Tag: professionaldeputy

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.