Tag: COP Costs

SCCO Updates Filing Guidance for Court of Protection Bills

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has earlier this week issued revised guidance on filing supporting papers for Court of Protection bills, coming into effect on 20 April 2026. These updates aim to streamline the assessment process and improve efficiency for both practitioners and Costs Officers.

The SCCO continues to support two methods for submitting supporting documents: digital bundles provided via the Document Upload Centre (DUC) and physical files of papers sent in the post or DX. A summary of the latest guidance is set out below.

1) Digital Bundles via the Document Upload Centre (DUC)

The Document Upload Centre (DUC) allows users to submit supporting papers electronically and is the SCCO’s preferred method, provided submissions follow the required format.

It is important to note:

  • The DUC is only for supporting documents
  • Key documents, including the bill of costs, N258B and court orders, must still be filed via CE-File in the usual way
  • To access the DUC, users must request a link by emailing the SCCO

In terms of formatting, bundles must be in PDF format only. File names should include the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s surname, and the billing period or case type (for example, statutory will or property sale). The SCCO also find it helpful if an indication of the bill type is included within the file name, such as general management with the relevant period dates, so it is recommended that this is included.

Where possible, a single bundle should be submitted. If multiple files are necessary, these should be clearly labelled with the relevant date ranges rather than uploading individual documents separately.

Documents must be arranged in chronological order (oldest first), with key documents placed at the beginning of the bundle. These include:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices

The level of detail within documents remains important. Emails and file notes should clearly show dates and times, with correspondence identifying both sender and recipient. File and attendance notes must also record the fee earner completing the work and the time claimed.

To assist Costs Officers in locating documents quickly, the SCCO recommend:

  • Including a detailed index or bookmarks with clear dates and descriptions so items can be easily identified and cross-referenced against the bill of costs
  • Adding hyperlinks to documents where possible
  • Avoiding duplication of documents or email chains

In terms of timing:

  • For existing cases: upload at the same time as filing the bill (once the SCCO reference number is available)
  • For new cases: upload after receiving confirmation of the SCCO reference number (e.g. SC-2025-COP-001234)

2) Physical Paper Filing

Firms can still submit hard copy bundles by post. While digital filing is encouraged, it is not mandatory.

If submitting papers physically, they should be sent to:

Senior Courts Costs Office
Thomas More Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
DX: 44454 Strand

Many of the same principles apply to paper bundles as to electronic ones. Files should be clearly labelled with the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s name and the billing period or case type, and documents should be organised in chronological order.

Key documents should be placed at the front of the bundle (or the first bundle if multiple are submitted), including:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices
  • A copy of the e-filing acceptance notice, including return details
  • Where multiple boxes or bundles are required:
  • Label them sequentially (e.g. Box 1 of 2)
  • Arrange documents chronologically across all boxes and bundles
  • In terms of timing:
  • Papers should be sent as soon as possible after CE-File acceptance
  • They must be submitted within 28 days

Mandatory Filing Notification

Each time a bill is submitted via CE-File, you must clearly state how you intend to file supporting documents. This should be included in the “filing comments” by confirming either ‘paper’ or ‘DUC’. Failure to include this information may result in the filing being rejected.

Final Thoughts

These updates from the SCCO reflect a continued move toward digital efficiency while still accommodating traditional filing methods.

For practitioners, the key takeaway is simple: clarity, organisation, and compliance with formatting rules are essential. Adopting the DUC where possible, and doing so correctly, will help avoid delays and ensure a smoother assessment process, particularly given the continued delays and significant turnaround time for receipt of assessed bills, which remains in excess of a year at present.

For further guidance or to request DUC access, contact the SCCO directly at scco@justice.gov.uk.

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

PI Trusts and Statutory Care Funding: Clarity for Deputies

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

The High Court’s recent decision in CGT, R (On the Application Of) v West Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 293 (Admin) provides important clarity for deputies managing personal injury trusts. The case arose from a judicial review challenge to the local authority’s decision to refuse to fund CGT’s care needs from July 2024 onwards and to seek reimbursement of funding provided since 2020.

By way of background, CGT was born in 1994 and suffered a catastrophic brain injury at around three months old, leaving him with severe cognitive impairment, visual impairment, epilepsy and other lifelong disabilities. He requires daily care and has lived in supported accommodation since 2013. He lacks capacity to manage his financial affairs, and his mother was appointed as his property and financial affairs deputy by the Court of Protection in 2011.

In 2012, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) awarded him more than £3.5 million, including over £2.6 million specifically for future care. The award was conditional on the funds being placed into a discretionary trust for his benefit, with the Official Solicitor acting as trustee.

The local authority later refused to continue funding CGT’s care, arguing that capital in the personal injury trust counted as available resources and that ongoing public funding would amount to double recovery. The judicial review succeeded. The court rejected both arguments, holding that the decisions to cease funding and demand repayment were unlawful. It also confirmed that capital held in a properly constituted personal injury trust must be disregarded in full when assessing care funding under the Care Act 2014 and surrounding regulations.

For professional deputies, the implications are practical. A trust established from personal injury compensation does not reduce P’s statutory entitlement to care funding, even where the trust contains sums identified for future care. Deputies can manage P’s affairs in the knowledge that the existence of trust capital should not trigger withdrawal of public funding or retrospective recovery.

The judgment also narrows the reach of double recovery arguments in this context. Local authorities cannot rely on that principle to refuse or claw back statutory care funding. If duplication concerns are to be addressed, they belong at the point of settlement, in the structure of the award, or through Court of Protection oversight and not within the eligibility assessment itself. Deputies should ensure that trust documentation reflects P’s needs and that any undertakings or arrangements from prior deputies are understood, but should not assume those arrangements alter the statutory framework.

The decision is also a reminder of process. Trust capital is disregarded, but local authorities remain entitled to request information about the financial position. Deputies should provide what is necessary and accurate, without inviting a reinterpretation of the statutory test.

In practical terms, the judgment reinforces the deputy’s role in safeguarding compensation awards while preserving access to statutory care funding. Properly structured personal injury trusts remain effective protection, and local authority discretion does not displace the regulations.

If you have any questions, please get in touch with Ella Wilkinson (Ella.Wilkinson@clarionsolicitors.com) who is an Associate in the Costs & Litigation Funding Team at Clarion Solicitors, specialising in Court of Protection costs.

Fixed Costs and Remuneration of Professional Deputies

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

On 18th June 2025, the Office of the Public Guardian issued new guidance in relation to fixed costs and remuneration of professional Deputies. The purpose of the guidance is to set out the general principles regarding fixed costs and the Public Guardian’s position on issues relating to fixed costs.

As you will be aware, rule 19.13 of the Court of Protection Rules confirms that Deputies can be remunerated for costs they incur when performing their duties as Deputy. The Court may order that the Deputy is allowed to take fixed costs. These are outlined in Practice Direction 19B (PD19B), which was recently updated, on 1st April 2024. Whereby the management period ended before 1st April 2024, the rates set out in the previous PD19B would apply, however if the period covered by the fixed costs ends on or after 1 April 2024, the rates outlined in the latest version of the Practice Direction apply. Generally speaking, a management period would run on an annual basis, however this guidance confirms that if the period is less than a year (for example if there is a change in Deputy or P passes away) the fixed costs claimed should be apportioned accordingly.

It is important to ensure that if you want to have your costs assessed but the Court Order only allows for fixed costs, the Deputy will not be allowed to take any costs higher than fixed costs as per the case of The London Borough of Enfield v Matrix Deputies Ltd & Anor. Our advice would be to apply to the Court of Protection to have the costs clause varied to allow for the costs to be assessed in these circumstances.

The guidance also reiterated the definition of net assets as per the case of Penntrust Ltd v West Berkshire Council & Anor. This case confirms that net assets is the total assets minus total liabilities. This includes any property owned by P, regardless of if they are currently residing in the same.

Whereby P has net assets of less than £20,300, the Deputy will not be permitted to have their costs assessed. Instead, they can take an annual management fee not exceeding 4.5% of P’s assets. The guidance also confirms that if there is a pending settlement which would take P’s assets significantly above £20,300, the Deputy should apply to the Court of Protection to seek authority to delay taking costs until the settlement funds have been received. This is a move away from previous guidance which has stated that the Deputy can only have costs assessed if P has assets above the threshold on the anniversary of the Court Order.

Further guidance has now been issued in relation to tax returns. Fixed costs can be taken for the completion of a basic tax return and complex tax return. It has been difficult to determine what would account for a complex tax return and therefore this guidance is very welcomed. The guidance states that:

‘PD 19B defines a basic tax return to cover cases where P’s income is derived primarily from bank or NS&I interest and taxable benefits, discretionary trust or estate income. A complex tax return may be defined as one which also includes income form more complex investments including stocks, shares and bonds, rental property, business income and foreign property. Public authority deputies may charge up to £89 for a basic tax return as set out at paragraph 18 of Practice Direction 19B to include bank or NS&I interest and taxable benefits and may charge an amount not exceeding £89. They may charge P for the completion of more complex tax returns as a specialist service P would be expected to play for if they retained capacity.’

Guidance has also been provided in the event of P’s death. The Public Guardian recommends that the Deputy agrees any costs with the personal representative of the administrator of P’s estate. Further, the guidance states that the Deputy is not permitted to take final costs after P’s death, if the estate has not yet been settled.

If you have any questions, please get in touch with Laura Sugarman for further information – laura.sugarman@clarionsolicitors.com.

ACC & Others – A Useful Recap

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

Introduction

The case of ACC & Others [2020] EWCOP 9 was a landmark judgment by HHJ Hilder in the Court of Protection that clarifies the authority required by Deputies to obtain legal services and the management of conflicts of interest.

This judgment arose from three separate proceedings involving Deputies connected to the law firm Irwin Mitchell. In two of these cases, the Deputy was the Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation and in the third case the Deputy was a partner in the firm. Notably, the Deputyship Orders did not explicitly grant or deny authority to instruct solicitors or initiate legal actions, leading to questions about litigation costs and potential conflicts of interest in a Deputy connected to Irwin Mitchell appointing Irwin Mitchell to act in litigation.

‘General Authority’

HHJ Hilder sets out the background to the three sets of proceedings, the position of the parties and the relevant law, explaining that the Orders appointing the Deputies contained a general authority and that these proceedings had arisen “…because the Court had concerns about what the Applicants regard as a reasonable interpretation of ‘general’ authority.”  The three cases “demonstrate a clear need for further amplification of the Court’s approach” but the learned Judge approached that task cautiously, stating that “‘General’ authority is not susceptible to exhaustive definition.”

In order to amplify the Court’s approach, HHJ Hilder asked a series of questions in relation to authorisation required to conduct litigation on behalf of P, further proceedings in the Court of Protection, to what extent ‘general authority’ encompassed authority to take legal advice on behalf of P, the line between seeking advice and conducting litigation, urgent matters, the addressing of conflicts of interest, cases where the Deputy is not the instructing party, acting as litigation friend and where P has capacity to give instructions for the work in question.

The Conclusions of HHJ Hilder

HHJ Hilder’s conclusions on these questions are set out in an Appendix to the Judgment and are stated below.

  1.  The “general” authority to manage property and affairs which is granted by the standard Deputyship order encompasses those common or ordinary tasks which are required to administer P’s estate efficiently.
  2. Authority to make a decision / do an act in respect of P’s property and affairs encompasses such ordinary non-contentious legal tasks, including obtaining legal advice, as are ancillary to giving effect to that authority.
  3. In particular:

a) authority to purchase or sell property includes conveyancing

b) authority to let property includes dealing with leases or tenancy agreements

c) authority to conduct P’s business includes dealing with employment contracts of that business

d) “general” authority encompasses:

i) the preparation of an annual tax return, and therefore obtaining advice as to completion of the return

ii) discharging P’s financial responsibilities under a tenancy, and therefore obtaining advice as to liabilities under the tenancy.

iii) applying P’s funds so as to ensure that the costs of his care arrangements are met, and therefore dealing with employment contracts of directly employed carers

What does this mean for Deputies in practical terms?

As alluded to above, general authority for the management of property and financial affairs will usually encompass tasks such as conveyancing, managing leases, business and associated employment contracts, preparing tax returns (excluding complex returns), taking advice on any tenancy issues, arranging care and where authority encompasses steps in contemplation of contentious litigation, which includes obtaining Counsel’s opinion.

The Court Order appointing the Deputy will specifically state the authorities allowed for the most part. Where work looks to fall outside of the general authority, specific further authority may be required.

Outside the general authority of property and financial affairs Deputies, specific authority is required to conduct litigation. Deputies can take advice on ‘contentious litigation’ on a matter but only up to receiving a letter of response and no further. This has been further clarified to include non-contentious work too including conveyancing work. Specific authority is also required to make payment to a third party and includes any costs incurred by a member of the Protected Party’s family. A property and affairs Deputy also has no authority to make decisions in relation to a health and welfare matter.

Additional authority from the Court should be sought where litigation is required for continuing healthcare appeals, education appeals and appeals against health and care plans, as these fall outside the scope of the general authority. Authority is also required from the Court of Protection to let property including taking steps to form a view as to whether there are grounds to evict a tenant.

For prospective Deputies they should consider whether there is a need to instruct somebody else to provide legal advice at the time they apply to be appointed. Three quotes should be provided including one from their own firm, if desired, then the Deputy should make a best interest decision as to which provider meets the needs of the Protected Party.

For existing Deputies, there is a continuing expectation to consider the limits of their own specific authority and to address any conflicts of interest. Where costs are likely to exceed £2,000, authorisation is required and as for prospective Deputies three quotes should also be obtained. The quotes should be included within the annual Deputyship report, providing justification as to why the chosen firm was instructed. Both monetary and non-monetary significance to the Protected Party will be relevant. If the Deputy wishes for the work to remain in-house and the quote is over £2,000, an Order will be required from the Court.

Conclusion

Overall, this case has had significant implications for the governance of Deputyships, contributing to the amended Deputyship Standards published by the Office of the Public Guardian on 13 February 2023. The principles established in this judgment aim to safeguard the interests of vulnerable individuals and provide clearer guidelines for Deputies in their legal and financial responsibilities.

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

TG – 12 June 2024, before Master Whalan.

Ellie Howard-TaylorLeave a comment

On 12 June 2024, Stephanie Kaye, Partner at Clarion, represented Kingsley Napley, the Deputy of TG, before Master Whalan, in a hearing concerning three issues:

  1. Time spent authorising payments by the Grade A Deputy, claimed at 3 minutes per payment
  2. Time spent conducting financial reviews in accordance with the SRA, claimed at 6 minutes per task.
  3. Time spent reconciling bank statements and transactions, claimed at 6-12 minutes per statement

The case concerning TG, with Kingsley Napley acting as Deputy, was claimed at £15,834.10 and reduced to £11,413.33 on provisional assessment. By way of background, TG had an estate of over £2.7 million at the time of assessment, income of £325,000 during the period in question and 4 separate bank accounts managed by the named Deputy, Simon Hardy at Kingsley Napley.

Authorisation of payments

The first issue was in relation to authorisation of payments. In the case of TG, the Grade A fee earner claimed 3 minutes for authorising each payment that was made on behalf of TG, in addition to the 3 minutes claimed by the Grade D fee earner arranging the payment. Those payments concerned irregular payments covering TG’s care, therapy, education fees, OT fees etc and were of significant value. The time claimed for this was 5 hours 33 minutes at Grade A which was entirely disallowed on assessment by the Costs Officer and subsequently on re-assessment.

Each item claimed was described as follows in relation to the relevant payment:

Clarion argued that it was the named Deputy’s personal appointment and therefore personal responsibility to authorise these payments as the book stopped with them. In addition, the amounts claimed (6 minutes in total for the payment) were not unreasonable and the transaction itself had been delegated as far as possible, but it was not possible to delegate the authorisation due to the nature of the appointment.

Costs Judge Whalan raised that the reductions made by the Costs Officer were on a matter of principle, but was satisfied that there was no rule preventing the recovery of this work. The work should not have been disallowed in its totally. Judge Whalan stressed that this was on a case-by-case basis and not every payment required a Grade A authorisation. It was for the Deputy to mitigate how often this happened.

He went on to advise that, for example, where the Deputy has agreed to a care plan concerning sessions of therapy at £100 per hour, the Deputy has already agreed to those costs and therefore authorisation was not required every time a payment was due. He was of the same view with payments such as utilities, in that the Deputy has already made a decision about which provider to go with, therefore authorising every payment was not a sustainable approach.

Judge Whalan said that it was not unreasonable to incur this time for irregular payments but was of the view that automatically charging time against every payment was not sustainable. He advised that there needed to be consideration of prior authorisation to payments.

Judge Whalan agreed to allow 3 hours at Grade A against the 5 hours 33 minutes claimed on assessment.

Monthly reviews of the bank accounts

The second issue was in relation to conducting monthly review of the Deputyship account. The time claimed for this was 2 hours 12 minutes undertaken by a Grade C fee earner, with all the time disallowed by the Costs Officer marked as “supervision/overheads” on assessment.

Each entry was claimed as follows:

Clarion argued that this work was not an overhead, but in fact a requirement of the SRA Account Rules and the OPG Deputyship Standards. It was also a fundamental part of the Deputy’s role to manage the finances, including reviewing the accounts.

Judge Whalan agreed and was of the view that this time should not have been disallowed as “overheads”, and commented that the work was a specifically required task. The charge of 1-2 units was prima facie reasonable for this case, however, Whalan made clear that time in excess of 2 units would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Judge Whalan agreed to allowing the time as drawn in this instance.

Analysing the accounts and preparing reconciliations

The third issue, similarly to the monthly reviews of the Deputyship accounts, concerned TG’s bank accounts. The work however was different in nature as it was in relation to preparing reconciliation statements and analysing the accounts to assess the income and expenditure. This work claimed totalled 5 hours 24 minutes at Grade D.

Each entry was described as follows:

The SRA Account Rules 8.2 and 8.3 and the OPG Deputyship Standard 5a were referred to as requirements for the Deputy to carry out the work. On assessment, the time claimed by the Grade D was reduced by 2 hours 36 minutes.

Judge Whalan commented that it was for the Costs Officer to guard against excessive charges being claimed. Judge Whalan commented that the tasks undertaken were reasonable by the Grade D fee earner and were not unnecessarily high.

Judge Whalan agreed to allow a further 2 hours 27 minutes at Grade D, reinstating the time almost in full.

Judge Whalan would not make a written judgment on this case. Clarion agreed to write a note to share with PDF members on the outcome of the hearing, which has also been shared with Judge Whalan. This note may or may not be circulated to the Costs Officers, but Judge Whalan confirmed that the outcome would be communicated to them.

The current SCCO delays and how to maximise your cash flow

Ellie Howard-TaylorLeave a comment

What are the delays at the SCCO?

By now, we are all aware of the SCCO delays. With the most recent notice from the SCCO stating “The Costs Officers are currently being assigned bills of costs for which supporting papers were received around the end of October 2022.”

It further goes onto say “whilst bills pre-dating the end of October 2022 are likely to have been assessed, they may not necessarily have reached the dispatch stage yet. The Admin Team are currently sending out assessed bills returned to them by the Costs Officers during the 4th week of August 2023.”

Later on in the notice, it refers to new e-filings. The notice states “e-filings that have been submitted, but not yet accepted or rejected, we are currently working on new bill filings submitted around the 4th week of June 2023 and certificates submitted during the 4th week of August 2022.”

The delays at the SCCO are yet to significantly drop but you can expect to wait 13 months for your bill to be assessed, 2 months for a filing to be accepted (or rejected) and 2 weeks for a FCC to be issued.

The SCCO have asked people not to chase them for an update where their query relates to a bill/filing within these time frames. Obviously any delays greater than stated above, we recommend getting in touch directly with the SCCO.

How can I increase my cash flow?

Given these significant delays a lot of firms are having to wait 12 months or more to bill their own clients for work done almost 2 years ago, which is not ideal.

Practice Direction Part 19B refers to fixed costs in the Court of Protection. It specifically outlines in relation to payment on account and states “Where professional deputies elect for detailed assessment of annual management charges, they may take payments on account for the first three quarters of the year, which are proportionate and reasonable taking into account the size of the estate and the functions they have performed. Interim quarterly bills must not exceed 25% of the estimated annual management charges – that is up to 75% for the whole year.

Interim bills of account must not be submitted to the SCCO. At the end of the annual management year, the deputy must submit their annual bill to the SCCO for detailed assessment and adjust the final total due to reflect payments on account already received.”

We would always encourage firms to take these interim payments throughout the year up to the 75% maximum.

In relation to applications you may take payment on account up to 75% of their estimated costs, reasonable and proportionate taking into account the size of the state. Any payments taken must be included in the first account to Public Guardian.

Fixed Costs

In addition to the interim payments, firms can also take fixed costs for certain work carried out throughout the management year.

In line with the Practice Direction, the revised fixed fees for the Court of Protection, effective from 1 December 2017 states:

 Fixed Fee (plus VAT)
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

How can you speed up the process further?  

Given the delays, we recommend you are continuously reviewing their matters for any upcoming order anniversaries. This means that you are able to instruct your Costs Draftsman to prepare the bill quicker, which in turn will mean that your bill of costs is sent to the SCCO sooner.

In addition to this, before a bill is filed with the SCCO we recommend you ensure their e-bundle is in the correct format for the SCCO or ensure their paper file is sent to the SCCO as soon as it is accepted to ensure no further unnecessary delays.

With the introduction of the new E-bill in November 2022, we should start to see an improvement in the delays at the SCCO.

If you would like further assistance on any of the information outlined above, or have any general queries please get in touch at ellie.howard-taylor@clarionsolicitors.com. Alternatively, please check out our WordPress blog site where you can find all of the up to date information on Court of Protection costs.

Civil Justice Council Report on Costs and the Impact on Court of Protection Costs

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

Yesterday, the Civil Justice Council publishes their costs consultation responses and recommendations: https://www.judiciary.uk/civil-justice-council-costs-review-final-report/

Four main areas were considered; costs budgeting, guideline hourly rates, pre-action and digitisation and consequences of the extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs, with guideline hourly rates being the main area that had a potential to impact Court of Protection costs.

With respect to Guideline Hourly Rates, the majority of respondents found that the Guideline Hourly Rates had a useful role both as a starting point for summary and detailed assessment and indicate to the market generally the rates that would be considered reasonable by the Courts.

Almost all respondents believed that the Guideline Hourly Rates should be frequently updated as to ensure they serve their commercial purpose. However, views were mixed as to the frequency of which they were updated.

Abandoning the Guideline Hourly Rates was considered, however this was largely disagreed with by the respondents, with an argument that it would lead to uncertainty and cause difficulties for judges.

Various changes were considered, particularly as many respondents applying Guideline Hourly Rates outside of London noted that these were set considerably lower than the London hourly rates. A strong view was set that guideline hourly rates for London and elsewhere should not be different. Another suggestion was that the bands should reflect the complexity of the work as opposed to the location where the work was carried out.

It was recommended that the Guideline Hourly Rates be retained and in the short term, measures should be taken to create a new band for complex, high value and commercial work regardless of the location where the work was carried out. Also recommended was that Counsel’s fees should be assessed by reference to a guideline hourly rate. Further, when considering a departure from the Guideline Hourly Rates, the test being applied should be clearly stated.

Longer term recommendations included retaining the rates for the next five years, with a view to carrying out a Detailed Review at the end of the five years. Also recommended was a working group to ensure a satisfactory methodology can be identified and put in practice. Index linking was recommended to be carried out annually, in order to remove the need to carry out a form of detailed review on a regular basis. This will reflect the position of the market.

Overall, the immediate impact of the review is minimal to Court of Protection costs, however the Civil Justice Council will now consider how these recommendations are taken forward.

If you have any questions, please contact Laura Gillin at Laura.Gillin@clarionsolicitors.com

Changes to the Deputy Standards 2023

Ellie Howard-TaylorLeave a comment

There has been an update to the existing Property & Finance and Health & Welfare Deputy Standards (‘Standards’), which will come into effect from mid-February 2023.

The single set of refreshed standards will apply to everyone who has been appointed as Deputy, including lay Deputies. Guidance tailored for professionals, public authorities and lay Deputies will also be published at the same time.

This is not the introduction of a new set of standards. The guiding principles of the refreshed standards remain the same and continue to be aligned with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The main changes are to make the standards more focused.

What has been changed?

The number of standards has been reduced from more than 40 to 8 core areas, which reflect the duties and responsibilities of all Deputies. Much of the material included in the original standards has now been re-shaped and included within the guidance documents.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has contacted all Deputies to notify them of the changes.

The refreshed standards can be found at published at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/opg-deputy-standards.

How do I deal with my costs following the death of P?

Ellie Howard-TaylorLeave a comment

Costs following the death of the Protected Party are often a grey area in Court of Protection matters. 

In some cases, the Deputy may wish to subject their costs to detailed assessment, however, in most incidents the Protected Party’s estate will be in probate and the Deputy’s costs will be agreed with the Executors of the estate.

What happens following the death of P?

Following the death of the Protected Party, the Deputy’s authority under the First General Order seizes with immediate effect. Once the matter has been transferred to the Executors of the Protected Party’s Estate, the Deputy can agree their costs directly without the need for a detailed assessment, saving the Protected Party further expense. It may be necessary to negotiate a discount with the Executors which would take into account any likely reductions that you might expect from the SCCO. 

If the costs cannot be agreed with the Executors, the Deputy will need to contact the Court for authority for assessment. Ordinarily, the SCCO will give permission by email to enable the assessment in these circumstances, otherwise it may be necessary to apply to the COP for further authority. After the assessment, the allowed amount should be paid by the Executor.

Can I be remunerated for work done after the death of P?

Rule 165 under Part 19 (Costs) to the Court of Protection Rules 2007 states that the Deputy’s costs can be remunerated where “an order or direction that costs incurred during the Protected Party’s lifetime be paid out of or charged on his estate may be made within 6 years after the Protected Party’s death.” If there is no Order as to costs then the Deputy cannot be remunerated through detailed assessment.

Can I recover all costs incurred following the death of P?

The SCCO may allow ‘reasonable costs’, post death of the Protected Party, in order for the Deputy to finalise their involvement in the matter. The SCCO have indicated that such costs should not be expected to exceed £1,500.00 + VAT.

We would recommend separating your costs into pre and post death of the Protected Party to distinguish the time spent both before and after the death. This may assist the recovery of costs on assessment as the Costs Officer can clearly see the time spent post death. 

Do I have to go to a detailed assessment?

If the Executors do not contest the Deputy’s costs, the Deputy will be invited to raise a final invoice which will then be settled from the Protected Party’s funds once the Grant of Probate has been drawn. Where the Deputy’s costs are disputed, the Executors can elect for the Deputy’s costs to be subject to detailed assessment, as explained above. 

In either of the above situations, the Deputy’s authority to administrate the Protected Party’s affairs will be discharged on the Protected Party’s death unless an Order is made to extend the Deputy’s powers.

If you have any questions relating to post death costs, please get in touch with myself at ellie.howard-taylor@clarionsolicitors.comor on 0113 288 5660.

Guideline Hourly Rates 2021 & Other Changes Impacting COP Costs

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

From 1st October 2021, the new Guideline Hourly Rates will come into force. This means that from this date, subject to your retainer/client care letter, you will be able to claim the new hourly rates. The new rates are as follows:

 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

The new Guideline Hourly Rates will displace Master Whalan’s decision in PLK & Others (2020). The new GHR differ across geographical locations, but overall, they are increased from the outdated 2010 GHR. For most junior fee earners, the increase is less than those awarded in PLK & Others.

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 & Others judgment dated 30 September 2020, as set out below, will no longer apply to costs to be assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office, and that the new GHR will instead be applicable.

As well as this, there will also be an increase to Court fees which will also impact COP matters. The new Court fees will impact all COP matters, with the COP assessment fee increasing from £85 to £87. The cost of a costs appeal in COP matters will increase from £65 to £70.

Alongside policy change, there have been many changes at the SCCO too with several experienced Costs Officers leaving or retiring, creating inconsistent assessments and large delays.

In addition, the proposed COP E-Bill is almost ready for consultation and once approved, will create a more streamlined assessment process. The SCCO are also now accepting electronic PDF bundles for assessment, which is positive news for the environment. However, electronic systems are not without their flaws and it’s likely to take some time for the SCCO to adapt fully.

If you have any questions about any of the issues raised, please contact Laura Gillin at Laura.Gillin@clarionsolicitors.com