‘She took over their lives’: Cancer nurse struck off after abusing position to gain inheritance
Ian Percival was walking his dog, Snowy, along the coast near his home in South Wales, when he met Anita George, a cancer nurse at a local Swansea hospital. It was the same route he took every night, but this time he stopped.
“She happened to be on the promenade and crying about her relationship, I believe,” says Ian’s daughter Helen, who doesn’t think that meeting was a coincidence.
What happened next set in motion a chain of events that would lead to allegations of financial grooming, neglect and an NHS nurse being struck off.
Ian Percival was a wealthy businessman in his 70s, who worked as an investor in property and an insurance broker. Part of his business involved renting homes to NHS staff locally.
“Dad was a workaholic, he loved it,” his son, Richard, says fondly.
Ian and his wife, Margaret, who were married for more than 50 years, were well-known and well-liked figures in the Swansea area.
Ian and Margaret as a young couple
Anita was a seemingly trustworthy nurse – who, just three days after meeting Ian, moved into one of his properties to help look after Margaret, who had mobility problems. It was a private arrangement, a deal struck personally, not through the NHS.
“I was doubtful about her from day one,” says Richard.
This is the first time Ian’s children have spoken publicly about what happened, from their home in Brisbane, Australia.
Anita George with Ian and Margaret
‘She took over their lives’
As time went on, they became increasingly concerned about how involved Anita was becoming with their parents. When Ian was diagnosed with cancer, she began also caring for him.
“She took over our parents’ lives. She was constantly with them,” Richard recalls. Increasingly, he felt she was coming between their parents and isolating them from their family.
“Mum was getting excluded,” says Richard. “I felt that she [Anita] had full control, which I have never witnessed before. I just don’t understand how, after mum and dad being together for 52 years, things she did changed everything.”
Margaret and Anita
Helen says Anita’s professional credentials initially reassured her. “I trusted her because she was a nurse at a local hospital.”
But in the months before Ian’s death in December 2016, she could tell things had drastically changed. Anita was refusing to take care of their mother, Helen claims. Instead, she focused all her attention on Ian.
It wasn’t until their father died, that Helen and Richard became aware of the extent of Anita’s involvement with Ian. They believe she’d struck up an inappropriate personal relationship, manipulating him for financial gain.
As they investigated, they moved Margaret to live with them in Australia, where she later died in 2018.
“On dad’s computer, we managed to find some evidence. We thought, this is crazy. I don’t understand… so it made us dig deeper,” says Richard.
Richard with his parents
Cash, a car and property
Ian had given her nearly £15,000 in cash and shares, a car and left her a property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
“I felt sick because I knew this was her doing,” recalls Helen. “The first thing that came to my mind was that he was financially groomed… she had one motive – to get money.”
“Only when the will was read did I realise how skewed it was.”
Helen believes the will had “huge input” from Anita.
Anita George said she was simply receiving gifts from a friend – but this is not just a story about money and material goods. On Ian’s medical records she had listed herself as his next of kin, even as his daughter and adoptive daughter. All this without his wife or children’s knowledge.
She was managing his hospital appointments, taking his bloods at home, accessing medical equipment. How did Helen feel about a woman she barely knew passing herself off as her father’s daughter?
“It’s devastating. It should never have happened. That’s a massive failing by the NHS.”
It has taken eight years for the family of Ian Percival to achieve any form of justice.
Ian and Margaret
Struck off as a nurse
In December 2024, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) carried out a hearing into the allegations – and found that Anita George had breached professional standards and abused the position of trust as a registered nurse to gain inheritance from a patient.
It ruled that her actions were motivated by the pursuit of financial gain, and it struck her off from the nursing register – its toughest sanction. The NMC report outlines how Ian and Margaret’s isolation, poor health and geographical separation from their children made them particularly vulnerable.
Anita George declined our request for an interview.
During the hearing her legal team argued this all happened outside of her formal employment as a nurse. The situation was unlikely to happen again as her personal life has changed and she’s now married, they added.
Swansea Bay University Health Board, which runs the hospital, is now carrying out a review into any possible failures:
“In light of the findings of the NMC’s hearing we are appalled and want to state clearly to the family that we’re very sorry about what happened. We will be reviewing this case to see if there are any learnings that need to be taken into account. It is important, however, to clarify that the inappropriate financial relationships did not relate to care provided within an NHS context.”
Helen with her father, Ian
South Wales Police carried out an investigation at the time but no charges were brought.
It says it will reopen the case if new lines of inquiry are found.
Financial exploitation of the elderly
The case of Anita George and Ian Percival highlights the growing issue of financial exploitation of the elderly. The Hourglass charity, which works exclusively in this field, says the problem is now at “epidemic” levels.
The number of calls it has received since 2017 has risen by 182% from around 4,500 to 12,700.
In just 14% of economic abuse cases in the last three years, £53m has been reported stolen from the elderly.
It says awareness among the public of what constitutes economic abuse is “shockingly low” – with a poll last year finding more than 26% of people did not believe forcing an older relative to change their will was an act of abuse.
The charity says abuse of the elderly comes in many forms including financial, psychological and physical.
“There are lots of cases we’ve dealt with where the enormity of the abuse is only obvious once the person has passed away,” says Richard Robinson, the charity’s chief executive.
“But there is another issue here; lots of older people don’t want to criminalise their family or their carers because if they [do so] they’ll be left to fend for themselves or they’ll be put into a home.”
While Ian’s children hope police will reopen the case, they also want tougher rules on how carers become involved with patients. Currently, nurses must adhere to the NMC’s professional standards known as the Code, which include acting with “honesty and integrity” in any financial dealings.
“We want legislation put in place so that carers can’t be caring without proper background checks, the next of kin cannot just be somebody they’ve known for two years.”
Helen and her father, Ian
‘Someone finally listened’
Richard added that they were “relieved” Anita George was struck off following the damning report by the NMC.
“Somebody listened to us and took our evidence onboard. You can’t have someone doing what she did – using her position as a nurse…to gain their trust.”
While the pair cherish their memories of their father what happened with Anita George has tarnished the end of his life, for them.
Neither of his parents deserved to suffer this type of abuse, says Richard.
“Dad was a genuine hard-working guy who loved his family. It’s just horrible,” he says, grimly.
Do you have a story you would like to share? Email sky.today@sky.uk or Whatsapp 07583000853
A survivor of the Grenfell Tower fire has called on Angela Rayner to reconsider her decision to demolish the west London tower block.
Bereaved family members and survivors of the 2017 blaze, which killed 72 people, have been critical of the deputy prime minister’s decision, which she delivered to them in a meeting on Wednesday night.
Speaking on The UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee, Marcio Gomes, who escaped from his 21st-floor flat with his then wife and two daughters, called on Ms Rayner, who is also housing secretary, to “reconsider her decision”.
Marcio Gomes, who survived the fire with his then wife and two daughters
“There was not one person in the room who agreed with her decision,” he said.
“She didn’t really explain the decision, we just got told what was going to happen.”
He said Ms Rayner “wouldn’t really give any answers” to any questions asked by the bereaved families and survivors.
“I was shocked and quite frankly appalled by it. If you looked around the room, and it was packed, everybody was appalled by the decision – there was a lot of heartbreak, a lot of anger, a lot of tears.
“The consultation was, in my view, minimal. I can say, in the meeting, I think 90% were not consulted with, including myself.
“Nobody knew what was happening,” he said.
Read more:
Grenfell fire families sent letter about unidentified remains
Minister loses brief after complaint by Grenfell survivors
Other relatives of the victims have also hit out at Ms Rayner’s actions.
Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle died in the fire, said the decision was “unforgivable” and “disgraceful”.
Karim Mussilhy’s uncle died in the disaster
“This conversation is so sensitive, so sacred. This is the last resting place of our families whose deaths were clearly avoidable and we haven’t been involved in these conversations.”
‘Very saddening and hurtful’
Meanwhile, Nabil Choucair – who lost six relatives in the North Kensington tower – said it was “very saddening and hurtful” and called for a “fitting memorial to be designed in its place or within in”.
Nabil Choucair, who lost six family members in the 2017 fire
“It’s about our 72 loved ones, it’s all about them.”
Mr Gomes said he would like any future memorial to maintain the height of the tower though admitted that “everybody is going to have a slightly different view” of the future plans for the site.
But one thing is certain for Mr Gomes: “Grenfell should have been the catalyst for change.”
“And nearly eight years on, not a lot has changed.
“We’re still going through the process, we still haven’t had justice. The victims aren’t being put at the centre of the decisions that are being made.
“It’s almost like they want to knock it down, out of sight, out of mind,” he added.
“This can still happen again. There’s so many buildings up and down the country with this type of cladding.”
Grenfell United, which represents some bereaved and survivors, said: “Angela Rayner could not give a reason for her decision to demolish the tower. She refused to confirm how many bereaved and survivors had been spoken to in the recent, short four-week consultation.
“But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no-one supported her decision. But she claims her decision is based on our views.”
In September last year, the public inquiry into Grenfell found “systematic dishonesty” contributed to the fire.
Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said the “simple truth” was all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.
The Metropolitan Police said last year that decisions on criminal charges for the blaze are not expected until the end of 2026.
Sky News has contacted the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government for a response.
Let’s start with the simple bit: interest rates have been cut – down by another quarter percentage point to 4.5%. But what happens next?
Not long ago, the answer was quite simple: the Bank of England would carry on cutting borrowing costs, one quarter point cut every three months, until they reached, say, 3.5%.
That, at least, was the expectation this time last year.
Money latest: First-time buyers warned over auctions
But things have become more complex, more unpredictable in recent months.
Instead there are two paths ahead of us. One of them, let’s call it the high road, sees those borrowing costs being cut only gradually, down to 4% in a couple of years’ time.
Down the other road, the low road, the outlook is quite different: rates will be cut faster and more. They go down below 4%, perhaps as low as 3.5%, perhaps even lower.
The funny thing about today’s splurge of information and forecasts from the Bank of England is that it’s not entirely clear whether we’re on the high road or the low road anymore.
Now, strictly speaking, the forecasts and fan charts produced by the Bank’s staff tend towards the former, more conservative view – the two cuts.
But then look at the voting patterns on the monetary policy committee (MPC), where two members, Swati Dhingra and Catherine Mann just voted for a full half percentage point cut, and you’re left with a different impression. That rates will go lower, and quickly.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Britain has ‘huge potential’
And in truth, that’s what often happens when the economy is weakening.
When gross domestic product, the best measure of economic output, is flatlining or shrinking, when inflation is low (especially when you look beyond the temporary bump caused by energy prices) – that’s usually precisely the time the Bank slashes rates with abandon.
And that’s precisely the situation the UK finds itself in at the moment.
Read more from Sky News:
Tesco eyes delivery of Crown Post Office branches
Starmer to slash red tape to build nuclear reactors
Race to avoid Trump tariffs as US imports hit record high
But the problem is that a few things have complicated matters.
One is that the government decided to splurge more money in last October’s budget. That extra money sloshing around in the economy makes the Bank somewhat less willing to cut rates.
Another is that although the economy is weak, inflation is still high – indeed, the Bank actually raised its forecast for the consumer price index in today’s forecasts. Another is that the world economy has become a significantly more unstable place in recent months.
Germany is in recession. The US, under Donald Trump, is threatening tariffs on its nearest allies.
It’s not altogether clear whether the response to all this is lower interest rates.
Added to this, despite the chancellor’s best efforts, there is little evidence that her pro-growth policies are boosting economic growth – at least according to the Bank’s own forecasts.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Reeves risks economic ‘doom Loop’
These are tricky waters to navigate.
All of which helps explains why it’s no longer quite as clear as it once was what happens next.
My suspicion is that the Bank will end up cutting rates, probably more than those two cuts baked into its forecasts. But such forecasts are even more fraught than usual.
The government has been accused of “ignoring” the voices of people who lost family in the Grenfell Tower tragedy in its decision to demolish the building.
Grenfell United, which represents some bereaved and survivors, criticised the government’s conduct as “disgraceful and unforgiveable”.
The news was announced in a meeting attended by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner on Wednesday night.
Grenfell United said: “Angela Rayner could not give a reason for her decision to demolish the tower.
“She refused to confirm how many bereaved and survivors had been spoken to in the recent, short four-week consultation.
“But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no one supported her decision. But she claims her decision is based on our views.”
“(The) meeting showed just how upset bereaved and survivors are about not having their views heard or considered in this decision.
“Ignoring the voices of bereaved on the future of our loved ones’ gravesite is disgraceful and unforgiveable.”
The government said the decision is a “deeply personal matter” for people affected by the tragedy and that Ms Rayner is “committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this”.
Concerns have been raised over how many people were consulted over the decision
It has been almost eight years since 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower disaster, the UK’s deadliest residential fire since the Second World War.
There have been discussions over the years about how best to commemorate the tragedy for the decades to come.
Engineering experts have said that while the tower remains stable, and it is safe for people to live, work and study nearby, its condition will worsen over time and there is no realistic prospect of bringing it back into use.
Read more:
Grenfell fire families sent letter about unidentified remains
Minister loses brief after complaint by Grenfell survivors
Angela Rayner met with relatives and survivors. File pic: PA
Grenfell Next of Kin, which represents some of the bereaved families, described the move to demolish the building as a “deeply sensitive decision… after a thorough engagement process in person” following an “uncomfortable conversation with uncomfortable truths”.
In a statement on X the group said: “The lack of closure, the continuous discussions and consultations, the retraumatisation of a divisive and painful debate brings nothing to the table except pain and further division.
“We want a discussion about what will go in the Tower’s place so it can be seen and remembered forever. We need to reimagine a future and rebuild our broken shattered lives and our families.”
A wall of condolences close to the tower block. Pic: Reuters
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “The priority for the deputy prime minister is to meet with and write to the bereaved, survivors and the immediate community to let them know her decision on the future of the Grenfell Tower.
“This is a deeply personal matter for all those affected, and the deputy prime minister is committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this.”
In September last year, the public inquiry into Grenfell found “systematic dishonesty” contributed to the horrific fire.
Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said the “simple truth” was all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.
The report laid bare years of missed opportunities to prevent the catastrophe and how those responsible for fire safety were at risk of being compromised by commercial interests.
The Metropolitan Police said last year decisions on criminal charges for the blaze are not expected until the end of 2026.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports10 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway