Direct Payments and Deputyship Costs: What Deputies Need to Know

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has provided further guidance following the decision in Re Direct Payments [2026] EWCOP 42 (T2).

The decision is particularly relevant to Deputies who have claimed costs for managing Direct Payments. It confirms that, where those costs have been incurred from 11 October 2024 onwards, retrospective authority from the Court of Protection is required.

This has practical consequences for both bills that are currently being assessed and bills that are yet to be prepared.

At a glance

If you are a Deputy who has dealt with Direct Payments, there are four key questions to consider:

  1. When were the Direct Payment costs incurred?
  2. Has the bill already been assessed?
  3. Has the Court of Protection authorised the management of the Direct Payments?
  4. Does the SCCO have the relevant orders and applications?

The answers will determine what steps need to be taken.

Why does the date 11 October 2024 matter?

The key date arising from the decision is 11 October 2024. Where costs relating to the management of Direct Payments were incurred from this date onwards, the Deputy must obtain the necessary authority from the Court of Protection if those costs are to be claimed.

This means that practitioners should review bills carefully where Direct Payment work forms part of the work undertaken during a general management period.

Where the relevant billing period ended before 11 October 2024, the bill can proceed through assessment in the usual way.

If your bill is already with the SCCO

If a bill has been filed but has not yet undergone provisional assessment, the next steps depend on the period covered by the bill.

  1. If the bill only covers costs before 11 October 2024

There is no change to the usual assessment process in respect of those costs.

  1. If the bill includes costs from 11 October 2024 onwards

The SCCO should be notified by email at SCCO@justice.gov.uk.

The notification should provide:

  • the SCCO reference number;
  • the protected party’s name;
  • the relevant general management period(s); and
  • the date on which the bill or bills were filed.

It should also explain that the bill contains Direct Payment costs and confirm that an application has been made to the Court of Protection seeking the necessary authority.

What happens then?

  • The SCCO will pause the assessment while the Court of Protection application is dealt with.
  • Once the Court of Protection order granting authority is available, the assessment can continue.
  • Importantly, the SCCO has confirmed that the bill will retain its position in the assessment queue.

What if the Court of Protection has already made its decision?

Once an order has been made, the next step is to provide the SCCO with the relevant documentation.

The documents should be filed through CE File on the existing case using:

  • Filing – Letter from Legal Representative/Deputy

Where authority has been granted

The following should be filed:

  • A covering letter + the Court of Protection order + a copy of the application

This gives the SCCO the information it needs to continue with the assessment.

Where authority has been refused

The position is different and practitioners should file:

  • The court order + a replacement bill excluding the Direct Payment costs

This enables the SCCO to proceed with the assessment without the costs for which authority has not been granted.

What should you do differently when preparing a new bill?

The SCCO guidance also provides an opportunity to make sure that new bills contain the relevant information from the outset. Where a Deputy has received Direct Payment funding, the background section of the bill should clearly identify the type of funding involved, whether NHS funding or Care Act funding. The bill should also set out details of any order that authorises the Deputy to manage those Direct Payments.

What if a Final Costs Certificate has already been issued?

A different approach may apply where a Final Costs Certificate (FCC) has already been issued.

In those circumstances, practitioners should refer to Question 20 of Re Direct Payments [2026] EWCOP 42 (T2).

This is an important distinction, as the position for a bill that has already reached final certification is different from one that is still awaiting provisional assessment.

What about reassessment?

The SCCO has confirmed that requests for reassessment will be considered on their individual circumstances.

However, where the issue concerns Direct Payment costs incurred from 11 October 2024 onwards, practitioners should be aware that it is unlikely the dispute can be resolved until the appropriate Court of Protection authority has been provided.

Obtaining the necessary authority should therefore be considered before pursuing a reassessment where Direct Payment costs are in dispute.

A practical checklist for Deputies

Before submitting or progressing a bill, it is worth checking the following:

Before filing

  • ☐ Have any Direct Payments been received?
  • ☐ What type of funding was received?
  • ☐ Were any costs relating to their management incurred from 11 October 2024 onwards?
  • ☐ Is there an order authorising the management of those Direct Payments?
  • ☐ Have the relevant Court of Protection applications and orders been included with the supporting papers?

If the bill is already awaiting assessment

  • ☐ Has the SCCO been notified that the bill contains Direct Payment costs?
  • ☐ Has an application for retrospective authority been made?
  • ☐ Has the Court of Protection order been provided to the SCCO once received?

If authority is refused

  • ☐ Has the court order been filed?
  • ☐ Has a replacement bill been prepared excluding the relevant Direct Payment costs?

Need advice about a Direct Payment costs claim?

If you are a Deputy or legal professional dealing with a bill that includes costs relating to Direct Payments, it is important to consider the date on which the costs were incurred, the authority available and the stage the bill has reached in the SCCO process. It’s important to consider this guidance alongside the decision in Lumb to understand the implications fully. Please work with your costs provider to ensure that you include the relevant information in relation to Direct Payments sought within the narrative of the bill.

What Fixed Costs can be taken within Court of Protection cases?

Practice Direction 19 (b) sets out the fixed costs that may be claimed by solicitors and public authorities acting in Court of Protection proceedings. In line with the Practice Direction, the revised fixed fees for the Court of Protection, effective from 1 December 2017 is as follows:

 Fixed Fee (plus VAT)
Appointment of Financial and Property Deputy£950.00
Appointment of Health and Welfare Deputy£555.00
Appointment of a Trustee£500.00
First General Management Year£1670.00
General Management for the second and subsequent management years£1320.00
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
ConveyancingA value element of 0.15% of the consideration with a minimum sum of £400.00 and a maximum sum of £1,670.0 plus disbursements.
Interim PaymentsUp to 75% of the WIP incurred

If you take the fixed cost available, you forfeit the right to an assessment later down the line. If you have authority for the assessment of costs in your Order and you will exceed the fixed cost amount, we recommend that you opt for assessment instead as it’s very likely that you’ll recover more than the above amount. Despite several hourly rate changes in recent years, fixed costs have not changed, so they remain at a low level which most practitioners do not consider suitable for their cases.

The link to the Practice Direction can be found at: https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/fixed-costs-in-the-court-of-protection/

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