LPA Conditions and Restrictions UK: How to Limit Your Attorney's Powers

The LPA form (LP1F for property and financial affairs; LP1H for health and welfare) contains a specific section where the donor (the person making the LPA) can add conditions and restrictions. There is a legal distinction between the two, though in practice both limit the attorney's authority. A RESTRICTION prohibits the attorney from taking a particular action at all — it is an absolute bar. For example: 'My attorney must not sell my property at 12 Elm Street without first obtaining a written valuation from a chartered surveyor.' Or: 'My attorney must not make gifts to themselves.' A CONDITION is a prerequisite that must be satisfied before the attorney can act in a particular way. It creates a threshold rather than an outright prohibition. For example: 'My attorney may only use this LPA if I have been assessed as lacking capacity to manage my financial affairs by my GP.' Or: 'My attorney may only act jointly with my daughter Emma on decisions involving amounts over £10,000.' IN PRACTICE: the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) treats conditions and restrictions together as limitations on the attorney's authority. If the attorney acts in breach of a restriction or without satisfying a condition, they are acting outside the scope of the LPA and their act may be void or voidable. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of Practice refers to 'conditions and restrictions' as a single concept. The key principle is that any limitation in section 3 of the LPA form is binding on the attorney once the LPA is registered.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the LPA regulations allow wide scope for conditions and restrictions in a property and financial affairs LPA, subject to one overriding limit: they must not be impossible to comply with, inconsistent with the rest of the LPA, or contrary to law. COMMONLY USED RESTRICTIONS: (1) Incapacity-only restriction: 'My attorney must not use this LPA while I still have the mental capacity to manage my own financial affairs.' This is a crucial restriction because a property LPA can otherwise be used immediately after registration, even while the donor is fully capable. Without this restriction, an attorney could legally access the donor's accounts while the donor is still mentally capable. This restriction does not require a formal capacity assessment for every transaction — it relies on the attorney's honest judgment — but combined with a GP-assessment condition it can be very protective. (2) Prohibition on selling the main residence: 'My attorney must not sell my main home without the written consent of my son James Brown.' (3) Prohibition on self-dealing: 'My attorney must not make any gift to themselves or any member of their family except as permitted by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 s.12.' Note: attorneys are already limited by MCA s.12 on gifts; this restriction reinforces that. (4) Investment restrictions: 'My attorney must only invest my savings in UK-regulated bank or building society deposits and must not invest in shares, funds, or any other investment without independent financial advice.' (5) Joint action requirement: 'My attorneys must always act jointly and not independently of each other on any transaction involving more than £5,000.' WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED: a restriction that would make the LPA inoperable (e.g., 'my attorney must obtain my consent before acting' — if you lack capacity, you cannot consent); or a restriction that conflicts with the attorney's MCA duty to act in your best interests.

A health and welfare LPA (LP1H) governs decisions about medical treatment, care arrangements, place of residence, and daily routines when the donor lacks capacity. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS are used to give the attorney more specific guidance or to impose limits on particular decisions. ADVANCE REFUSAL OF TREATMENT: a health and welfare LPA can include restrictions refusing specific medical treatments — but note that a formal advance decision to refuse treatment (ADRT) under MCA ss.24-26 is a separate document and has greater legal force for life-sustaining treatment. Refusing treatment within the LPA itself (rather than in a separate ADRT) is valid but must be very clearly worded. For life-sustaining treatment, the LPA must expressly state that the attorney has authority to consent to or refuse life-sustaining treatment (there is a specific tick-box on the LP1H form) AND the LPA must be registered; an ADRT has priority over an attorney's decision unless the ADRT was made before the LPA and was not revoked. COMMONLY USED HEALTH AND WELFARE RESTRICTIONS: (1) Consultation requirement: 'My attorney must consult my daughter Emma Wood before making any decision about my place of residence.' Note: this is a procedural obligation on the attorney; Emma has no veto. (2) Care home preference: 'If I require residential care, my attorney should prefer a care home within 10 miles of my current home so that my family can visit easily.' Note: preferences are guidance, not binding restrictions — the attorney must still act in best interests. (3) Treatment preferences: 'My attorney should support my preference for palliative care over aggressive life-prolonging treatment if I have a terminal diagnosis with no prospect of recovery.' (4) Religious or cultural requirements: 'My attorney must ensure that my care respects my Catholic faith and that I am supported to attend Mass if my health allows.' WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED: a restriction that would force the attorney to act against MCA best interests principles; a restriction that conflicts with the healthcare professional's clinical judgment in an emergency.

The OPG scrutinises conditions and restrictions when the LPA is submitted for registration. Poorly worded, ambiguous, or impossible restrictions will cause the OPG to raise a query, require amendment, or in some cases refuse to register the LPA. PRINCIPLES FOR DRAFTING: (1) Be specific: vague language creates disputes. 'My attorney should be careful with money' is not a restriction — it is guidance. 'My attorney must not make any withdrawal from my savings accounts exceeding £1,000 without first obtaining written confirmation from my GP that I lack mental capacity' is a specific, enforceable restriction. (2) Be achievable: if the condition cannot be satisfied in practice (e.g., 'my attorney must obtain my consent before acting' — impossible if you lack capacity), the OPG will reject it. (3) Avoid conflict with the LPA: a restriction must not make the LPA completely inoperable or contradict the choice of attorney, the replacement attorney provisions, or the signed certificate provider declarations. (4) Use the correct section: conditions and restrictions belong in section 3 (Restrictions) of the LP1F/LP1H form — NOT in the guidance/instructions section. Restrictions placed in the wrong section may not be registered as binding. (5) Do not attempt to replicate an advance decision: a refusal of specific life-sustaining treatment belongs in a formal ADRT under MCA s.25, not in the LPA restrictions (though the LPA can cross-refer to an existing ADRT). EXAMPLES OF WORDING ACCEPTED BY THE OPG: 'This LPA may only be used if I lack the mental capacity to manage my financial affairs.' / 'My attorney must not sell my property without the prior written consent of my son David Smith.' / 'My attorneys must act jointly (not independently) on all decisions.' EXAMPLES LIKELY TO BE QUERIED: 'My attorney must get my permission first' (impossible once incapacitated). / 'My attorney should use good judgment' (not a restriction, just guidance). / 'No decisions may be made that I would not approve of' (circular and unworkable).

If an attorney acts contrary to a registered condition or restriction, they are acting outside the scope of their authority under the LPA. The consequences depend on the nature and severity of the breach. CIVIL LIABILITY: an attorney who breaches a restriction owes a duty of care to the donor. If the breach causes financial loss — for example, the attorney sold the donor's property without obtaining the required consent of a named person, or transferred money out of restricted accounts — the attorney is personally liable to make good the loss. The donor (or their family, or the Office of the Public Guardian) can seek compensation through the Court of Protection. CRIMINAL LIABILITY: if the attorney acts in breach of restrictions with a dishonest intent — for example, using the LPA to transfer assets to themselves in defiance of a restriction against self-dealing — this can constitute financial abuse of a vulnerable adult under the Theft Act 1968 or Fraud Act 2006. REVOCATION AND REMOVAL BY COURT: the Court of Protection can revoke the LPA and remove the attorney under MCA s.22. The Court has power to direct the Public Guardian to cancel the registration and to appoint a deputy in place of the removed attorney. THIRD PARTIES: a bank or other institution that acted in good faith in reliance on a registered LPA, without knowledge of the breach of restriction, is generally protected under MCA s.14. However, if the restriction was clearly stated in the registered LPA document (which the third party can inspect), they may not be able to claim good faith. OPG SAFEGUARDING: the Office of the Public Guardian has a statutory duty to investigate concerns about attorneys. Concerns can be reported to the OPG Safeguarding Team. If the OPG finds the attorney is not acting in the donor's best interests or is breaching restrictions, it will refer the matter to the Court of Protection.

This is a judgment call that depends on the donor's circumstances, the level of trust in the attorney, and the complexity of the donor's finances. ARGUMENTS FOR ADDING RESTRICTIONS: (1) Protection against misuse while capable: without an incapacity restriction, a property LPA can be used immediately after registration. If you do not fully trust your attorney's judgment, an incapacity restriction is important. (2) Protection of specific assets: if you have a strong wish to keep the family home or specific investments, a restriction provides an extra layer of protection. (3) Transparency: clear restrictions can prevent disputes between attorneys or between attorneys and family members about what was intended. ARGUMENTS FOR KEEPING IT SIMPLE: (1) Practicality: too many restrictions can make the LPA cumbersome to use. Banks and financial institutions may hesitate to accept an LPA with complex conditional requirements that they cannot easily verify. (2) Risk of drafting errors: a poorly worded restriction can make the LPA partially or entirely unworkable, causing delay and expense at precisely the moment it is needed. (3) Trust in the attorney: if you have chosen someone you deeply trust, lengthy restrictions may be unnecessary and could even insult them. The MCA already imposes significant duties on attorneys to act in the donor's best interests, consult appropriately, and keep accounts. THE OPG'S POSITION: the OPG encourages donors to add guidance (non-binding preferences) in section 5 of the form and use section 3 only for binding restrictions that are genuinely necessary. Guidance in section 5 helps the attorney understand the donor's wishes without creating the legal complexity of a binding restriction. A PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATION: always include the incapacity restriction for property and financial affairs LPAs unless you have a specific reason to allow immediate use. Consider adding a consent restriction for major asset sales. Keep restrictions to those that are essential — not a comprehensive instruction manual.