Tag: courtofprotection

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.

Updated practice guidance released by the OPG and SCCO – an important reference point for professional deputies!

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

On 28 May 2025, the good practice guidance previously issued by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) was updated. This guidance exists to assist professional deputies in respect of their costs estimates, preparing and submitting bills for assessment and in understanding what work can be claimed and recovered. The vast majority of the contents remain similar to the original guidance released by the OPG and SCCO dating back to 2016 in respect of the expectations from professional deputies in regards to general good practice and the SCCO’s approach to assessment, however more recent developments have now been factored in such as the use of the E-bill and the CE File system, the case of ACC and Others, the latest stance regarding post death costs and the increased hardship threshold.

This blog summarises the key points raised, to ensure that professional deputies continue act in P’s best interests and comply with the requirements of the OPG, SCCO and Court of Protection. Importantly, the guidance issued is not intended to replace existing provisions such as the relevant Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 19B (supplementing Part 19 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017), the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice, and the OPG professional deputy standards.

Principles of Good Practice

Professional deputies are entitled to claim reasonable and proportionate costs. Key expectations include:

  • Aligning costs with the value of P’s estate and the work involved
  • Delegating tasks to appropriately graded staff
  • Acting transparently and always in P’s best interests
  • Evaluating whether their continued role remains necessary as P’s situation stabilizes
  • Where deemed appropriate, deputies should be open and transparent about their charges with P’s relatives

Deputies who fail to follow this guidance may need to justify their decisions, and the OPG may take action, including applications to remove a deputy where concerns arise.

Costs Estimates

  • The OPG105 must be submitted with the annual deputyship report, and in most cases it should take no more than 30 minutes to complete
  • If billed costs exceed the original costs estimate by 20% or more, deputies must explain the discrepancy
  • Significant changes in P’s circumstances should be reported to the OPG if they will impact costs

Assessment of General Management Costs

The SCCO’s role is to assess whether claimed costs are reasonable and proportionate. Their key considerations include:

  • Hourly Rates: these must generally align with the relevant SCCO Guideline Hourly Rates (except in the most exceptional circumstances)
  • Delegation: routine tasks, such as arranging payments or bank reconciliations, should be completed by administrative staff or Grade D fee earners at best. In addition, when reviewing time claimed for delegation, the SCCO will consider if the time clamed was reasonable, proportionate, progressive and that it serves to reduce costs
  • Home Visits & Contact: usually, only one home visit per year is allowed unless justified
  • Welfare Work: these cannot be claimed under property and affairs general management costs unless the Court of Protection gives permission
  • Overheads: routine supervision, internal communication, and basic administrative tasks are considered overheads and are not generally not recoverable
  • Payment of Bills: three minutes will be allowed for payments per instance, and no further time is usually allowed for amending records to reflect payments made or advising a party of a payment processed to them
  • Financial Beauty Parades: generally, only one senior fee earner will be allowed on assessment for attending these meetings
  • File Notes: if no or little documentary evidence is supplied in support of the bill and/or particular items of work claimed, it is likely that the SCCO will disallow the costs claimed
  • Litigation Costs: the SCCO will disallow costs which could be claimed within the context of ongoing litigation
  • Draftsman’s Fees: a Grade D rate will be allowed for the preparation of bills of costs, unless in exceptional circumstances

ACC & Others Judgment

Where work falls outside of the scope of general authority for the management of P’s property and financial affairs, a professional deputy may need to apply for further authority in respect of this work and the associated costs as per ACC & Others. The full judgment can be seen here: ACC & Ors ( property and affairs deputy ; recovering assets costs for legal proceedings) – Find Case Law – The National Archives, and we have also previously prepared a blog summarising this and the practical implications for deputies which can be found here: ACC & Others – A Useful Recap – Clarion Legal Costs

Submissions of Bills of Costs & Supporting Documentation

  • Bills of costs should ideally be submitted annually for assessment, as close to the end of the management year as possible
  • Bills covering less than a year can be submitted where there has been a transfer of deputyship and the deputy intends to realign the management period dates with the new order. If this transfer is internal within the same firm, such bills must span at least six months of work unless in exceptional circumstances
  • Bills must be submitted via CE file, and can either be the traditional bills of costs set out under Practice Direction 47 CPR Part 47, or in the newer E-Bill format
  • The short form bill format is required where costs claimed are under £3,000.00 (excluding VAT and any disbursements claimed)
  • Supporting documents submitted alongside the bill should include the OPG105, deputyship report (OPG102/103), any relevant Orders made by the Court of Protection providing authority for work falling outside of the general authority, as well as evidence in support of the hourly rates claimed (client care paperwork)

Post-Death Costs and Hardship

On P’s death, the deputyship will come to an end and the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection will cease. Costs incurred post-death are not assessable by the SCCO. The deputyship order however will continue to authorise detailed assessment of costs incurred during P’s lifetime, if these cannot be agreed with the executor of the estate. If the professional deputy is also appointed as executor, a potential conflict of interest arises and a bill of costs should be submitted to the SCCO for assessment.

Where P’s estate has a value of less than £20,300.00, deputies must follow specific directions set out under Practice Direction 19B with regards to hardship. This states that in such circumstances, ‘the professional deputy for property and affairs is not permitted to apply for assessed costs; instead they may take an annual management fee not exceeding 4.5% of P’s net assets on the anniversary of the court order appointing the professional as deputy’.

Summary

The guidance aims to encourage fairness, consistency, and clarity in the way the costs of professional deputies are managed and assessed. For deputies, it reinforces the importance of transparency, efficiency, and the diligent management of P’s affairs.

Professional deputies are urged to familiarise and refresh themselves with the full guidance and relevant existing provisions to ensure that they continue to act in line with best practice expectations and requirements.

If you would like to review the guidance in full, this can be found at: Professional Deputy Costs – GOV.UK

Hardship cases – the practical implications of acting as Deputy when there is no money left

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

P is classed as hardship where their net assets at the anniversary of the Deputyship Order are less than £16,000.00. In such cases, a Deputy cannot have their costs assessed and will instead be limited to a fee not exceeding 4.5% of the value of P’s estate, as per Practice Direction 19B of the Court of Protection Rules (2017) which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pd-19b-fixed-costs.pdf  

However, where the Deputy, for instance, has incurred work for the management year of approximately £10,000.00, has already billed £7,500.00 in accordance with the Practice Direction and the procedures for quarterly interim billing, and P has a net estate value of £20,000.00 at the end of the management period, it is unlikely that the final settling bill following assessment of the bill of costs will take P under the hardship threshold. As such, in such a circumstance the Deputy’s bill of costs will not have technically taken P into hardship, and a slight grey area in this regard exists in that the Deputy can still have their costs assessed, though it is not always favourable by the Office of the Public Guardian.

Further grey areas arise where the Deputy may be one of several organisations to be owed money, but there may be a limited pot of money to meet the outstanding liabilities. There is no guidance to suggest that the Deputy’s costs are further down the pecking order than any other liability, however, it is best to contact the OPG in these circumstances to ensure that they agree with the billing approach.

Similarly, if billing the entire value of the Deputy’s work will take P’s assets below the £16,000.00 threshold, it may be appropriate to make a decision to only bill a proportion of the costs incurred. This would be in P’s best interests and would ensure that the assets do not fall below the threshold. It is recommended that costs are still assessed in these circumstances and that the Final Costs Certificate is obtained, but that a reasonable sum is billed as opposed to the full amount owing. If P’s assets are fluctuating, this allows for the Deputy to bill the remaining allowed costs as and when P is in a financial position to pay.

The case of Penntrust Ltd v West Berkshire District Council & Anor (2020) previously dealt with a common issue surrounding what is classed as a net asset for the purposes of calculating whether P fell below the hardship threshold for the purposes of having costs assessed. The case concerned in particular whether a property owned by P should be disregarded from the net assets calculations. The case concluded that property owned by P will be classed as a net asset for these purposes, even if P or a dependant of P resides in it. The case highlighted the logic of “total assets less total liabilities”. If P has over £16,000.00 on the anniversary when any liabilities are subtracted from the total value of the estate, then costs can be assessed.

More recently, the Costs Officers at the SCCO have been increasingly insistent in being provided with details of P’s estate within the narrative of bills of costs prepared, to ensure that a) P is not below the hardship threshold or that the bill drawn up will not take P into this, and b) to ensure proportionality in respect of the size of P’s estate and the costs being claimed.

For more information or any queries, please contact Ella Wilkinson who is an Associate in the Court of Protection branch of the Costs & Litigation Funding Team at Clarion at ella.wilkinson@clarionsolicitors.com. You can also find out more about our services here.

New update from SCCO on delays with COP assessments

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

This evening, the SCCO have circulated a further update notice on the current timescales for the assessment of COP bills.

In summary:

  • The Costs Officers are being assigned bills for assessment for cases where the supporting papers were received during or after the 2nd week of October
  • The Administrative Team are returning assessed bills received from the Costs Officers around the middle of March
  • New bill filings submitted in the 3rd week of February are being considered for acceptance or rejection
  • Filings requesting final costs certificates submitted in the 2nd week of April are currently being worked through

Please see below a full copy of the notice released for the full details.

Notice-to-COP-customers-19-April-2022-SCCO-1Download

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

Recent Developments from the Professional Deputies Forum

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

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

Interim payments and fixed costs

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

SCCO delays

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

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

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

New update from SCCO on COP assessment delays

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

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

In summary, turnaround is as follows at present:

  • Bills received at the beginning of September 2021 are currently being assessed
  • The Admin Team are processing the return of assessed bills received back from the Costs Officers in the third week of January
  • New filings for assessment received around the middle of January are being considered for acceptance/rejection
  • Certificate request filings received in the last week of February are currently being reviewed and actioned

Please see the link below for the full notice released:

Notice-to-COP-customers-07-March-2022-SCCODownload

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

Further update from SCCO on COP assessment delays

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

Please see below an update notice released by the SCCO this afternoon, providing a further update on the current turnaround times for COP assessments.

In summary, the Costs Officers are currently assessing bills received around mid August 2021, and the Admin Team are working on returning bills that have been assessed, and are currently up to those assessed just before Christmas.

With regards to e-filing, new filings submitted towards the start of January are currently being dealt with, and final costs certificate requests received towards the end of January are being processed at present.

Update-Notice-to-COP-customers-21.02.22Download

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

Case law surrounding fluctuating capacity – Liverpool City Council v CMW (2021)

Tanya ForanLeave a comment

The issue of fluctuating and issue specific capacity was considered in this recent case.

The matter related to whether a young woman had the capacity to make decisions in specific areas including the conduct of proceedings, the management of her affairs, her care and residence, her contact with others, the use of social media including the internet and whether she could engage in sexual relations.

P was an 18-year-old woman with a troubled background including a recent suicide attempt and had been the subject of a Care Order from 13th May 2008. At the time of the hearing, she resided in supported living accommodation and was supervised by the Local Authority. She was subjected to restrictions as to whom she was able to contact following a Care Order in 2008 and a series of interim COP orders. P was diagnosed with ADHD, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and specific difficulties relating to cognition and communication.

The Court was provided with two written reports from Dr Angela Rippon, a consultant psychiatrist with considerable experience and expertise and written evidence from Social Services and the Official Solicitor’s representative’s notes of conversations with held with P. The expert considered that P’s expressive language was quite good but her receptive and processing skills were only those of a child aged 7 to 9. It was held that she did not have a learning disability but that she had what Dr Rippon described as a functional disorder.

The Court was satisfied that the medical evidence showed that the functioning of P’s mind was impaired and that she lacked the capacity to conduct proceedings and manage her own affairs as she could not understand the relevant issues that need to be weighed to make decisions in these matters. The Court also found that she lacked the capacity to make decisions relating to her residence, care, and her contact with others because “she seriously overestimates her own ability to keep herself safe and to control her life and seriously underestimates the consequences for her welfare of independence”. The Court also found that she did not understand the support that she needed or why she needed it and was concerned with what would happen if she did not have that support or refused it.

It was also held by the Court that P’s potential capacity would fluctuate depending on the extent to which she was either calm or distressed and this would need to be considered in future years, as there were grounds for improvement. The Court concluded that although potential capacity did fluctuate, even at her calmest, P did not achieve a level of functioning that would amount to having capacity in relation particularly to residence, care and contact but that she had the capacity to deal with social media, the internet, and engage in sexual relations.

A best interests hearing was scheduled by the Court for the areas in which P lacked capacity and authorised the continuation of the Local Authority’s care plan in the interim.

The full judgment can be found here –https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2021/50.html

For more information please contact Tanya Foran by email at Tanya.Foran@clarionsolicitors.com.

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 a non-solicitor Deputy charge solicitor fees?

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

In the recent case of Riddle v Public Guardian [2021] EWCOP 38, an application was made for Permission to Appeal from two judgments of HHJ Hilder, dated 11 August 2020 and 4 September 2020, which are reported as The Public Guardian v Andrew Riddle (No1 and No2) [2020] EWCOP 41.

By way of background, Mr Riddle is Managing Director of Professional Deputies, offering services in acting as appointee, Deputy, or Attorney, and assisting applicants in making applications to the Court. However, he is not a qualified solicitor. The prior hearings concerned, amongst other factors, whether the professional Deputy should be authorised to charge fees at a solicitors’ rate, or whether their charges could fall somewhere in between the public authority and solicitor rates. In addition, whether a professional Deputy could be remunerated at a higher rate than public authority Deputies was also considered, and the conclusion of the Court was that they could not.

The application for permission to appeal was originally rejected on the papers, however a renewed oral application was allowed. There were three grounds of appeal (with Ground 1 being split into two parts):

  • That the Judge erred in her general conclusions that Mr Riddle should not be afforded a specific rate
  • That the estates of Protected Parties would commonly be dealt with by Solicitors, and that inadequate weight was placed on the benefit to P of having a professional Deputy
  • That the Judge erred in her refusal to grant Mr Riddle’s application for relief from liability for past charging
  • That the Judge erred in refusing the application made for the Public Guardian to pay Mr Riddle’s costs associated with responding to the revocation application (save for the costs associated with Mr Riddle paying his legal fees from the estates of Protected Parties and restoring the estates in this regard)

On consideration of the grounds and the submissions made by both parties, it was decided that the arguments presented had no reasonable prospect of success and were bound to fail. As a result of the above, permission to appeal on the presented grounds was refused, affirmed as per an Order dated 19 March 2021.

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