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

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.

Was it correct to act against expressly made, documented wishes in attempts to preserve life? The case of Pindo Mulla v Spain (2024).

The case of Pindo Mulla v Spain (2024) involved a decision made by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to conducting medical treatment for Pindo Mulla (PM). PM was a Jehovah’s Witness who had expressly confirmed that she could not accept blood transfusions due to the moral stance outlined with her religious beliefs.

 

PM had been aware of her condition prior to the required surgery and drew up several documents refusing any type of blood transfusion if it was deemed by medical professionals that she required the same. In 2018, she required further emergency surgery at La Paz Hospital in Madrid, at which point medical professionals sought permission from a judge to transfuse her if necessary, whilst being aware that she had “verbally expressed her rejection of all types of treatment”. Permission was given “to treat the patient arriving from Soria, whose identity is unknown for the moment, with the medical or surgical measures necessary to safeguard her life and physical integrity”, and as a result PM was transfused during the procedure. She then attempted to sue in domestic Courts in Spain, but was unsuccessful in her action.

PM proceeded to argue that her objection to the transfusions had been overridden in contravention of Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

Conclusion:

The Court found that the decision to proceed with the medical treatment, against PM’s wishes, had occurred due to a decision-making process affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of these wishes. The Court was satisfied that the actions of the medical professionals had been motivated by an overriding concern to ensure that Pindo Mulla was treated effectively, but that overall it was evident that her rights under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention had in fact been violated, and that the domestic system had not responded appropriately to PM’s complaints regarding the overruling of her documented wishes.

 

Guidance on interim payments within Court of Protection

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

Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v GH [2023] EWCOP 50 

This case involves an application made by an NHS Trust, seeking a declaration that an individual lacked capacity to make decisions about treatment for breast cancer, specifically the undertaking of breast cancer surgery (a mastectomy) and associated care and treatment. 

Background: 

In March 2023 GH, a 52-year-old woman with a prior diagnosis schizoaffective disorder was diagnosed with breast cancer,  and has refused all treatment because of her described ‘delusional’ beliefs. As a response, the Trust that manages her cancer treatment applied to the Court of Protection for declarations and orders that P lacked capacity to conduct the proceedings and to make decisions about whether to agree to undergo the necessary breast cancer surgery and associated care and treatment.

Dr Aziz concluded that there were issues with regards to her mental capacity as determined by the capacity assessment. This was decided on the basis that P had been in regular contact with mental health services since 2006, and had previously been detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for suffering with psychosis, which involved GH hearing voices on a regular basis. In 2012, she suffered a relapse which was thought to be due to non-compliance with her medication. This resulted in her once again being detained under the Mental Health Act from 2022 to early 2023.

Conclusion: 

Mr Justice Poole stated that he was ‘satisfied that all practicable steps to help GH have been taken without success. There have been a number of discussions with her and professionals have tried to strip down the information to the basic information she requires, using straightforward language. The problem for GH is not that she cannot understand the key concepts involved, it is that she has delusional beliefs that prevent her from understanding and therefore weighing and using relevant information, namely that she has breast cancer’.

The court subsequently concluded that it was in GH’s best interests to undergo the necessary surgery in respect of her breast cancer diagnosis. GH subsequently underwent the mastectomy surgery which she did not resist, the tumour was operable, and she has recovered well from the procedure with no adverse effects noted with regards to her mental health.

Can you charge interest on Deputyship costs?

It is commonly questioned about whether or not interest is payable on legal fees incurred by a professional Deputy in a Court of Protection case. Interest on unpaid legal costs is governed by the Judgments Act 1838 and Section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984. It is stated that the rate applicable which a receiving party can reasonably be charging interest at is 8% on any unpaid legal costs owed by the paying party. Interest will not run on any payment of costs made on account, therefore if interim payments have been taken, interest will not accrue on those sums.

In Thomas v Bunn [1991], it was held that where a defendant is ordered to pay ‘damages to be assessed’, interest on the damages only ran from the date of the judgment or order assessing the damages payable and not from the date of the order establishing liability. As a result and applying that same logic, it’s widely accepted that interest will run in COP cases but only from the date of the Final Costs Certificate as this is the time that the amount payable is known. If the costs have not been assessed and no Final Costs Certificate has been made, interest cannot accrue.

Practically, it is an additional statutory entitlement so is in addition to the invoices already rendered, but not vatable. The party must be notified that interest is accruing.

Many firms take the view that it is not appropriate to charge interest on legal fees in COP cases where still acting as Deputy, as it would not be deemed in P’s best interests. That said, there are circumstances whereby the Deputy may expect not to receive payment for some time and therefore charging interest may be necessary, for example, pending the sale of a property to release cash assets. It is for the Deputy and the Deputy’s firm to decide whether to charge interest on the legal fees.

If you have any questions, please contact Stephanie Kaye at stephanie.kaye@clarionsolicitors.com

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

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

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:

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

The COP E-Bill – the good, the bad and the technical

The COP E-Bill has been in the pipeline for well over a year and the E-Bill pilot will start on the 1st of November 2022. Stephanie Kaye shares what practitioners need to know about the change, including when we can expect it and what it means practically for deputies.

When will it go live?

The consultation for the E-Bill concluded in May 2022. It was then necessary for the E-Bill working group to meet and discuss the comments made about the E-Bill to decide if any further changes or tweaks were required. The working group consists of Costs Judge Leonard, Costs Officer Leggett, Costs Officer Prendergast, Richard Benn from CostsMaster, Andrew McAulay from Clarion, Stephanie Kaye from Clarion and Ian Gibson from Irwin Mitchell.

Many useful observations were made during the consultation which needed to be incorporated or changed in the latest version of the COP E-Bill. This is a time-consuming process, coupled with the Costs Officer training needed at the SCCO, meaning that the final E-Bill will launch in pilot form in the autumn on the 1st of November 2022. Once live, the E-Bill will be accepted by the SCCO for assessment but will not yet be compulsory.

Electronic bills in Court of Protection cases – Pilot in the Senior Courts Costs Office | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

What is so different about the E-Bill?

Simply put, the E-Bill is in Microsoft Excel format compared with the Microsoft Word format of the traditional COP Bill. Excel is much better for calculations and therefore provides a slicker, fresher alternative to the usual assessment whilst being equally as accessible by all. The benefits of the E-Bill include things like typed comments from the SCCO as to the reductions made, making it very straightforward to follow, and automatically recalculated Bills allowing you to instantly see what has been allowed on assessment.

There is a new requirement to tell the SCCO about the Protected Party’s asset value. This is to ensure that there are sufficient funds to meet the outcome of the assessment, but it also allows the Costs Officer to consider if the costs incurred are proportionate to the value of the estate – something that wasn’t quite so transparent before.

If it’s a general management year, you/the Draftsperson are required to input the OPG105 estimate in the Bill of Costs. Again, this is much more transparent and will allow the Costs Officer to easily see if you have exceeded your predicted costs, potentially making your costs vulnerable on assessment.

We are all familiar with some of the illegible comments of Costs Officers in the current Bills as we know them. The E-Bill provides a space for the Costs Officers to type their comments and justification regarding the reductions made and after assessment, a table of findings (Tab 15) will be populated with the relevant reductions which apply to your case. This not only means that you know what is reduced, but also why.

There are also several handy things to note about the E-Bill, too. This has been developed to be very user friendly and efficient, with many, many meetings in the background to test different functions and ensure it works. One useful tool is that there is an email address box on the front of the Bill. This is the email that the assessed Bill of Costs will be sent to at your firm and it’s up to you to choose a suitable address, meaning that there are no waiting times following the outcome, speeding up the process.

It is expected that the E-Bill will be signed electronically as it is not possible to add a wet signature to an E-Bill. Tab 11 is the traditional certificates page that we are all familiar with.

Practically, how does it work?

As for the content of the Bill, this remains largely unchanged, however it is presented in a different way. Tab 6 of the Bill shows all work undertaken collectively in various columns, collating the previous documents schedule and party work that we are used to seeing separately. This can look quite overwhelming, particularly if it’s a bigger case, but the filter options will assist the Costs Officer in narrowing down what exactly they are looking for. One addition within the E-Bill is the requirement for an activity code to be selected for each entry of time by the Draftsperson, allowing the Costs Officer to filter by that activity on assessment to see alternative filters of the work undertaken (for example, they may wish to filter by ‘travel’ allowing them to see the overall cost of travel incurred, regardless of which party it is accrued against). A table of what these activities are is in Tab 16. The E-Bill is much more flexible than the previous Bill in this regard, as there are multiple categories which could be used to filter specific work types or parties, allowing the Costs Officer to undertake a more robust assessment.

The E-Bill is colour coded in columns, separating the columns of the work as claimed and which columns are exclusively for the Costs Officer’s use. The blue columns (time allowed, fee earner allowed and fee earner rate allowed) can be edited by the Costs Officer as they see fit. Again, the transparent nature of the E-Bill will then clearly show what was previously claimed against what was allowed by the Costs Officer in those different columns. Any cells edited by the Costs Officer are then highlighted in yellow, clearly showing where the Bill has been reduced or changed.

Once the Costs Officer has undertaken their assessment, this auto-populates a Bill breakdown in Tab 7 showing what was claimed and what was allowed as a whole. There is also space here for the Costs Officer to give any directions, which are easily missed in the current Bill of Costs as they are not always legible.

The E-Bill then goes on to provide various summaries, mainly to allow other ways of filtering depending on what the Costs Officer wants to review and/or what the firm wants to see has been allowed. It provides an activity summary (Tab 8), a communications summary which is similar to the traditional layout of the standard Bill of Costs broken down by parties (Tab 9), and a fee earner grade summary (Tab 10) which may assist some firms with Billing after assessment.

Tab 12 of the E-Bill is the traditional Bill summary required by the SCCO after assessment when requesting the Final Costs Certificate. Again, this is auto-populated with the costs allowed following assessment, avoiding the usual administrative work.

Tab 13 is the traditional Final Costs Certificate and again, this is auto-populated with the costs.

How will this impact COP practitioners?

The E-Bill will make life easier for the Deputy and their team. The assessment will be returned quicker, the comments will be legible and the assessment is automatically recalculated, dramatically reducing the administrative burden. It will take more time for the Draftsperson to prepare the Bill as a result of the activity breakdown required.

Deputies must be mindful of their OPG105 estimates (if a general management case) as the Costs Officer will have greater visibility of the costs incurred compared with what was predicted, which could potentially result in sizeable reductions to the Bill if the estimate was incorrect and not revised during the year.

Ultimately, the introduction of the COP E-Bill will be positive for professional Deputies and the change should be embraced by all. If you have any further questions regarding this article or the E-Bill, please contact Stephanie Kaye directly.

Summary of the updates from the SCCO regarding COP Assessment Delays

Yesterday, the SCCO have released a further notice in relation to the ongoing delays with COP assessments.

In summary, turnaround is as follows at present:

  • Bills received at the beginning of March are currently being assessed
  • The Admin Team are processing the return of assessed bills received back from the Costs Officers in the first week of August
  • New filings for assessment received from the second week of August are being considered for acceptance/rejection
  • Certificate request filings received in the second week of August are currently being reviewed and actioned

Please see the link below for the full notice released:

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

NEW update from the SCCO on COP assessment delays

Yesterday, the SCCO have released a further notice in relation to the ongoing delays with COP assessments.

In summary, turnaround is as follows at present:

  • Bills received at the mid-December 2021 are currently being assessed
  • The Admin Team are processing the return of assessed bills received back from the Costs Officers in the first week of June
  • New filings for assessment received from the first week of May are being considered for acceptance/rejection
  • Certificate request filings received in the last week of May are currently being reviewed and actioned

Please see the link below for the full notice released:

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