Tag: clarioncosts

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.

Final report on guideline hourly rates published – what is the impact on Court of Protection practitioners?

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

On Friday, the Civil Justice Council published their final report on guideline hourly rates (GHR).

Key recommendations made within the final report include:

  • That the Guideline Hourly Rates proposed in the Interim Report should be implemented in full
  • That National Band 3 should be abolished
  • That the counties of Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey should become National Band 1 areas
  • That existing National Band 1 counties and other identified Band 1 centres will remain within Band 1
  • That all other areas will fall or remain within National Band 2

In respect of Court of Protection costs specifically, the report quotes Master Whalan in the decision of PLK & Others, where he concluded that ‘ultimately I am not satisfied that the evidence supports Mr Wilcock’s contention that COP firms have experienced a significant increase in hard and soft overheads’. It was also noted that ‘in general, however, COP assessments can be conducted by Costs Officers utilising the GHR as the reasonable hourly rate. The issue as to the appropriate status or grade of fee earner for the work in question will always be a matter for discretion of Costs Officers and/or Costs Judges’. When considering the PLK rates, the decision was made that ‘the GHR rates (if approved) are the rates to be used, not the PLK rates’.

The impact of this for Court of Protection practitioners is that the rates stated in the PLK and Others judgment dated 30 September 2020, as set out below, will no longer apply to costs to be assessed by the SCCO, and that the new GHR, if approved, will instead be applicable.

What are the proposed guideline rates, and how do these compare to the PLK rates?

PLK Rates

 Grade AGrade BGrade CGrade D
London 1£490£335£271£165
London 2£380£290£235£151
London 3£275-£320£206-£275£198£145
National 1£260£230£193£142
National 2£241£212£175£133

Proposed GHR

 Grade AGrade BGrade CGrade D
London 1£512£348£270£186
London 2£373£289£244£139
London 3£282£232 £185£129
National 1£261£218£178£126
National 2£255£218£177 £126

One key observation is that the proposed rates for National Band 1 are lower than the PLK Rates, for Grade B, Grade C and Grade D fee earners.

The overall position from the final report is that there was no compelling evidence found that additional attention should be given to Court of Protection work, and as such that said work should be subject to the same rates, the new GHR, if approved, as other areas.

You can access the full final report here: Civil Justice Council publishes final report on guideline hourly rates | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

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

Can the Court decide if P should have the COVID-19 vaccine?

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

In the recent case of E (Vaccine) [2021] EWCOP 7, the issue at hand was whether P should receive a vaccination for COVID-19.

By way of background, P is 80 years old, has been diagnosed with dementia and schizophrenia, and is a care home resident.

On 8 January 2021, P’s accredited legal representative was informed by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham that she was to be offered a vaccination against COVID-19 on 11 January 2021. P’s son raised objections to this via email, and therefore the vaccination on 11 January did not go ahead.

As such, an application was made by P’s legal representative, pursuant to S15 Mental Capacity Act (2005), to obtain a declaration stating that it would be lawful and in P’s best interests for her to receive the vaccine at the next available date.

In a video call with P’s GP on 19 January 2021, P was asked whether she remembered being informed of Coronavirus and the dangers of it, to which P responded she did not. When asked if she wanted to receive the vaccination, P stated that she wanted ‘whatever was best for me’.

P’s son, as per his objections raised when P was initially offered the vaccine, did not share this viewpoint, and raised concerns as to the efficacy of the vaccine, and whether sufficient testing had been carried out.

It was concluded that P did not have the capacity to understand the nature or transmission of Coronavirus, or to determine whether she should receive the vaccine. Furthermore, it was decided that given the fact that the care home she resided in had several recent positive cases of Coronavirus, taking into account P’s age, medical conditions and her statement on the video call with the GP, that it was in her best interests for her to be vaccinated, and for her to receive the vaccine as soon as practicable.

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

Does the Mental Health Act need to be reformed?

Leave a comment

The Department of Health and Social Care has launched a consultation and White Paper on plans to reform the Mental Health Act. 

This follows a report released in 2018 that outlines that the Mental Health Act does not always work in the best interests of patients, their families and their carers.

The report sets out various recommendations to amend the Act so it does work in the best interests of individuals, in both practice and in law.

The Department of Health and Social Care is proposing a wide range of changes to rebalance the Mental Health Act, to put “patients at the centre of decisions about their own care and ensure everyone is treated equally.” 

The proposed amendments are based on the following principles:

  • choice and autonomy – ensuring service users’ views and choices are respected
  • least restriction – ensuring the Mental Health Act’s powers are used in the least restrictive way
  • therapeutic benefit – ensuring patients are supported to get better, so they can be discharged from the MHA
  • the person as an individual – ensuring patients are viewed and treated as individuals

The closing date for responses is 21st April 2021. The White Paper and consultation documents are at the website below.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-the-mental-health-act

If you would like any further information of this, then please contact Scott on 0113 288 5688 or by email at scott.kemp@clarionsolicitors.com