Re AR, HR and MH: lasting powers of attorney cancelled over certificate provider's fraud conviction

The Court of Protection has ordered the cancellation of six lasting powers of attorney after concluding that the person who certified them could not reasonably have considered himself competent for the role, in a ruling that sets out the standards expected of professional certificate providers.

In Re AR, HR and MH [2026] EWCOP 47 (T2), HHJ Hilder heard three test cases brought by the Public Guardian, with a further 24 matters on hold. Each of the three donors had made property and affairs and health and welfare instruments, and each had used Robert Cornford, who appeared in person, as certificate provider. Marisa Lloyd, instructed by the Public Guardian, appeared for the applicant. The matters reached the court after a county court judge raised concerns with the Senior Judge in 2023.

The judge began with regulation 8(1)(b) of the 2007 Regulations, which permits a person chosen by the donor who, on account of professional skills and expertise, reasonably considers himself competent to make the certificate provider judgements. She held that the reasonableness requirement attaches to the person chosen rather than the donor, so donors may rely on a certificate provider's own account of his suitability. The professions listed in regulation 8(2) are examples only, but suggest regulated status or experience of health or incapacity issues. The disqualified relationships in regulation 8(3) address conflicts of interest, and omission from that list does not imply suitability.

The judge found that all three donors had chosen Mr Cornford for his professional skills as an estate planner, even though he claimed personal friendship with one of them. His suitability therefore depended on regulation 8(1)(b).

Mr Cornford has a conviction for fraudulent trading, for which he received a five-year sentence in 2013, and he later held directorships in breach of a disqualification. Fraud involves criminal dishonesty, the judge said, and is simply incompatible with a role intended to safeguard donors. His explanations for the directorships were evasive and contradictory, and his decision not to disclose the conviction to donors reflected poorly on his judgement.

His claimed expertise added little. His training amounted to 33.5 hours of basic estate planning, well below what is expected of the professionals listed in regulation 8(2). He referred to the wrong capacity test and to "best interests" in a context where they have no application, and he kept no contemporaneous records. He could not reasonably have considered himself competent, the judge held, which alone required cancellation.

Given that further applications depend on the ruling, she went on to consider the Public Guardian's other concerns. She found that Mr Cornford had not in fact satisfied himself of the matters certified. His answers were generic, and one donor's position was tested by simply asking whether he was under pressure while relatives were nearby.

The third concerned execution. Regulation 9 requires the donor to sign first, then the certificate provider, then the attorneys. Mr Cornford advised clients to leave the date boxes blank, using "Do Not Date" stickers, so that dates could be added administratively once all signatures were collected. The judge saw no logical purpose for that practice other than allowing signatures in a convenient order. The dates on the instruments did not match the evidence of when they were signed. She could not be satisfied that the correct order was followed for any instrument.

All three concerns were therefore well founded and paragraph 18(a) of Schedule 1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 required cancellation. Donors who retain capacity may make new instruments, and the interim deputyship arrangements for the donor who has lost capacity are to be made final.