Bickering siblings beware when acting as an attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)as the Court of Protection is capable of not only watching you but removing you from your role.
The Court took as a guide the comments made by the Judge in the case of Re J  Con Vol 716 when she indicated that the court can revoke the power given if satisfied that the attorney cannot be trusted to act in the manner and for the purposes for which the power was granted. She went on to say that if there is sufficient evidence that the attorney is acting contrary to the Donor's interests then this might also provide a sufficient reason to revoke an LPA.
In the present case Senior Judge Lush decided that despite indications that the impasse might be bridged the attorneys had failed to achieve this due in the most part to the deeply damaging effect of the break down in the relationship between the sibling attorneys and as such they were not acting in the best interests of the Donor. Sibling attorneys - you have been warned as the nuclear option for the Court is to remove you and put a stranger (albeit a Court Panel Deputy) in your place.
This LPA is not functioning satisfactorily because of the corrosive effect of the animosity between the attorneys, which has created an impasse in the management of EL's affairs since at least 2012. The attorneys have complained about each other to the OPG. Mediation has been tried and failed. Usually, one court hearing should suffice, but in this case there have been three hearings: on 22 August 2013, 12 November 2013 and 20 March 2015. The 'schedule of agreed responsibilities', which was drawn up at the first of these hearings, was ineffectual because neither attorney was willing or able to adhere to it. ..they cannot be trusted to act in the manner and for the purposes for which the LPA was intended, I am satisfied that the attorneys have behaved in a way that is not in the donor's best interests.