Tag: Court of Protection

New Guidance on Post-Discharge Work in Court of Protection Costs

Lydia MarshallLeave a comment

The SCCO has recently provided guidance on post-discharge costs, clarifying their stance on authority for assessing these costs and what this means in terms of claiming work in detailed assessments.

What is “Post-Discharge Work”?

Post-discharge work refers to tasks undertaken after a Deputyship has officially ended. This could include wrapping up outstanding matters, liaising with successors, or providing accounts. While it might feel like a continuation of the Deputy’s duties, the SCCO has made it clear that the scope for cost recovery in these cases is very limited.

SCCO Guidance

According to the SCCO, a Deputy’s authority ceases upon discharge and therefore, the SCCO cannot assess costs for work done after discharge. The SCCO consider that post-discharge begins two days after the date on the seal of the discharge Order. This means any work undertaken after this short buffer period is technically outside the Deputy’s authority and will be disallowed on assessment as a result.

What Happens With Costs After Discharge?

Most discharge Orders include provisions for the costs to be agreed with the new Deputy. This allows some flexibility in transferring responsibility however, if agreement with the successor Deputy cannot be reached, the burden falls on the outgoing Deputy to determine the best way forward in terms of recovering their costs.

Practical Takeaways

  1. Plan ahead: Deputies should aim to complete as much work as possible before the discharge Order is sealed.
  2. Clarify costs in advance: If work is likely to continue post-discharge, consider negotiating with the successor Deputy before discharge and include a costs clause within the discharge Order to allow for costs to be agreed.
  3. Document carefully: Keep a clear record of any post-discharge tasks and communications—this can help if disputes over costs arise.

Conclusion

The SCCO guidance makes one thing clear: post-discharge costs are outside the formal remit of court assessment. While this may seem restrictive, it is consistent with the principle that a Deputy’s authority ends at discharge and Deputies to should take the appropriate steps ahead of the discharge to limit post-discharge work wherever possible. Effective planning and clear communication with successor Deputies can help mitigate potential disputes over outstanding costs.

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

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.

Gifting – OPG updates gift giving guidance

hawamayetLeave a comment

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has issued updated guidance on gift giving, with particular emphasis on loans and circumstances in which Deputies or Attorneys may seek to benefit themselves.

The guidance makes clear that a conflict of interest is likely to arise where an Attorney makes a gift or loan to themselves, or to members of their family, from the donor’s assets.

Further emphasis had been made relation to loans and the position is unequivocal: Attorneys should seek prior authority from the Court of Protection before making any loan to themselves or to their family.

A general authority contained within a Deputyship Order does not extend to the power to make loans. Deputies must not enter such arrangements unless they have obtained specific authority from the Court of Protection.

In respect of gifts, the OPG cautions: “If you do accept a gift for yourself, the Court of Protection can look carefully at whether the [donor] had capacity and may decide you went beyond your authority.”

The guidance further stresses that where a proposed gift does not fall within the statutory exceptions, an application must be made to the Court of Protection for approval.

 

For a refresher of the OPG gifting guidance, please see below.

Before making a decision regarding a gift to be made, 2 key points must be considered by the Deputy:

  1. Does P have capacity to make this decision themselves?
  2. If they lack capacity, is the decision in their best interests?

Best interests entails consideration of:

  • P’s past and present wishes
  • Their beliefs and values
  • Their relationships
  • Their financial security

 

What legally counts as a “Gift”?

  • Cash transfers
  • Cheques
  • Bank transfers
  • Selling property at an undervalue
  • Transferring shares
  • Forgiving a debt
  • Interest-free loans
  • Paying school fees or other costs for someone else
  • Adding someone to a property title
  • Setting up trusts for others
  • If full market value is not received in return, the transaction will usually be treated as a gift.

 

When gifts can be made without Court approval

Three conditions must be satisfied:

1: The gift is on a customary occasion

“Customary” refers to occasions that are culturally or socially normal in the context of the person’s life.

Examples include:

  • Birthdays
  • Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hanukkah
  • Weddings or civil partnerships
  • Anniversaries
  • New births

 

2: The recipient is connected

The gift must be made to:

  • A family member
  • A friend or other person connected to them
  • A charity they have supported or might reasonably have been expected to support

 

3: The gift is reasonable in value

What is “reasonable” will depend on:

  • The size of the estate
  • P’s anticipated future care costs
  • Life expectancy
  • Income against expenditure
  • Existing financial commitments
  • Previous gifting patterns

 

The de minimis exceptions

The Court of Protection recognises that, in limited circumstances, a gift may technically exceed a Deputy’s authority but only to a minor extent such that a formal application is not required. These are referred to as ‘de minimis exceptions’ and apply only where P’s estate has a value of £325,000 or more.

When determining whether a gift falls within the de minimis exception, the Deputy must consider:

  • P’s life expectancy
  • The affordability of the proposed gift
  • Whether the proposed gift would affect P’s care costs, standard of care or quality of life
  • Whether there is any evidence that P would object to the gift being made on their behalf

The de minimis exception does not apply in the following circumstances, and an application to the Court of Protection will still be required:

  • Loans to the Deputy or members of their family
  • Investments in the Deputy’s business
  • Sales or purchases at an undervalue
  • Transactions giving rise to a conflict of interest between P and the Deputy

 

What Deputies cannot do without Court approval

An application must be made to the Court of Protection where a Deputy proposes to:

  • Make substantial gifts outside normal customary occasions
  • Undertake inheritance tax mitigation through significant lifetime gifting
  • Transfer property to family members
  • Create trusts
  • Use P’s funds to maintain someone other than P
  • Make loans
  • Alter property ownership structures
  • Equalise inheritance between children
  • Continue a historic pattern of high-value gifting

 

For the full guidance please click on the link Giving gifts – 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.

 

Understanding the Role of Each Grade Fee Earner in Court of Protection: A Breakdown of Responsibilities

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

Navigating the complexities of Court of Protection requires a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the various fee earners involved in the process. From apprentices and paralegals through to senior partners, each grade of fee earner plays a vital part in managing and overseeing costs, ensuring that both legal obligations and client needs are met efficiently. In this blog, we will explore the specific tasks and duties that correspond to each grade of fee earner, offering insight into how their work contributes to the overall success of Court of Protection cases and the accurate management of associated costs.

Grade D

Grade D fee earners refer to trainee solicitors, paralegals, and other fee earners, such as administrative assistants. These fee earners are not qualified lawyers.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade D fee earners include the following:

  • Arranging payments
  • Reviewing invoices
  • Considering incoming correspondence
  • Liaising with the DWP in relation to benefits
  • Preparing standard forms, such as banking forms
  • Amending standing orders
  • Considering bank statements
  • Attending the property for insurance visits.

These tasks are undertaken by Grade D fee earners to assist with the Protected Party’s daily life. Grade D fee earners will often be delegated tasks by more senior fee earners or seek instructions to reduce the costs incurred to the Protected Party. The tasks carried out usually require minimal specialist knowledge and consist of simpler duties to enable the day-to-day management of the case.

Grade C

Grade C fee earners consist of solicitors or legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience. These fee earners are usually qualified, however, senior paralegals can also be categorised as Grade C based on extensive Court of Protection experience.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade C fee earners include the following:

  • Preparing the annual Deputyship report
  • Preparing benefits forms
  • Considering the insurance position
  • Reviewing care plans
  • Drafting COP forms

Grade C fee earners usually have regular day-to-day conduct of the file and will complete tasks to reduce the costs incurred to the Protected Party. However, these tasks may be slightly more complex and require further specialist knowledge than unqualified persons (Grade D) to enable completion. In practice, Grade C fee earners are often the backbone of the day-to-day management of the case. They ensure that routine matters such as reporting, correspondence, and documentation are handled effectively while providing intermediate-level legal support. Their ability to balance both practical and legal considerations helps keep costs manageable while still meeting legal standards.

Grade B

Grade B fee earners include solicitors and legal executives who have been qualified for a minimum of four years.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade B fee earners include the following:

  • Liaising with P and their family as the main point of contact
  • Preparing budgets
  • Preparing Witness Statements
  • Liaising with the care home regarding P
  • Making simpler best interests decisions

Claiming Grade B in cases is challenging due to the complexity of tasks to be undertaken, requiring extensive legal knowledge that would necessitate a more senior fee earner than Grade D or C. However, the tasks are not quite complex enough to warrant the expertise of a Grade A fee earner, such as the Deputy. As there is no exhaustive list of specific tasks, it can be difficult to justify why a Grade B fee earner was required to conduct the work in the place of a lower grade fee earner. Grade B fee earners take on a supervisory role in cases, often overseeing the more detailed aspects of the case while ensuring compliance with Court of Protection requirements. Their work bridges the gap between the more routine tasks carried out by Grade C or D fee earners and the high-level strategic oversight of a Grade A fee earner.

Grade A

Grade A fee earners consist of solicitors and legal executives who have been qualified for over 8 years.

Tasks commonly undertaken by Grade A fee earners include the following:

  • Certifying and signing documents
  • Approving payments
  • Making complex and costly best interests decisions
  • Delegating tasks
  • Attending on P for the annual Deputy visit
  • Attending on the IFA
  • Reviewing investment and portfolio reports

Grade A fee earners have minimal overall day-to-day navigation of the matter due to the higher hourly rate charged and therefore the additional costs that would be incurred to the Protected Party. This is because they are focused on providing specialised expertise or high-level legal advice rather than managing the day-to-day administrative tasks and procedural aspects of a case. Their role is usually more strategic, handling complex legal issues and ensuring that the case aligns with broader legal principles. In practice, Grade A fee earners are responsible for making decisions with long-term implications, including the management of assets, complex best interests decisions, and compliance with legal requirements. As a result, the administrative tasks, client communication and file management responsibilities often fall to more junior staff, such as Grade C fee earners or paralegals, who are responsible for maintaining the case on a practical level. This division allows Grade A fee earners to focus on their area of expertise while delegating routine tasks to those with less specialised experience.

In conclusion, understanding the specific responsibilities of each grade fee earner in Court of Protection cases is essential for both managing costs effectively and ensuring the protection and care of vulnerable individuals. From the foundational tasks handled by junior fee earners to the more complex responsibilities undertaken by senior professionals, each role plays a vital part in maintaining the smooth operation of the case. By clearly outlining the tasks and responsibilities across different grades, legal teams can work more efficiently, ensuring that every aspect of the case is addressed with the appropriate level of expertise. This collaborative approach helps to balance both legal and financial obligations, ultimately benefiting the clients who rely on the Court of Protection system for support and guidance.

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

Re ACC and Others: Guidance from the OPG

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

On 9 January 2026, the Office of the Public Guardian published new guidance on Re ACC & Others, setting out their position on this judgement. This guidance explains how Deputies should apply the Re ACC and Others judgment from the Court of Protection and what actions the Office of the Public Guardian expects Deputies to take to remain compliant.

 

For background, this judgement sets out positions on issues concerning the authorities a professional Deputy will need to obtain legal services and how to manage any conflicts of interests.

 

The judgement sets out the position on the general authority of a Deputy. This is defined as the common or day to day tasks that are required to be undertaken to administer P’s estate effectively. Deputies have legal authority to act on behalf of someone who lacks capacity, but that authority is defined strictly by the court order that appointed them. The Re ACC judgment clarified what Deputies can and can’t do without asking the court for extra permission. The guidance explains how Deputies should act within those rules and manage legal work or potential conflicts of interest.

 

 

Deputies automatically have general authority to carry out everyday financial tasks if the court order includes those powers. That generally covers things like:

 

  • Managing bank accounts and investments
  • Letting or maintaining property
  • Preparing tax returns
  • Ensuring care costs are paid

 

 

However, this only applies as long as the activity is within the scope of authority granted by the court order. Deputies acting outside their authority do so at personal risk. Tasks which fall out of the general authority as outlined in the Deputyship Order template include:

 

  • Purchase of freehold or leasehold property
  • Sell, lease or charge freehold or leasehold property
  • Appoint an investment manager
  • Use P’s funds to provide for others
  • Make gifts to charity
  • Obtain a grant of representation
  • Execute or sign deeds or documents

 

It is important to note that unless specific authority is granted in the Deputyship Order, a property and affairs Deputy does not have authority to perform any of the above tasks. If a task isn’t expressly allowed by the Court Order, you must apply to the court for specific authorisation.

 

Litigation

 

Deputies cannot initiate litigation on behalf of P without specific authorisation from the Court of Protection. If a Deputy has specific authorisation to carry out certain tasks, they have authority to engage up to the point of receiving the Letter of Response, but no further.

 

If the contentious litigation may relate to personal welfare decisions, a Deputy cannot initiate litigation but can seek directions from the Court of Protection. Further, the general authority in a property and affairs Deputyship Order does not include appealing against a decision in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because this is a personal welfare issue.

 

Whereby urgent litigation is required, the Deputy may proceed at risk but should seek retrospective authorisation. However, this is not guaranteed to be given.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

This guidance confirms the position on conflicts of interest should a Deputy wish to instruct a member of their own firm. To do so, prior authorisation from the Court must be obtained to carry out this work. If specific authority has not been granted, a Deputy should obtain three competitive quotes from suitable providers and choose the provider that best meets the person’s interests.

 

If these costs are expected to exceed £2,000 plus VAT, authority from the Court is required.

 

Position of the Office of the Public Guardian

 

The Office of the Public Guardian has a statutory duty to supervise all court appointed Deputies. They expect all Deputies to clearly demonstrate they have authority to undertake the work, show how conflicts of interest have been managed and include relevant decisions with respect to Re ACC in the annual Deputyship report. If a Deputy wishes to instruct a member of their own team, they must apply to the court for authorisation whereby projected costs are likely to exceed £2,000 plus VAT.

 

If a case has completed prior to the release of this judgement, the Office of the Public Guardian does not expect applications for retrospective authority to be necessary. However, the Office of the Public Guardian takes the stance that the conflict of interest set out in Re ACC extends to any instance whereby the Deputy is considering utilising services for P from their own firm and this constitutes a potential conflict of interest.

 

In Summary

 

This new guidance reinforces the importance of staying within the authority granted by the court, seeking specific court authorisation for litigation or other high value actions, managing conflicts of interest transparently and reporting properly to the Office of the Public Guardian about decisions made on behalf of P.

 

If you have any questions or would like further information about any of the above, please contact Laura Sugarman on laura.sugarman@clarionsolicitors.com

 

 

 

 

 

W v P [2025] EWCOP 11 (T3): A Recent Decision in the Court of Protection

Lydia MarshallLeave a comment

The case of W v P [2025] EWCOP 11 (T3) is a significant decision from the Court of Protection that sheds light on key aspects of mental capacity law and decision-making in vulnerable individuals. The case touches upon the legal principles underpinning the Mental Capacity Act 2005, particularly regarding the balancing of an individual’s rights and the need for protective intervention.

Background

W v P involved a complex dispute over whether P should be subjected to certain types of care and treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The issue at hand was whether the Court should authorize certain actions that would otherwise infringe upon P’s rights.

P had been diagnosed with a condition that severely impaired their mental capacity, affecting their ability to make decisions regarding their care and welfare. A key aspect of the case was whether P could make decisions about their daily living arrangements and, if not, who should have the authority to make these decisions on their behalf.

The applicant in this case, W, was seeking to secure specific decisions about P’s welfare and medical care. The court had to examine whether those decisions were in P’s best interests and whether they adhered to the legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act.

Key Legal Issues

  1. Best Interests Test: Central to the case was the application of the best interests Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, any decision made on behalf of someone who lacks capacity must be based on what is in their best interests. This means the court must consider the person’s wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values where possible, and take into account their prior wishes and any relevant evidence.
  2. Autonomy vs Protection: The court considered the balance between respecting an individual’s autonomy and ensuring protection for those who are vulnerable. The court was tasked with determining the extent to which P’s rights to autonomy could be limited in favour of ensuring their safety and well-being.
  3. Lack of Capacity: P’s lack of capacity to make decisions was central to the case. The court had to assess the degree to which P was unable to understand or make decisions about their care and treatment.
  4. Role of Family Members: The role of family members was also critical in this case. W, as the applicant, sought to ensure that the decisions made on P’s behalf were in line with what P would have wanted. However, the court also had to weigh in on whether these decisions were truly in P’s best interests, even if they conflicted with the views of family members.

Court’s Decision

The Court of Protection ultimately decided that the care and treatment decisions proposed by W were appropriate, taking into account expert evidence, the views of healthcare professionals, and what could be determined about P’s past wishes. The judgment emphasized the importance of involving those close to P, such as family members, but also that the court must ultimately make decisions based on the best interests of the individual to ensure personal freedom is not infringed upon unless absolutely necessary.

Implications for the Future

The case of W v P reinforces that while autonomy is a key principle, there are circumstances where individuals may need protective measures to safeguard their well-being. It is important to consider the balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and respecting their autonomy when making such decisions. This case also serves as a vital example for legal professionals, carers, and healthcare providers, highlighting the complexities involved in making decisions for those who lack mental capacity.

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 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.

SCCO – Note to Practitioners July 2024

Ellie Howard-Taylor1 Comment

Earlier this month the SCCO released a note to all Court of Protection (COP) practitioners and users of the SCCO. As the majority are aware, there are significant delays at the SCCO and unfortunately we have not seen any major change to this over the last year. However, during these delays there are a number of things you as COP practitioners can be doing to speed up the process.

E-Bills

In November 2022 the E-bill was introduced and launched for all COP assessments at the SCCO. You should now only be submitting an E-bill with the SCCO for assessment. The SCCO have asked that you check filings to ensure they are accurate  and contain the correct information before submitting for assessment. The E-bills must be completed and signed by the appropriate persons in tab 11, please note that it must be an electronic signature.

Bill title – This should clearly state the type of costs being claimed and the authority being cited.  For General Management bills, both start and end dates of the period must be provided.  If you are claiming more than one type of costs and have more than one court order giving authority for assessment, this should be clear from the title.

Further information on common errors which have been identified in the E-bill has been produced by the SCCO and is available from the SCCO directly. Please email scco@justice.gov.uk

Orders

In most cases, the Deputyship order will provide authority for a detailed assessment of costs for a standard general management period. However, where a Deputy is replying on an Order in addition to the Deputyship Order for the assessment of costs, for example an ACC Order of authority to purchase a property, it is necessary to ensure that Order is filed when filing the E-bill.

For instances where you have not received the Order, it is necessary to include a comment in the filing comments section and ensure that the Order is filed as soon as received.

CE File

When filing any type of bill, please ensure that the filing ‘sub-type’ selected is the correct one

– For COP-E Bills, choose ‘COP-E Bill (profit costs….)’
– For traditional paper bills, choose ‘Bill (profit costs….)’

– The costs band selected should be based on the profit costs alone (without disbursements or VAT) and not the grand total of the bill.

The filing of supporting papers

Where you have a physical paper file, a bill will only reach the Costs Officers’ queue once the supporting documentation has been received.

In addition, it is necessary to ensure the filing acceptance is included within the supporting papers and an address is clearly written for the return of the papers.

Where you have an electronic bundle of papers to upload via the Document Upload Centre (DUC) and if you are registered as a permanent user, the SCCO have indicated that they would assume supporting documentation would be uploaded to the DUC and the bill will be placed into the queue. If you are only a partial use of the DUC you must indicate in the filing comments whether you are filing papers for the bill on the DUC.

Absence of any comments for a partial user will presume a physical copy of papers will be submitted, which could result in a delay.

Supporting papers (electronic files)

The SCCO have provided guidance on how the electronic files should appear:

  • The SCCO reference should be included in the case reference field
  • There should be an index provided in which each item/page has a clear description and the date of the document.

They further advised that within the beginning of the bundle there should be:

  • OPG102 and OPG10
  • Client care letter/engagement letter
  • Counsel fee notes (where appropriate)
  • Invoices for any disbursements claimed by the Deputy

Following these documents:

  • The file of papers should be in chronological order from the oldest to newest
  • All emails should show the date clearly, time and who they were to and from
  • File notes and attendance notes should clearly state the date, fee earner and time claimed.

Bill Details

On tab 2 of the E-bill, the OPG105 estimate should be included. Where this has been exceeded by more than 20%, an explanation should be given. Where there is no OPG105 estimate because it was an application or first general management period, this box should not be empty. Instead enter ‘N/A First Year’ or N/A Application’.

Directly underneath is the assets value box. Again here there should a value in this box, but there the value is unknown please include an explanation as to why.

If you have any questions regarding the information above, please get in touch with myself at ellie.howard-taylor@clarionsolicitors.com or contact the SCCO directly at scco@justice.gov.uk.

 

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 latest update on COP assessment delays from the SCCO

Lydia MarshallLeave a comment

The SCCO has released a new update providing a further update on the current turnaround for COP assessments and e-filing.

In summary, the Costs Officers are currently assessing bills received around the middle of June 2023, and the Admin Team are working on returning bills that have been assessed, and were received by them in the 3rd week of April 2024.

With regards to e-filing, new filings submitted around the 2nd week of January 2024 are currently being dealt with, and final costs certificate requests received in the 4th week of April 2024 are being processed at present.

Whilst the SCCO have asked customers not to chase any bill that falls into the 15 month window, as outlined above, we recommend keeping a record of when bills were submitted and accepted at the SCCO and to chase anything that is now greater than 15 months.

You can contact the SCCO directly at scco@justice.gov.uk with any queries or speak to your Cost Draftsman who may be able to assist. When contacting the SCCO directly, please provide the SCCO reference for a quicker response.

Please see below the notice directly from the SCCO with guidance on what to expect with regards to the delays.

Notice-to-COP-Customers-29.04.2024Download

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