Tag: Deputyship

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.

The Deputyship Standards

Laura SugarmanLeave a comment

The Deputyship standards have been developed with both professional and public bodies and form an important view of the new approach to support and supervise professional and public authority Deputies. The Deputyship standards clearly set out what is expected of a professional Deputy and provide an important checklist of actions every Deputy should follow. The Deputyship Standards are set by the Office of the Public Guardian.


The standards fall into the following categories; secure P’s finances and assets, gain insight into P in order to make best interests decisions on his behalf, maintain effective processes and organization, have the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out the work expected of a professional Deputy and finally, health and welfare standards.


In terms of securing P’s finances and assets, clear guidance is set out outlining the Deputy’s duty from receipt of the Deputyship Order with respect P’s assets and liabilities. The Deputy is required to carry out a benefits review and ensure that benefits and savings reviews are carried out on behalf of P annually. Guidance is also provided regarding P’s property whereby they no longer reside in the same. A Deputy is required to carry out a property inspection once a year to ensure the property is safe and secure and should also complete an inventory of contents confirming the total value of the same. If P does still reside in his property, the Deputy is required to review the suitability of the property and consider the rent/mortgage payments to ensure all was in order.

The Deputy is required to gain an insight into P in order to make best interest decisions on their behalf. In order to do this, the Deputy should ensure the necessary capacity assessments have been undertaken and are completely up to date. The Deputy should also discuss P’s wishes and feelings and record details of these appropriately. The Deputy must also maintain regular contact with P and his family and visit P once a year.
By maintaining effective processes and organization, the Deputy must establish clear and effective governance between the named Deputy and staff delegated to carry out the relevant tasks on behalf of P. Necessary supervision should also be given to more junior members of staff and the necessary criteria must be considered whereby a best interests decision is required.


The Deputy must have the necessary skillset and knowledge to carry out the work expected of a professional Deputy. This includes ensuring that the Deputy and all delegated members of staff understand the MCA the Code of Practice and the five statutory principles of the MCA and how they are applied within working practices. The Deputy is required to have sufficient knowledge surrounding inheritance tax provisions and have access to appropriate advice and expertise on the same. Also, the Deputy should have access to appropriate advice and expertise regarding tax returns. Furthermore, should any family conflict arise, the Deputy should have awareness of or experience in managing mediation. Without this, a Deputy would not be able to act in the best interests of P and carry out the necessary work at the level expected of a professional Deputy.


Health and welfare standards only apply to those Deputies who hold a health and welfare Order or both a property and financial affairs and health and welfare Order. Standards include, if DOLS is in place, the Deputy must ensure that this is current and up to date. A Deputy must also ensure that a health assessment or review is carried out every year. It is also necessary for the Deputy to keep all professionals involved within P’s care fully updated with respect all matters.


It is imperative that the Deputy follow these guidelines and adhere to the Deputyship standards. These ensure that the Deputy is acting in the best interests of P. In order to ensure that the Deputy is following these standards, regular assurance visits will be carried out. If a Deputy is found to be not following the standards, an action plan will be agreed and put in place in order to address and rectify any of the areas where improvement is required.


Laura Gillin is an associate in the costs and litigation funding team at Clarion. You can contact her at laura.gillin@clarionsolicitors.com or on 0113 227 3631.

Successful appeal against a Judge’s decision in respect of the Protected Party’s Deprivation of Liberty

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

In the case of CB v Medway Council & Anor (Appeal) [2019] EWCOP, the Official Solicitor appealed against a decision which justified the Protected Party’s Deprivation of Liberty.

The Protected Party was a 91 year old female, who no longer lived at her own property following a fall and persistent urinary tract infections. The Protected Party resided at a care home and was provided with a care package, which ultimately was said to have not worked out. The Protected Party’s litigation friend, the Official Solicitor, made an application to enable the Protected Party to reside at her own property, however, the Judge dismissed this application using her summary power.

The Official Solicitor disagreed with the decision of the Judge and therefore appealed the same. The Official Solicitor argued that the Judge did not abide by her duty to ensure that the Protected Party’s best interests were considered as the Judge had failed to allow the Official Solicitor to gather further evidence to support the argument in relation to the feasibility of the Protected Party returning to live at her property. The Court allowed the appeal as the Protected Party’s Deprivation of Liberty should have been considered and thoroughly explored, rather than the Judge dismissing the application based on speculation and general experience within similar cases.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Casey McGregor or the team at COPCosts@clarionsolicitors.com

The Application for permission to Deprive the Protected Party (a minor) of his Liberty in circumstances where there was no secure accommodation available.

Stephanie KayeLeave a comment

This was an application by a Local Authority in relation to a young boy; the Protected Party, who is now 13. He previously lived with his grandmother under a Special Guardianship Order, but became the subject of a full care Order in December 2015. The Protected Party had displayed a desperate history and a catalogue of very seriously uncontrolled behaviour, damaging to both himself and others. As a result, he had been placed in no less than six different residential settings. Each setting ultimately broke down, sometimes very rapidly, as the staff there were simply unable to manage his behaviour and keep him safe.

The Local Authority would have wished by June 2017 to place the Protected Party in an approved secure accommodation placement. Such placements are very scarce and they were unable to find one. So, they hoped to place him in a unit which was not an approved secure accommodation at X. Their plan was, however, that within X he should, if necessary, be subject to considerable restraint, including physical restraint, in order to keep him safe and prevent him from absconding, as he had done on occasions in the past.

Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 makes express and detailed provision for the making of what are known as Secure Accommodation Orders. Such Orders may be made and, indeed, frequently are made by Courts, including Courts composed of lay magistrates. It is not necessary to apply to the High Court for a Secure Accommodation Order, however, as no approved secure accommodation was available, the Local Authority required the authorisation of a Court for the inevitable Deprivation of Liberty of the Protected Party. Mr Justice Holman expressed his concern over the way in which Applications of this sort were handled, saying that “the device of resort to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is operating to by-pass the important safeguard under the regulations of approval by the Secretary of State of establishments used as secure accommodation. There is a grave risk that the safeguard of approval by the Secretary of State is being denied to some of the most damaged and vulnerable children. This is a situation which cannot go on, and I intend to draw it to the attention of the President of the Family Division.” The Judge Ordered that the child now be joined as a party to these proceedings and Cafcass must allocate a Guardian to act on his behalf. A further hearing was ordered to be fixed in one month. It was stated that the Guardian must file and serve an interim report shortly before that hearing. Further, in view of the gravity of the subject matter and the age of the child, the Judge Ordered that he must be enabled to attend the hearing if he expresses a wish to do so unless the Guardian thought it would be damaging to the health, wellbeing or emotional stability of the child to do so. In his view it was very important that in these situations, which in plain language involve a child being ‘locked up’, the child concerned should, if he wishes, have an opportunity to attend a court hearing. The exception to that is clearly if the child is so troubled that it would be damaging to his health, wellbeing or emotional stability to do so.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Georgia Clarke (georgia.clarke@clarionsolicitors.com) or the team at COPCosts@clarionsolicitors.com.