Author: Casey McGregor

New rules for property and affairs Deputyship applications: online submission becomes mandatory from 2 December 2024

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

Starting from 2 December 2024, legal professionals will be required to submit all property and affairs deputyship applications to the Court of Protection exclusively through the online submission portal. This change was announced by HMCTS (Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service) in an update sent out on 18 November 2024, with a clarification on 22 November confirming the correct date for the new rules.

What’s changing?

  • Previously, legal professionals had the option of submitting property and affairs deputyship applications on paper. From 2 December 2024, all property and affairs deputyship applications must be made digitally via the HMCTS online submission portal. This is part of an ongoing effort to modernise and streamline court processes. The online portal was initially launched in January 2023, following a successful pilot that began in 2021.
  • Property and affairs deputyship applications are typically filed when someone is unable to manage their own financial affairs due to incapacity, and a deputy needs to be appointed to act on their behalf. The Court of Protection oversees these applications, and from now on, the online portal will be the sole method for professionals to submit such applications.

Why the change?

  • The shift to a fully online process aims to make the deputyship application system more efficient, transparent, and accessible. Digital submissions reduce administrative burdens, speed up the process, and allow for better tracking of cases.
  • The updated Practice Direction 9H, which governs the process for property and affairs deputyships, will officially mandate online submissions for all legal professionals from 2 December 2024. Litigants in person will not be required to use the digital portal, although they are encouraged to do so if possible.

What happens if you don’t submit digitally?

  • For legal professionals, failure to use the digital submission portal after 2 December 2024 could have consequences. If an application is submitted on paper rather than digitally, the Court of Protection is unlikely to grant authorisation for recovery of the application costs from the Protected Party’s estate. This means that firms could face the financial burden of covering court fees, which would normally be reimbursed from the Protected Party’s estate.

Steps Legal Professionals should take going forward:

  1. To use the online submission portal, legal professionals must have an active Payment by Account (PBA) number. This free service allows firms to pay HMCTS-related court fees via direct debit. If your firm hasn’t already registered for PBA, it’s important to do so before the deadline to avoid any delays in submitting applications. Registration is available through the HMCTS online services portal.
  2. Legal professionals should make sure they are fully familiar with the new submission process, including how to upload documents, and complete the forms. HMCTS provides detailed guidance on how to use the online portal effectively.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

Guidance on interim payments within Court of Protection

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

Practice Direction 19B sets out the guidance on the deputy costs and the charging structure. The guidance states that a deputy can receive an interim payment in advance of the assessment for the year, which is proportionate and reasonable. It is noted that the overall level of interim payments received cannot exceed 75% of their estimated costs submitted to the Office of the Public Guardian or the WIP (whichever is lower) within a reporting year.

If you have a situation whereby, the interim payment taken exceeded your estimated costs or the WIP, you will need to credit note and refund this overpayment immediately.

Once the bill is assessed by the SCCO, and a final costs certificate has been issued, the Deputy will be entitled to receive the balance for that year, which would be the difference between the total of interim payments received during the year and the total assessed costs as set out in the final costs certificate.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com

Reductions to COP assessments and what you need to know about them

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

At Clarion, we prepare over 2500 Court of Protection bills of costs per year to be assessed by the Senior Court Costs Office. We also review the bills once they have been assessed and monitor the common reductions. Based on our experience, we have identified the 5 most common reductions and the reasoning behind the same. The below 5 reductions are in line with published case law and are therefore not likely to be allowed if a re-assessment is requested.

Arranging payments

You may notice that arranging payments are reduced throughout the bill of costs. This is in line with the Case of Jamie Walker (2002) whereby Master O’Hare defined checking the file to ensure an invoice has not already been paid, checking sufficient funds are in the account and writing a cheque and getting it signed as non-fee earner work. Arranging payments and considering invoices are typically reduced to 3 minutes within the bill of costs at Grade D rates in line with this. We therefore suggest payments and considering invoices are delegated to a Grade D fee earner. This is something that the Professional Deputies Forum would like to challenge in the future, as significant payments require consideration and often approval above Grade D rates. We hope that this case law will be reconsidered in the future.

Enclosure letters

Where you may have sent a letter enclosing payment of an invoice or an email confirming settlement of an invoice, this will be classed as an ‘enclosure letter’. In line with the case of Leighanne Radcliffe (2004), letters were reduced from the standard rate of 6 minutes to 3 minutes within the bill of costs. We therefore recommend that enclosure letters are delegated to a junior fee earner and the time is limited where possible to prevent overbilling.

Two fee earners at an attendance

If you have claimed two fee earners in attendance, in our experience, it will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. Typically, the second fee earner’s time is struck out or reduced. In the case of Garylee Grimsley (1998) and further to R v LegalAid Board Ex Parte Bruce (1991), two fee earners at an attendance were reduced as it was deemed to be duplicative work. It stated, “in so far as expense is involved in adding to this stock in trade, it is an overhead expense and not something that can be charged to the client”. Therefore, we recommend that two fee earners should only be claimed at an attendance whereby it is necessary and reasonable to do so, as there is a higher cost to the Protected Party. Cases where two fee earners may be considered reasonable are where there is a significant safety risk or the second fee earner has different expertise, but this time is still subject to assessment and it’s important that the reasoning is clear within your file notes to justify the attendance of both fee earners.

High level of contact with the Protected Party

You may see a reduction occur whereby there is a high level of contact with the Protected Party, as it is seen to be the Deputy’s duty to keep the costs at a minimum for the Protected Party. Excessive contact would lead to a higher level of costs, which is not in the best interests of the Protected Party. A reduction could occur in line with the case of Trudy Samler (2001). This case raises the question of whether the contact was instigated by the Protected Party and whether the Deputy should be paid for such contact. Excessive contact with the Protected Party could therefore be reduced due to this case and we recommend that Deputy’s keep an eye on this. We recommend that Deputies try and manage the levels of contact with any party and involve other professionals to support the Protected Party or their family in order to manage costs.

Record keeping

Work in relation to updating the Protected Party’s financial records is typically reduced by the Costs Officers on assessment. In the case of Philpott (2015- unwritten), Master Haworth stated “It seems to me that the inputting of data into P’s ledger is not fee earning work. At most it is bookkeeping which, to my mind, is an overhead of a solicitor’s practice. This work has to be distinguished from for example, reviewing or perusing the data to come to a decision as to what then needs to be done with a P’s funds. To my mind that may well amount to fee earning work for which the solicitors can charge separately at the appropriate rate.” Therefore, we recommend that the work is distinguished in this way in order to avoid the reduction on assessment and the word ‘updating’ should also be avoided.

We are happy to review the assessed bills and provide advice to any professional Deputy who is not happy with the outcome of their assessment. Please contact Casey for more information at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

Requirements for the electronic file of papers

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

Once you have e-filed your bill of costs, you should receive an email of acceptance from the SCCO, which requires you to file your papers in support within 28 days of receipt of the acknowledgement. A file of papers is required by the SCCO for assessment, be it a paper file or a PDF file, this is so the Costs Officer can review the evidence of all work done in order to carry out their assessment, alongside the bill of costs. You have to select electronic bundle rather than the paper file when you are e-filing the bill of costs so that the SCCO know what file format to expect.

Electronic files of papers are only recently accepted, but as a result of the SCCO’s outdated software, they have particular requirements surrounding how it should be submitted. For that reason, if you are submitting an electronic file of papers, it is required to be an e-bundle.

The guidance received from the SCCO states that it needs to be in PDF format, ideally with an index at the front so the SCCO can easily navigate. The SCCO specifically request that the uploaded files should be in the following format:

  • The file must be named with the SCCO case reference e.g. SC-2020-COP-001234 and the protected party’s surname.  If the bill is for General Management, please include the period covered.
  • All documents should be in chronological order from the oldest to the newest. Ideally, you should include an index and hyperlink.
  • If you upload your papers as more than one file, each file should be labelled so that the contents can be clearly identified by the Costs Officer e.g. SC-2020-COP-001234 file 1- Jan-Mar, SC-2020-COP-001234 file 2 – Apr-May.
  • The OPG102, OPG105, the client care letter and any invoices for disbursements or counsels’ fees should appear at the start of the file.

There are various different bundling software packages that are available to prepare your e-bundle, an example of a software that can be used is Bundledocs.

Please find the link for the HMCTS Document Upload Centre – Professional Users Guide for further information:

Click to access Document-Upload-Centre-user-guidance.pdf

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Casey Mcgregor at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

Recent Developments from the Professional Deputies Forum

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

Clarion are delighted to work alongside the Professional Deputies Forum (PDF) and we wanted to share the recent great efforts of the PDF working group, which our Stephanie Kaye is a part of.

Interim payments and fixed costs

Following on from the recent delays with the SCCO, at the recent Court of Protection Rules Committee, Martin Terrell (representing the PDF), proposed the idea of extending interim payments in matters other than the general management costs. An agreement was reached, whereby in matters where a final order has been made, solicitor-applicants are allowed to ask the Court for interim payment of up to 75%. This ensures that the solicitors will not have to wait until after assessment to receive their costs in matters such as Deputyship applications, statutory will applications or other ad-hoc applications. The Deputy would need to issue a credit note if the final costs allowed on assessment are less than the amount taken on account and these funds would then need to be returned to P. This development will need to be trialled, however, it will benefit many firms and ensure that they are able to remain financially viable. This is huge progress for those firms who carry significant WIP on application cases.

SCCO delays

The PDF has written to the Cost Judges to express their viewpoint on the delays and lack of engagement from the SCCO with the PDF. The PDF has advised that the only official route of complaint is via the HMCTS. Members of the PDF are encouraged to file complaints via this method if they have not already done so in the hope that the volume of complaints will have a greater impact and achieve the shared goal amongst Court of Protection practices. There is a direct link to the complaints procedure on the SCCO website. Any progress made with the SCCO will be shared on the PDF forum and also on the Clarion blog.

If you have any questions regarding the work of the PDF working group or any concerns to bring to the attention of the PDF, please contact Stephanie Kaye directly.

This blog was written by Casey McGregor. If you have any questions regarding COP costs, please contact Casey at Casey.Mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

Who are the interested parties and who should be served in COP cases?

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

An interested party is anyone with a financial interest in the outcome of the assessment. Rule 47.19 of the CPR enables the court to direct under rule 47.19(3) that the receiving party must serve a copy of the request for assessment and copies of the documents which accompany it, on any person who has a financial interest in the outcome of the assessment.

Practice Direction 47, para (18.2) explains what is or is not a ‘financial interest’. It states ‘A person has a financial interest in the outcome of the assessment if the assessment will or may affect the amount of money or property to which that person is or may become entitled out of the fund. Where an interest in the fund is itself held by a trustee for the benefit of some other person, that trustee will be treated as the person having such a financial interest unless it is not appropriate to do so. ‘Trustee’ includes a personal representative, receiver or any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity’.

The SCCO expect the professional Deputy to determine who such an interested party may be and for the Deputy to take a sensible, pragmatic approach. It may not be appropriate to serve every beneficiary of P’s estate, for example. It is recommended that any interested parties are highlighted for the SCCO’s attention when e-filing your bill of costs.

Sometimes the SCCO will indicate on the assessment that the bill of costs needs to be served on the interested parties, but even where they don’t state that, it is up to the Deputy or Claimant to decide if the bill should be served. There have been instances where a Final Costs Certificate has been obtained and an interested party has come forward asking why they were not served at the time, wishing to challenge the outcome of the assessment. If the SCCO decided that party should have been served, the Claimant may be liable for the costs of that additional process as a result of not following procedure.

The link to the procedure rules can be found at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-47-procedure-for-detailed-assessment/practice-direction-46-costs-special-cases2#18.1

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Casey Mcgregor at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

What Fixed Costs can be taken within Court of Protection cases?

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

Practice Direction 19 (b) sets out the fixed costs that may be claimed by solicitors and public authorities acting in Court of Protection proceedings. In line with the Practice Direction, the revised fixed fees for the Court of Protection, effective from 1 December 2017 is as follows:

 Fixed Fee (plus VAT)
Appointment of Financial and Property Deputy£950.00
Appointment of Health and Welfare Deputy£555.00
Appointment of a Trustee£500.00
First General Management Year£1670.00
General Management for the second and subsequent management years£1320.00
Preparation of the Deputyship Report£265.00
Preparation of the basic HMRC income tax return£250.00
Preparation of the complex HMRC income tax return£600.00
ConveyancingA value element of 0.15% of the consideration with a minimum sum of £400.00 and a maximum sum of £1,670.0 plus disbursements.
Interim PaymentsUp to 75% of the WIP incurred

If you take the fixed cost available, you forfeit the right to an assessment later down the line. If you have authority for the assessment of costs in your Order and you will exceed the fixed cost amount, we recommend that you opt for assessment instead as it’s very likely that you’ll recover more than the above amount. Despite several hourly rate changes in recent years, fixed costs have not changed, so they remain at a low level which most practitioners do not consider suitable for their cases.

The link to the Practice Direction can be found at: https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/fixed-costs-in-the-court-of-protection/

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Casey Mcgregor at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

Can the police gain access to the psychological report undertaken on the protected party?

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

In the case of AB (Court of Protection: Police Disclosure) [2019] EWCOP 66, an application was put forward by the police force in order to gain access to a psychological report, which was undertaken on the protected party, who is the subject of proceedings in the Court of Protection. The purpose of this report was to inform the police about the protected party’s capacity to access internet and social media. The Official Solicitor acted as the protected party’s litigation friend and opposed the application by the police force for disclosure of the reports.

The protected party was assessed by a psychologist on various occasions. Three reports were prepared dated 16 July 2018, 8 January 2019, and 23 May 2019. The first two reports related solely to the protected party’s capacity to conduct litigation and to make decisions about his residence. The third report addressed the issue of the protected party’s capacity to access the internet and social media. Within this report, the psychologist advised that the protected party did in fact have capacity to access the internet and social media.

The police force have been investigating alleged offences committed by the protected party in 2017 and 2018. The offences related to category C images of children.

It was noted that the third report did not deal with the question of whether the protected party had capacity on this issue in 2017 and 2018. As a result, the judge concluded that the third report contained nothing of relevance to the police investigation.

The judgement confirmed that the judge would only consider disclosing the report to the police force if the weight to be given to the public interest was so great as to outweigh the consideration of honesty by the protected party in the Court of Protection proceedings and therefore the application was refused.

Please contact Casey McGregor in our Court of Protection Costs team for more information at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

Should P continue to have contact with her abusive partner?

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

In a recent case, A County Council v LW & Anor [2020], an application was brought by a Local Authority in relation to the Protected Party’s capacity. The Protected Party was 60 years of age, and three years prior to the application, the Protected Party was admitted to a unit. The Protected Party was initially detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. When the Protected Party was admitted to the unit, she was described as being in a ‘truly parlous condition’ and it was clear that her personal hygiene was neglected.

In 1991, the Protected Party had been diagnosed as having Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, the main concern in relation to the Protected Party’s life seemed to be the long term relationship she had formed. The judge described the relationship as being abusive, exploitative, coercive and wholly inimical to the Protected Party’s welfare. It became clear that she was emaciated due to her partner restricting her food intake, limiting her to one potato and salad per day. The abusive partner had also forbidden the Protected Party from wearing underwear and engaging in activities she enjoyed, such as playing the piano, in order to meet his distorted perceptions on religion.

Whilst the Protected Party had been residing at the unit, her partner had still been living in her property, which had been neglected and was in a state of disrepair. The Protected Party’s partner has declined various requests from the Local Authority for them to meet with him or to assess the property.

The entire team who surrounded the Protected Party had a shared view that she would benefit considerably from a complete cessation of contact with her abusive partner. An application was made to decide where she should live and whether or not she should continue to have contact with her abusive partner.

If the Protected Party was allowed to return to her property with the partner, it was considered that the Court would be exposing her to a regime of controlling and abusive behaviour which was certainly not within her best interests. It was agreed by the Court that contact should be ceased between the Protected Party and her abusive partner and that the Local Authority and the Property and Affairs Deputy would progress the matter in order to evict the partner from the Protected Party’s property, in her best interests.

Please contact Casey for more information at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

5 reductions in COP assessments that you need to know about!

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

At Clarion, we deal with over 2,000 COP bills of costs per year and we monitor common reductions. Every case is completely different, but you do not need to simply accept the reductions made to your bill of costs and you can request a reassessment, if appropriate to do so. We recognise the hard work that COP practitioners put into their matters and are passionate about working with our clients to help them recover fair and reasonable costs. Based on our experience, we have identified 5 recent reductions which we think should be on your radar.

Document time reductions

It is common for time spent on documents to be reduced or struck out where the Costs Officer considers it to be excessive, but it may be necessary to challenge these reductions. If you can provide reasonable justification as to the time spent, the necessity of the task at hand and the grade of fee earner undertaking the task, then it can be beneficial to provide more information to the Costs Officer and request that the reduction is reconsidered. A good example of this is time relating to the OPG102 in exceptional cases, where the Protected Party’s liquid assets are high or their estate is particularly complex.

Contact with internal teams

It is not uncommon for the Deputy to require support from another area of expertise in a management period or application. Examples could include the Conveyancing Team in respect of property matters, or the Employment Team regarding the directly employed care staff. The contact with internal teams is commonly reduced as ‘inter-fee earner’, however it is often essential in progressing the matter. If an external team were to be instructed, the time would likely be much more costly, therefore the instruction of the internal team can often be in the Protected Party’s best interests. It can be beneficial to advise the Costs Officer of the situation and the necessity of the internal teams’ assistance, to allow them to reconsider reductions appropriately.

Lack of evidence

Whereby the Costs Officer strikes out time due to the ‘lack of evidence’ or ‘no file note’, this should be challenged by simply providing the relevant file notes. Evidence for all work done should be on file, but if something is missed, this can be provided retrospectively which allows the Costs Officer to reconsider the time they disallowed.

Excessive contact with the Protected Party/Family/Case Managers

A common reduction is excessive contact with the Protected Party, their family or the Case Manager.  A high level of contact may be necessary for a number of reasons. The Protected Party might call the fee earner very regularly, or there might be issues with directly employed care team which would be vital for the Case Manager to deal with, communicating with the Deputy to resolve them properly, or a family member may act as the main point of contact. If there are reasons behind the high levels of  contact, they should be set out to the Costs Officer to justify it and show that the time spent was proportionate to the matter. We regularly see blanket reductions to high levels of contact, which can often be resolved during reassessment in the right cases.

Travel Reductions

Reductions to travel time aren’t common, however they do still occur. Travel reductions should be challenged if they are not reasonable. The Protected Party can often live very far from the Deputy and if the meeting is reasonable, the mode of transport is appropriate and the time spent is justified, a reduction of this kind should not be accepted.

We are happy to advise any professional Deputy who is unhappy with the outcome of their assessment and continue to work with law firms nationally to help them recover fair and reasonable costs. Please contact Casey for more information at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com