My client wished to appoint two replacement attorneys jointly. That’s the default position isn’t it?- the continuation sheet only has to be added if you want to change the appointment to jointly and severally.
I have received a letter from OPG saying that I haven’t specified how the replacement attorneys are appointed - I don’t see there’s anywhere on the form to do this - but surely I don’t need to do this anyway given the default position.
Another point is that the OPG wants to reject the LPA because the date the donor signed has been amended but the amendment not initialled - I can’t recall us having done this but if we did it would have been an overwrite and not a crossing out and amendment. Are the OPG justified in taking such a harsh view?
Many thanks in advance
My understanding of the joint appointment and continuation sheet is the same yours. Though, I cannot recall the last time the replacements attorneys were appointed to act jointly. I would say 99% of our appointments have been jointly and severally.
I have had the exact same issue with the OPG rejecting the LPA because the date had been overwritten by the donor (and not crossed out). The date was clear to us and this matched the date that the donor signed other parts of the form. We questioned this over the telephone but they still requested a new LPA to be submitted. It appears that they are being very particular at the moment and so LPAs need to be triple checked before being submitted. We also scan a complete copy of the LPA onto our system before sending to the OPG, as if there is an issue, they tend not to return the original LPA to you for some time.
BPE Solicitors LLP