensation for injury, the behaviour of insurance loss adjusters, the seemingly bizarre priorities of a system which holds that transparency is damaging to the management of a case, the machinery of the Court of Public Protection and indeed civil law altogether, the unintended consequences of public policy, the snail's pace at which these processes move, the stupidity, obtuseness - and yes, no doubt, sometimes frank corruption - of certain officials… All of this does go on. All of it is a national problem, here and in every other country in the world. And I agree that solicitors have a bad rep - you should hear what my barrister brother-in-law says about them, the air turns blue! - which doesn't help when you're trying to find a conscientious and effective one. But I feel that your wife's comparatively straightforward case has been used by FACT to further their own agenda - and you're the one who's paid for it, in grief, exhaustion, stress and possibly even cash. With friends like that, who needs the Establishment for an enemy..?

I agree with you that many things work better in America, in particular the availability of information and the rights of access to it. But you might take a second to think about how much extra fun you'd be having if you also had to manage the financing and administration of your wife's acute and ongoing treatment, and say a little prayer of thanks to Nye Bevan. The NHS isn't perfect, it's insanely expensive on a national level, and it too falls victim to incompetence and corruption; but when I read round this forum I really do appreciate how lucky we are to have it.

What matters, though, is what happens next for you and your wife. To return to your initial question on this thread, if you can't face the guardianship application process, don't forget that it doesn't have to be you who does it. It can be any person who can practically undertake to manage your wife's finances and also her health and welfare. But it would be better if it were you, wouldn't it? - if only simply because you're with her all the time.

If I were you, I would concentrate on the future, work out what you want to happen, and plan your route to it. If it really is a question of the time to fill in the form, or a mental block that makes you understandably unable to face doing it, have you thought of asking a social worker? Enfield Adult Social Services might suggest someone to give you a hand so that all you have to do is read it through and sign it.

If you're getting tired of banging your head against the wall, you could always compile a case file and send it to Private Eye, by the way. Or The Oldie, where Richard Ingrams hangs out these days. They enjoy nothing more than a good punch-up with misbehaving officialdom, and it might be a relief to hand it over to someone else. I just feel there must be better things for you to do with your time and energy. Wishing you well.

Country mouse you certainly know your onions - I am impressed

You most definitely need to get some outside help be it family, friend or and aide from a senior helper business. No one can do it alone no matter how much you might think you can or believe that is what is expected of you. I felt the same way with my mom who has Alzheimer's, I was never going to place her anywhere, I would care for her. It's a noble thought and gesture but it's impossible. For your health both mental and physical please check with your cities Department of Aging, or other type of family services.

Here in the US my son and daughter-in-law will need to go to court to establish guardianship of their developmentally disabled son for when he reaches the age of majority (18). They can do this when he turns 16. Sounds odd considering he will be unable to care for himself as an adult and he is their child, but that is the law. I am sure it has to do with being able to receive Social Security Disabilty when he reaches 18 and making sure those payments are utilized for the disabled individual.

Even here in the US, if you have a case pending, your attorney will advise you NOT to press your case in social media, talk to the press or characterize the defendant in any way. Initially they will ask you to Cease and Desist and the court will uphold the request. Should you continue to post videos, they will ask that you be held in contempt of court (=jail) and attempt to recover damages for defamation that can destroy your hope of settlement. Tread carefully, once you sue in court, you are bound to the agreement to settle only in court and not seek trial-by-youtube.

Well Countrymouse, 1st of all I would like to say, I am not such an idiot to fall for what you call conspiracy theorists, but when it is backed up with facts, any rational human being should step back and listen and research, I am sure when Edward Snowden was telling his friends about what was happening a lot of them would have classed him as a nutter, or belong to some conspiracy theorists group, but it took the poor gentleman to give up his future and his life to prove them wrong, it is extremely sad to think that the majority of people stand by their government explanation, and everyone else, are considered to be conspiracy theorists.

I wonder what you would have been thinking if you live in the time of Jesus, your powerful and gracious king tells you in his eyes there is a huge group of paupers following a man who calls himself Jesus, and believe he is the Messiah. All I can say it someone speaks out about something that could get himself killed or badly injured or endangering him and his family’s future in any way, don’t you think in return he should get at least, the benefit of the doubt.

Personal injury and the structure of its protocol, that should be expected from a lawyer, advice given by Lord Woolf, the civil procedure rules/CPR it is the least that the badly injured claimant/plaintiff should expect out of their lawyer, if that is, they are, highly professional for the case, solicitors that do not have the ability to take on highly complex injury should not have the right to do the job.

The responsibility would fall on the firm to refuse to take on the mission. The reality is, a plumber is breaking the law if he plums in a boiler without the right qualifications, why should a lawyer be any different if he/she does not have the knowledge of brain injury. May I add here, the NHS prof new that my wife received a brain injury but why isn’t it on the report? Could it be because the consultant involved also work for insurance companies as an expert witness receiving £500 for half an hour's work?

I have talked about the CPR rules, a lawyer also have the duty to his client it is called his fiduciary duties to the client. It involves, if you told your plumber to plumb in a washing machine next to the sink, let's say upside down. It is his duty to do as he is told, like the lawyer he can ask you to sign an acknowledgement that he disagree with your decision or ask the court, that he would wish to be removed off the record's. Well one would have thought that is a fair and agreeable scenario.

Well you say your brother-in-law a barrister could turn the air blue with his stories, I would also like to state, there is also a rulebook they have to follow, to prevent injustice and a nightmare for the plaintiff, as the police would classify her, a vulnerable victim. How would you like if England scored a goal on the final minutes, and the referee disallowed it because he favored the other side, well. That is why they have a rulebook to follow.

Well as for Costco's insurers deciding she does not have the mental capacity to do so, 1st of all they would not mention that her capacity is involved because it would cause the insurers more money, that they have cause a disaster to someone's brains, their expert claims that my wife is putting it all on, as for the laws surrounding mental capacity, you would need to read the mental capacity act 2005 may I say came out 2 years after my wives accident, you would need to experts in the field to pronounce that she does not have the mental capacity, after all you are taking away a person's human rights and declaring them as a nonperson.

I came across this thread and found it suiting this area of our law.
The Lord said, if you hate someone you're guilty of murder. Man looks on the outward appearance, but He looks on the heart. Think of it....getting someone fired from their employer by way of harassment, suing a wife or a husband for divorce, getting a child's parent's custody or parental rights taken away, getting a church member put out of the local church, any sort of getting someone's rights or privileges wrongfully cancelled, suspended, revoked, etc., anything whereby someone would willfully snuff out another's "life," so to speak, it's murder in the true, broader definition.

Hi Debralee, you're correct, but surely you do not have to take away a person's heart and soul to be able to give them their disability rights, remove their parents as if they're nothing, having to obtain permission.

Their son will grow up hating to think that he has been declared a nonperson, he may need help but he certainly do not need categorizing as a nonperson. I know this because of the groups I belong to, children who are adults now fighting to be removed from being categorized a nonperson, it is ironic to see an adult man trying to prove he has got the ability to think for himself and runs a business but yet still having to fight to have himself remove off the list.

As far as I am aware, Edward Snowden is alive and well. Some of the people whose doings he exposed to public view - whether or not you or I would endorse those doings - will not be. I'd be a lot fonder of boat-rockers if their actions didn't have quite so many unintended consequences.

Colin, I'm afraid I'm none the wiser in terms of the actual events that have taken place in your wife's claim for damages. Happy to leave it there if you are, and I wish you both all the best.

Hi tltimme, thanks very much for your concern, I do understand the horrific mission I have, even more fears lie head dealing with the authorities.

But after all I am only doing what my grandparents had to do if they were in the same situation, but they did not have a government claiming to care and placed all of this pathetic restrictions on them.

If anybody is wondering why I am turning to the police, and claiming this case is fraudulent.

The 1st solicitor we had, never knew the meaning of CPR rules, took 3 to 4 months to answer our letters, never saw the plaintiff till 8 months after the accident. The Law Society said that they could no longer be involved, the next step for us to take is to sue the solicitor for professional negligence, could you imagine a person that badly injured have to start a 2nd case suing her solicitor for professional negligence. To obtain is bundled of files the firm wanted 15,000 but we had to pay £5000 +VAT.

My opinion of the 1st solicitor, a child that has been given a sweet shop for Christmas.

Our 2nd solicitor, failed to turn up at the hearing, had the case dismissed.

I went to the health and safety officer for Waltham Forest to obtain their report, our solicitor phoned me after hours to say that I could not have the report because Costco's had accepted liability, this is our 1st solicitor the only job that he had done that took such speed, after visiting the health and safety Department that evening.

So you see within the 1st month I manage to have the firm except liability, only for the 2nd solicitor to have the case thrown out of court.

I had to approach the Law Society to have the firm obtain a barrister to get the case reinstated because liability had already been obtain.

A huge Law firm opposite London Bridge Station, called Anthony Gold would only take the case on if we sue the previous Solicitor for professional negligence and get our compensation that way, of course we refuse.

After several attempts to get another Solicitor we finally got our final one, with time totally run out.

My opinion on the 2nd solicitor, the case was conducted by his superiors who ran the firm, the firm was totally lacking in empathy, the solicitor only had 2 years experience and he was dealing with a brain injury case. Rootless, prepared to take the fall on behalf of Costco's.


The 3rd firm, I thought I had finally found a fully experience Solicitor with experience of brain injury, she heard our case I presented her all the documents I had filed so far. She also obtains the bundle from the 2nd Solicitor. I cannot remember of hand how much it was but considerably less. I realize this is our last chance, the time has run out.

Happy to know that I had obtained a solicitor that understood brain injury, I could finally relax. She call me later and said she was extremely busy her partner would run the case while she was way, but finally it was apparent that she had given the case to another partner that specialize in pneumoconiosis a lung disease from coalmining, well I find myself totally trapped I cannot get another solicitor because my time is up, that means my 3 years it is over. I have to accept the consequences.

The 3rd solicitor knew that I keep all copies provided by the firm, letters and e-mails, so this Solicitor hardly sent us any letters or e-mail, he made us go to his office whenever he needed to discuss anything.

What the previous solicitors fail to do, He never obtain the required rehabilitation my wife required his expert witness promised to help my wife and said he could definitely help her, but he never followed it through.

He never knew the meaning of fiduciary duties, never followed my instructions. He decided to call in an official Solicitor to take over our place and ended the case.

Not exactly the type of plumber you would like in your home. Recommended job, dictator.

My opinion on this Solicitor, extremely heartless, only suitable to work for the SS, would be handy if Hitler was still around, extremely devious.

I would like to apologise that the 3rd Solicitor specialised not in pneumoconiosis but in mesothelioma asbestos disease.

Hi Veronica91, sorry for the delay, as for applying for disability and compensation for me caring for her, no, MPs are wondering why only half of the suspected people with dementia has registered, I don't know do you realize that my wife would yet again have to see 2 experts covering that particular area under the mental capacity act 2005 and declare her lacking in capacity to receive any help. http://forum.alzheimers.org.uk/showthread.php?64851-guardianship/page3

Well it sounds pretty mad having to higher a lawyer to sort out your Private Disability Insurance, more nightmares when you certainly don't need it, they take 25% of your settlement, and they tax it. Well anything to keep us poor.

Hi Countrymouse, with your knowledge of Enfield you must be living round this area, I live in Edmonton.

Our biggest problem is, our 3rd solicitor totally ignored my instructions, breaking the trust that his fiduciary duties demand. He decided to bring in an official Solicitor to help him end the case so he can be paid, he walked away with £400,000 his official solicitor excepted the offer on behalf of us, and ended the case and put my wives money in Court Funds, tautly against the rules but we are in no position to do anything about it.

If he did not want to follow my instructions, the protocol is that he approaches the court to ask to be removed of the records, well that is what he told us he was going to do, but we were surprised to find out at court he obtain an official Solicitor to end the case, it is like a plumber agreeing to do the job requested by you, to strictly follow your orders on what you want. But this lawyer decided to do different, refusing to accept any of your instructions, brought in a floating trusted plumber to agree with the job done. The problem is our job done is stuck in the care of Court Funds, now your plumber is demanding that you produce an expert report of your mental capacity.

Well I do not know that anyone you employed had the right to do that, after refusing to follow your instructions, this is all new it is certainly not in the rulebooks, so I'm hoping that the police can enlighten me.

There is a little more on my case here. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Single-Mild-Blast-Exposure-Can-1706787%2ES%2E276420827

Well I would recommend everyone reading this rules before employing a solicitor.

http://www.sra.org.uk/Solicitors/code-of-conduct/rule2.page

Rule 2.01 sets out situations in which you must refuse instructions or, where appropriate, cease acting. These might include the following:
• (a)Breach of the law or rules
(c)
Duress or undue influence
It is important to be satisfied that clients give their instructions freely. Some clients, such as the elderly, those with language or learning difficulties and those with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to pressure from others. If you suspect that a client's instructions are the result of undue influence you need to exercise your judgement as to whether you can proceed on the client's behalf. For example, if you suspect that a friend or relative who accompanies the client is exerting undue influence, you should arrange to see the client alone or if appropriate with an independent third party or interpreter. Where there is no actual evidence of undue influence but the client appears to want to act against their best interests, it may be sufficient simply to explain the consequences of the instructions the client has given and confirm that the client wishes to proceed. For evidential purposes, it would be sensible to get this confirmation in writing.
Ceasing to act
8.A client can end the retainer with you at any time and for any reason. You may only end the relationship with the client if there is a good reason and after giving reasonable notice. Examples of good reasons include where there is a breakdown in confidence between you and the client, and where you are unable to obtain proper instructions.

9.If there is good reason to cease acting, you must give reasonable notice to the client. What amounts to reasonable notice will depend on the circumstances. For example, it would normally be unreasonable to stop acting for a client immediately before a court hearing where it is impossible for the client to find alternative representation. In such a case, if there is no alternative but to cease acting immediately, you should attend and explain the circumstances to the court – see rule 11 (Litigation and advocacy). There may be circumstances where it is reasonable to give no notice.

So… The problem is the code of conduct? Or the problem is that your three solicitors in turn failed to comply with their code of conduct?

Colin, I've read through most of it, and your correspondence with Joanna Lane, and…

Look. Nobody - nobody - thinking about it seriously is going to belittle how horrible your wife's accident was. I slightly despair of getting to whether she received compensation, how much it was, and how her funds are now controlled; but here's the thing. What would help you from here? Is there anything that would make your and Mary's life easier?

Countrymouse, it is not a simple as that, if a plumber fails to do a good job plumbing in a boiler because he does not have the qualifications, he has broken the law, you have the boiler remove and a new one replaced.

When a lawyer fails to follow their civil procedure rules with brain injury they basically could have destroyed the patient. A patient with brain injury has to have rehab within the 1st 6 months of there injury, you have to imagine it is like a tin of gloss paint with a whole at the bottom they have to receive rehabilitation as soon as possible, a neuropsychologist at Queens Square London told me it is disgraceful my wife should have received rehabilitation immediately, even though this was a year later, she gave me all of her information including her phone number to get our lawyers to call her immediately, but they just ignored it.

Well I was totally ignorant to the whole scenario of brain injury, after listening to the neuropsychologist I started to read all about civil procedure rules by Lord Woolf he warned solicitors on their behavior.

The more I read the more I realize they have damage my wife to the point of no return, the 3 solicitors had let her down and concentrated their interests in protecting Costco's as if she was nothing, the wife that I would have done anything for, but to them she was nothing.

Once they realize I knew what they all had done, they started to turn against me, it would have been easier for me if I remain ignorant to it all but that was not my persona, I had to know everything that should have been done, including the solicitors fiduciary duties.

Well I realize they have failed her in every way, to think that they done it to a brain injury patient, with 3 fractured vertebrae’s one of it was nearly crushed to pieces, the CT scan nurse said she never have seen the vertebrae crushed like that before and she had been doing it for 15 years how did my wife received it.

Colin, you posted asking if anyone knew a way round having to obtain guardianship on your wife's behalf. I assume you are trying to ACHIEVE something. What is it?

Look. Let's take this paragraph as an example. You say:

"Well I was totally ignorant to the whole scenario of brain injury, after listening to the neuropsychologist I started to read all about civil procedure rules by Lord Woolf he warned solicitors on their behaviour."

Ok. So:

Who referred your wife to the neuropsychologist? Barts? Your GP? Who?
This referral resulted in an appointment one year following the injury, correct?
So, between your wife's discharge from Barts and the appointment with UCH, what happened with regard to her rehab? Nothing? Or something? Who was co-ordinating your wife's post-discharge care?

This is the type of important information that is missing. This is what people need to know if they are to understand your profound sense of grievance.

But in any case, leaving that to one side: your consultant is concerned about the delay and tells you that your wife should have been referred immediately for rehabilitation. And - seriously? - your first thought is to look at the Woolf Report? Why? What's that got to do with your wife's medical care? What solicitor are you holding responsible for a failure to refer your wife promptly WITHIN the NHS?

Mate, seriously, you're all over the place.

But to use your own analogy, if you discover that the engineer who fitted your new gas boiler was not CORGI registered, no you don't rip it out and get a new one. You get an engineer who definitely is CORGI registered to check the work and see if there was anything wrong with it.

In your case I suspect the second, third, fourth engineers told you the boiler was fine, once they'd had a chance to look at it properly, and you didn't like what they told you. And then someone else whose completely different boiler in a completely different context had blown a hole in his kitchen wall told you they were all out to make sure you die of carbon monoxide poisoning…

But this is too important for all that kind of argy-bargy. What do you want to achieve?

Countrymouse, after the case if you could call it that, remember that this case was (settled out of court) The Official Solicitor left the money in court funds. Bearing in mind that our solicitor did not have the right to introduce an official Solicitor, he was breaking his fiduciary duty.

We went to court believing that our solicitor was applying to be removed of the records, and certainly not to remove us from having any say in the matter, that is what the court hearing was suppose to be all about. Well the more I talk about this case the more pathetic it becomes.

We did not want to push it any further because I realize we were playing with something far greater than we could begin to believe, we went to the court a week later to ask for Mary's compensation. The Court manager looked into his computer on our case, and said that you have been awarded judgment, but extremely unusual I have never seen this before they had not entered the amount awarded, haven't you received the money, well I can only advise you to go to the court funds office.

Remembering this is all in the city, I took my wife home and return to the court funds office in another part of the city the following week, the manager told us we can't tell you anything about the case we are instructed not to. Well that was another wasted journey to the city considering my wife has a spinal injury having to walk to all these places.

Cutting the story short we went to see the official Solicitor even though we believe she had no right to be there, to asked her about the money, but she was not there, she phoned me later and she said that we require a report on Mary's capacity, a little bit ironic when everyone now has been paid except the person with the severe injury.

Well by now an expert on LinkedIn, said to me you're fighting a lost battle when a large corporation is involved they will destroy you both just worry about your wife. Well that is what I decided to do, all the money in the world is not as important as my wife and I left it there. To your answer now my wife has not received anything at all of her compensation, actually it has cost us thousands for dismissing the 1st 2 solicitors all we had in return was £5000 at the end of this so call case.



Well Countrymouse, first of all we both believe that no one has the right to remove our identity turning us into a nonperson, so to people like us is there a way to obtain help without declaring my spouse as a nonperson, that is what I was trying to get at.

I do not see why the state requires or demand that a person has to become a nonperson before receiving any help, especially if that person has a spouse, and a spouse who is willing to take care of his spouse but require a guardianship order to do so, because at the end of the day the spouse is going to have to do the job anyway.

Colin, your wife's becoming essentially a Ward of Court is not the same thing as her becoming - as you put it - a non-person. Try seeing it on the contrary as her entitlement to additional protection in view of her vulnerability, protection which will among other things prevent her funds being used for any purpose other than her own welfare. In all of the bureaucracy that has been making your life hell, at the core of it is Mary's best interests. That's what it's for. A mighty messy job they can make of it sometimes, but nevertheless at the end of the day they want the same outcome that you want: Mary's welfare.

If you feel that this is personally insulting to you, I can understand that: it would hurt my pride too, if I were in your shoes. However, presumably, the aim of suggesting that you apply for guardianship is that you would then take charge of spending on her behalf and thus become more fully involved in managing her affairs. In that case, everything you do would be closely supervised, and would have to be accurately accounted for. Of course. What else would you expect?

You've spent the last ten years annoying and alienating the various authorities; now you're hoping there will be some way for you just to get on with looking after Mary unchallenged, in your own way? Not. A. Chance.

Listen. Costco has settled. The court is satisfied that your wife has been adequately compensated for her injuries. That is the court's decision to make, not yours. So far so good.

Costco has paid the compensation. The money was paid and taken into trust by the court. At that point, the story ceases to have anything at all to do with Costco. They owned up, they paid damages, end of story as far as they're concerned.

I expect it does baffle you that various officials would not discuss with you what is happening with the money. The stark reality is that this is none of your business, because it is not your money, it is your wife's money; and not having POA, which she couldn't give you because she allegedly lacked capacity, you have no right to act on her behalf. I know she's your wife, but that's how it works. Her compensation is her compensation, and nothing to do with you in the eyes of the law.

This "for instance" might make it easier to accept their attitude: suppose, just suppose, that instead of being you, you were a completely different type of husband, a really nasty piece of work. Suppose your wife had always lived in fear of you, and now was suffering from a disability, and had received a large lump sum from the people who had injured her. And suppose then that the court cheerfully gave you complete control of her affairs, saying "there you go - look after her, mind." What would you think of a court that would do that to a helpless, injured person? And even if the hypothetical wife said to the court that she agreed to her husband's taking charge, would you just take her word for it?

There are many less good husbands and wives than you and Mary out there. The courts have to assume the worst, or they will be taking terrible risks with people who desperately need their protection. And how are they to know what kind of husband you are? They can't tell by looking, you know.

So you either learn to play nice, and co-operate with the people whose duty is to protect your wife, or you give up and let them take over altogether. Nothing in law obliges you to stay with your wife unless you choose to, actually - you could leave tomorrow and the state in all its glory would step in to care for her (if you can call what they do caring). But the law definitely is obliged to make very sure that anybody, including you, who goes anywhere near your wife's money is monitored closely. That's their duty.

Lastly, maybe you don't see why all this has to happen. I agree that it's very possible that none of this safeguarding rigmarole has any relevance to the reality of your and Mary's relationship. But what does that change? What difference does it make if you or Mary or I think it's a good system? It changes nothing. You play the game by the rules, or you don't play.