Not upheld: unauthorized withdrawals and safeguarding failures under Lasting Power of Attorney complaint against Coutts & Company

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B, via her representative Mr B, complained that Coutts allowed a third-party attorney holding a Lasting Power of Attorney to withdraw over £280,000 between 2022 and 2025 without adequate safeguarding. The Office of the Public Guardian had written to Coutts in 2023 expressing safeguarding concerns, and Mr B raised concerns in early 2024. The attorney subsequently lost the LPA following court action. The ombudsman found that the LPA was legitimate and registered, the payments were authorized by a legally authorized party, and the OPG did not instruct Coutts to take action. The ombudsman concluded that restricting the account could have left the vulnerable Mrs B without means to pay for essentials and would have undermined the legal LPA without sufficient grounds. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the principle that banks must process authorized payments and withdrawals in accordance with account terms and conditions. While banks have obligations to monitor accounts for fraud and unusual transactions, the ombudsman found that these payments were made by a legally authorized party with a valid registered LPA. The OPG letter did not instruct Coutts to take action, and the OPG did not contact Coutts again. Restricting the account could have left the vulnerable Mrs B without means to pay for essentials and would have undermined the legal LPA. The ombudsman found no evidence of fraud or misappropriation and noted that Mr B was not authorized to act on Mrs B's behalf at the time concerns were raised. The attorney's legal obligations regarding conduct are not Coutts' responsibility to enforce.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website