The Court of Protection

There was a curious headline in the Mail on Sunday yesterday. I was not curious enough to buy the paper but curious enough to investigate on the Mail website. Apparently, according to the journalist,

Secret court seizes £3.2bn from elderly… and even forces furious families to pay to access own bank account

Without any reading, I knew the reference was to the Court of Protection. I know I am in a slightly specialised area but I hadn’t considered it was a ‘secret’ court. I suspect that in mail-speak that means that they cannot sit in on its hearings but I had honestly thought it wouldn’t be something that most people would be interested to see covered as much as anything – let alone the fact that as all its hearings involve people who lack capacity, obviously the people in question are not often in a position to give permission to have the details of their lives and finances plastered around in public.

image Archway Tower (where the court is based) by markhillary at Flickr

Now, I am no great supporter of the Court in its current manifestation, not least because, since the Mental Capacity Act 2005 came into force with its adjustments to the court processes, the time lags in making a referral have been horrendous –  but – it does provide an important safeguard to those who lack capacity and I was surprised at the vitriolic and sometimes plain incorrect language of the article in question.

The court and the system in place is a crucial protection to those who lack capacity to make decisions about financial decisions although it is not solely restricted to financial decisions – that is the basis of the article.

It can be very long-winded and involving. Basically when someone loses the capacity to make a decision regarding the management of their finances, a power of attorney can no longer be taken out, and although a lasting power of attorney can be registered – that can only be done if the decision and the person taking up the ‘attorneyship’ had been made in advance of the loss of capacity.

Otherwise, a lengthy application is made to the Court of Protection. Often it is just a matter of extensive forms and there is an application fee – which the Mail rails at. I expect the Mail would rail more if the all fees were paid from the public purse but, for the record, these fees are means-tested – meaning they are paid only if the estate can afford it – otherwise, they are waived.

The Mail article of course, concentrates on some individual matters where it has been so difficult for families to access the money of their loved ones – but, and this is a crucial matter, the court is bound to make Best Interests decisions and some families’ ideas of the best interests of their relatives’ money is not the same as an independent solicitor or judge.

For the most part, in uncontentious matters, the court appoints a family member as an ‘attorney’. Indeed, that is by far the most favoured options. Deputyships are used when there is either no family member or sufficient concern about the money in question and how it might be used by the family member.

The Mail, using it’s obviously sharp reporting skills, quotes some users of an internet forum set up to gripe about the Court of Protection. I would venture a guess that any story they write about anything, they could drum up some anonymous quotes from random internet forums to concur with whatever they wish us to believe.

I can’t defend everything the Court does. It is slow without doubt and it is very far from transparent but a body such as it is, needs to exist. All that is needed to avoid its role is for a more widespread knowledge of Lasting Powers of Attorney which can be set up at any point prior to the loss of capacity as, in a sense, a ‘living will’ and there would be no need for these processes (except, and I know of at least one case, where these LPAs have been challenged on the basis of some adult protection concerns).

The Court of Protection is tightly wrapped in the processes of protecting those who cannot advocate for themselves. It is very very far from perfect but it has a crucial role. I’m both surprised and not surprised that the Mail is blaming the existence of this court on the Labour government saying

The first Court of Protection was set up by Labour’s 2005 Mental Incapacity Act, which for the first time formalised the arrangements for dealing with the assets and care of people suffering from dementia and other similar illnesses.

Before this it was left to families and social services to make arrangements – but it was argued this ad hoc system was open to abuse by both family members and by officials.

That’s blatantly false, for the record. The Court of Protection existed long before 2005 Mental Capacity Act (note – NOT Mental INCapacity Act), its form has changed somewhat and if anything, I’d say it is more transparent rather than less although by the comments on the Mail article, you’d think it was all some evil plan by the Labour government to ‘rob’ people of the money their family members are rightfully entitled to spend on their behalf..

Perhaps I have a distorted view due to the levels of financial abuse of older and incapacited adults that I have seen, by family members, due to my job. Of course, most people can be trusted completely and most want the best for their family members but money and greed does strange things to people, even some of the closest of families and it is vital that these checks and balances are in place in the form of an independent body.

Ultimately, in the words of a ‘spokesman for the Department of Justice’ quoted in the article

The OPG (Office of the Public Guardian) recommends that every adult considers making a lasting power of attorney. This enables people to choose someone they know and trust to make decisions about their property and affairs or their personal welfare, should they become unable to make decisions for themselves.’

And with that, I would have to agree. I try to tell people again and again to use the Lasting Powers of Attorneys while they can to avoid any difficulties in the future. I share that advice out of the ‘work’ environment as well as I think if there is anything to be taken from this article – apart from shabby journalism by the Mail – it is that point that no-one knows what may or may not be around the corner and if there is someone who you know and trust to make decisions on your behalf – appoint them formally..

10 thoughts on “The Court of Protection

  1. I like your article, insightful and challenging as ever! It is my understanding that that the CoP can appoint family members as Deputies and usually will do when it comes to health and welfare decisions. The CoP cannot appoint attorneys. If there is no LPA then the court can appoint a Deputies to carry out the function of an LPA. I am sure the fact you put attorney in quotation marks suggests you understand this as the court appointed deputy can carry out the same role as the donee of an LPA.

    Keep writing.

    • Thanks for that – I think I should have been clearer on that point but I was rushing though things when I wrote. Thanks for clarifying!

  2. It never ceases to amaze me how many innacurate stories about the world of Social Care appear in both the national and local press. It is a real concern that people form opinions based on one-sided reports which play fast and loose with the facts.

    I have been close to cases which have attracted negative media attention, particularly where the department is, for reasons of confidentiality, unable to present their side of the case so we just stand by whilst a few poorly informed journalists spin some lazy stereotypes about ‘beuracrats’ and ‘pen-pushers’ shoving aside the work done by a dedicated, caring workforce.

    Of course the media do have a role to play, even an essential role, in exposing waste, incompetence and unfairness, but sadly this, especially in the local press, seems to be totally lacking. Good. well thought out, properly researched journalism takes time, resources and skill but, on the other hand appealing to stereotypes, celebrity gossip and hearsay is far easier.

    • It is, indeed, infuriating. I probably don’t know as much as I should about the Court of Protection but I was amazed at the lack of knowledge of the Mail ‘journalist’.

  3. Although there were a few gaps in the journalists’ knowledge concerning this “court”, the article was mild in comparison with the horrors being perpetrated. Gross miscarriages of justice, acts directly against at once the wishes of the “client”, of their loved ones and, under the MCA, of their best interest, plus deliberate ignoring of their own guidelines and covering up of the greed, manipulation and incompetence of both local authorities and their appointed panel receivers, are routinely implemented by this department, if the complaints being made are even half true. I do not think you should be defending such behaviour, to be frank.

    • It’s all about differing personal experiences. I haven’t seen the particular effects that you have that you have but that’s why it’s important to share information and I thank you for that.

  4. We’ve just been through the Court of Protection process with my nan. She has severe dementia and doesn’t even know what her own name is, let alone her bank account number.

    We had to pay quite a substantial fee but it was OK. It’s good to know that people cannot be taken advantage of by family members. Now that we have powers of attorney it means that care home bills that were paid out of my parents pocket can now be refunded and my grandad’s estate can be sorted out.

    If we DIDN’T have the Court of Protection it would be so easy for families to take advantage of relatives. 😦 Thank goodness it exists! The fee was a small price to pay.

  5. Taking out powers of attorney is the correct way to do it. This AVOIDS the full involvement of the court of protection. I don’t criticise anyone for taking out a power of attorney. This is how to avoid receivership/deputyship, which is an extremely invasive and can be harrowing to experience, particularly if the deputy/receiver is a greedy dishonest professional, who does not love the “protected” person but is involved solely for money. It can be even worse if the deputy is a lawyer well known to the COP, or part of their panel of receivers. Then you may be at the mercy of both a corrupt guardian and a corrupt system protecting him. yes, I have experienced this, and it seems we must continue to do so until the doddery old shyster relieves us by dying.

Comments are closed.