Late last night, Christine Hockett replied to my post on the ‘Catch 22′ that is the Court of Protection. Her comment was so articulate, and so perfectly describes the difficulties even an intelligent sane individual has in coping with the byzantine world of bureaucracy that one enters through its portals that I have decided to preserve her comment as a post for future reference.

She also raises the important issue of who benefits, or ‘follow the money’.

I had shown the £27,000,000 in fees raised by lawyers for just 5,000 of the 30,000 people currently under the court of protection. The other 25,000 people would have garnered another £27,500,000 in legal fees (the standard £1,100 x 25,000 people). That is just the legal fees allowable to professional Deputies. However, as Christine has shown, the few individuals who are accepted as ‘Family Deputies’ and are thus unpaid, are an additional source of income.

When the new Mental Capacity Act came out, every Receiver who wished to become one of the new fangled ‘Deputies’, whether professional or not, was required to pay £522 – a total of £15 million, £15,660,000.

By the simple expedient of not telling anyone that there was a ‘free period’ to renew this ‘licence’, they managed to avoid all bar 7,000 people having to pay an additional £400 to renew their ability to act of behalf of someone. Thus they are expecting another £9,200,000 in fees to swell their coffers.

If you wish to argue against this iniquity – Guess? – Yup, you, or rather the person you are caring for, must pay yet again, £400 if you argue by post, £500 if you want to see the whites of their eyes whilst you argue your case.

It is a total disgrace.

Here is Christine’s excellent and lucid comment:

“Catch 22” indeed! As a Deputy who was sane when I joined, I am now mad in all senses of the word. In the Radio Programme the opinion of the man at the Citizen’s Advice was that the Mental Capacity Act had been drafted with the needs of the elderly in mind – this has not been my experience with my aged aunt.

I was appointed “Receiver” for her in 2003. Prior to the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 I was assured that the “protection” of the Court would be cheaper, however, on implementation of the Act, payment of a further £522 was required (£122 for an assessment of the case to decide my level of supervision by the Court and £400 for a new court order to enable me to continue doing what I had been doing since 2003) so that I could become her “Deputy” .

My aunt had a property and some savings as she never had children, took a foreign holiday or even drove a car. She did however, have a disability as she became profoundly deaf at the age of 16. She is now old and frail and clearly cannot care for herself following the death of her husband. She is resident in a care home close to where my mother (her sister) lives and is aware that I “do her business” and that a Judge in London checks on what I do, a situation which she finds highly amusing, as she cannot work out why a Judge should be interested in her. I too am happy with this situation and feel that it is right that I should submit accounts for the spending of her money, even though I have the full support of the rest of the family, and my aunt’s affairs have never been subject to any “family dispute”. Her home and contents have now been sold and the proceeds lodged in the Court Funds Office so that the interest from this account will help make up the shortfall in her pensions and attendance allowance so that the care fees can be met. Ownership of a property means that she is “self funding” for her care as she does not have “nursing” needs . The care fees are currently £30,000 pa room and board only so there is still a shortfall, which is made up from her capital at Court by way of a monthly standing order on the account.

The major problem for me and the family who visit her is that my aunt did not want her home sold, so I have permission from the Court to tell her that she still has it. That is not to say that she is unhappy in the care home, she often says that she likes it, but on those occasions when her back hurts and she feels that she would prefer to be in “her own” bed to ease it or she just wants to see her bungalow, we have ready the following lies: “It’s too hot/cold/wet/windy/snowy to travel. The water /electric is switched off. There is no heating oil. The bungalow needs painting. “ This is an abuse of all of us.

Financially my aunt’s affairs are simple (I thought). Having lodged all her capital in the Special Account at the Court Funds Office, where it was safe, earning 6% and fully accounted for on an annual basis. You would have thought that even the Court would be happy. However, following the implementation of The Mental Capacity Act 2005, I was sent a “Restricted” order which permitted me to draw £32,000 per year for three years. I believed that the “restriction” was in the amount of money. However last year I received a letter stating that the order was only valid for three years and unless I applied to Court for a new order valid under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the account at the Supreme Court would be frozen as it would no longer be legal for me to act on her behalf. This was not explained in any of the literature received in the lead up to the implementation of the Act. When I was complained I was told that there was a “free period” in which to apply for this new order. The letters had talked about free applications for extra money – so I did not apply as I did not need any “extra”. I was also told that as Deputy I should have taken legal advice on any communication that I did not understand.

I have subsequently submitted a Freedom of Information Act application and apparently out of the 29,000+ patients some 7,000 applications were granted during this “free period”. A further application worded to ascertain how many of these applications were for “unrestricted” orders for Deputies formerly known as Receivers, has not received any reply, except to say that not all of the original orders were “restricted”.
The application for the new order cost £400 and when I hand delivered the application to ensure its receipt and get it into the system quickly, a cheery Court admin officer told me that I should tell the care provider that he may have to wait for his care fees if the account was frozen as there was a backlog delaying applications. I explained that my aunt’s care provider would not be waiting for his care fees from her own money and fortunately I received my order before the date the account was due to be frozen. Since receipt of the new order granting me permission to continue to act on behalf of my aunt I have been fighting to get the £400 back for her. She came under the “protection” of the Court in 2003 and paid for me to act for her at that time.

Since the new Act all decisions are made by a Judge at a cost of £400 per hearing, attended hearings will cost £500. Matters that were formerly decided by a letter to a case worker are now subject to legal proceedings that are only proper for contentious matters. Thus the Court is now as much a victim of this as those who pay and wait for the backlog to be cleared.

Her capital was placed into the “Special Account” at the Supreme Court where it earned 6% interest. In June last year this rate dropped to 0.5%. My new order (£400) is an “unrestricted” order which allows me access to all of her capital instead of just the £1400 per month needed to “top up” her care fees. My two problems here are:

Firstly given the current economic situation, what do you do with this capital? I have decided not to split it and put it into one year bank bonds, but left it in the “safe haven” of the Court Funds Office where it is 100% guaranteed but earns 0.5% when any high street bank would pay more, but will not guarantee any deposit over £50,000.

Secondly access to all of her money means that the indemnity bond that she has to pay so that an insurance company will refund any losses should I “make off” with it, has gone up to £375 per year rather than the £25 it was when I did not have access to all of the capital.

My aunt will not recover from old age and frailty, her savings and home are committed to her care, it is now unfortunate that any day to day decision will cost her further money from this capital – if I want to ask the court to review the level of the indemnity bond (common sense) as I will be leaving the money in the Court Funds Office, that will mean an application to Court which will cost £400. There is also an annual account fee levied by the Office of the Public Guardian which is £175. She is also taxed on the interest earned from the sale of her home and contents which does not fully meet her care fees. These charges are ongoing.

I had hoped that the promised review of “Court Rules” would direct the Court to become a more “pastoral” and advisory organisation, offering guidance and help to Deputies on ways in which to protect the capital of their client’s to ensure that it is sufficient for their needs. A small return for what the patient is required to pay for this “protection”. The Court of Protection, The Office of the Public Guardian and The Court Funds Office are three separate organisations who are not connected but to whom I have a responsibility – I have been sent round in circles by them as they will all deny jurisdiction or primacy. They claim to provide protection yet charge dearly, will offer no guidance as everything is the responsibility of the Deputy, until you try to act and then you will be charged £400 for a Court application, which may be refused. The website of the Ministry of Justice proudly trumpets that they are moving towards a “Justice Service” rather than a “Justice System”. This Justice Service requires that someone pay for Court time . Likewise the Office of the Public Guardian is deemed to be self funding as “the patient will pay”. The Court is also not open to applicants to attend unless you pay. Fee remission is possible if the annual income is less than £16,500 – a totally unrealistic level given that people like my aunt require a minimum of £30,000 to pay for room and board. The annual accounts and indemnity bond are the safeguards employed by the Court, along with Lord Chancellor’s Visitors to ensure the protection of the patient, but the cost of providing this for the few when there are laws that should be used to punish those who abuse the patients now should be urgently reviewed.
Dickens describes it perfectly in Bleak House:

This is the Court of Chancery, which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire, which has its worn-out lunatic in every madhouse and its dead in every churchyard, which has its ruined suitor with his slipshod heels and threadbare dress borrowing and begging through the round of every man’s acquaintance, which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right, which so exhausts finances, patience, courage, hope, so overthrows the brain and breaks the heart, that there is not an honourable man among its practitioners who would not give–who does not often give–the warning, “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!”

Gary August 13, 2010 at 15:54

To; Parliament

Why? Are probate practitioners operating in and have control over
The
Court of Protection? Who is it really Protecting?

This is the Court of Protection, home of the probate solicitor and
ambulance chasers who frustrated by having to wait for dead bodies in the
Courts of Chancery, found to their delight for their practices of their own
profession the obscure and more secretive Court of Protection to feed of the
elderly & vulnerable.

This court is under the control of its national network of professional
probate solicitors. They have one of their own as their patron and judges in a
court of its own barristers, stressing that they are not related in any way,
they all have one thing in mind, the lucrative pickings, for the lining their
own pockets, a fool and her money is easily parted. These legal practitioners
have over the decades have contrived their variety of loopholes in the law for
use against these most unfortunate living souls who are forced under this
court to then only be seen by these probate practitioners as the dead, because
this is the their true profession.

We cannot go around robbing people By what Right do these probate
practitioners and judges who are trained in the Law turn the protection of the
living into probate matters and where are the so called

Daedalus
Parrot August 1, 2010 at 00:54

Well done on publishing brave Christine Hockett’s well written account.

Once again we witness decent law abiding people being squeezed, tormented
and punished for trying to do the decent thing for their loved ones while
crooked or lazy or utterly incompetent publicly funded cretins prosper.

The Dickens quote that Christine used is very well chosen and informative
and it at least tells us that evil incompetence is not new.

Dave July 31, 2010 at 13:40

The OPG are there to steal elderly and the vulnerable people’s money. Like
Christine’s aunt was manipulated to sell her Aunt’s house and put all that
money in a Court Fund were they make serious profit and interest by banking
the money elsewhere and deceiving the deputies it is 0.5% interest. Yeah
right? Likewise how Christine is manipulated to lie to her Aunt where her home
is, this is not protection these are lies. All lies told to deceive and steal
people’s money. What a disgrace!

F.A.C.T-Families Against Court of Protection Theft- http://www.factuk.org.uk/

Maturecheddars
July 30, 2010 at 16:41

I am very grateful to you Anna since I took note and acted on your post
entitled “The Masters of Lunacy” which you posted before last Xmas I believe
and have applied for LPA’s (Finance and also Health) for mother-in-law on
behalf of my wife who will be the Attorney, and like Keith Hart, I am still
waiting for a response and like PT Barnum, hope that it will be the solution
if ever needed (she is 86 and very frail and housebound but is sharp as a
razor mentally, may it continue). To be fair the OPG had already told me
verbally there was a 15 week backlog, so having submitted the documents on
10th May, I don’t expect an answer before October.
Although the person on
the desk who sent me the forms was helpful, the actual forms themselves are a
nightmare to understand and complete and you are repeatedly warned that the
whole thing may be rejected if you miss something.
The forms and the
accompaying guidance notes form a wad one inch thick.
The alphanumbering of
the forms is confusing and not properly referred to across the various pages,
duplication is rife and the whole thing is a dogs breakfast. One silly point
is that some forms say you must use black ball-point pen and the others say
black or blue, and those instructions could easily be missed. The whole set of
documents need tidying and simplifying.
Mind you I now understand what the
Big Society i s- it already exists in helpful blogs like yours!

Keith Hart July 30, 2010 at 13:29

I am currently waiting for a lasting power of attorney, for my elderly
aunt, to be registered by this shower. They’ve had the paperwork for 6 weeks
and the solicitor reckons it will be 3 months before it is finally registered.
In the interim banks etc. won’t even give me the time of day.

What are the OPG actually for again?

PT Barnum July 30, 2010 at 13:29

This all appals and baffles me. Is it the case that granting enduring power
of attorney to a trusted person would prevent any involvement by the Court of
Protection? I hope so, oh I do hope so.

pete-s July 30, 2010 at 13:12

The issue came up in a BBC radio programme this week. The act was aimed at
protecting the elderly losing their facilities. However, as usual with all
crap Labour legislation it encompasses those mentally disabled from birth or
through accidents. It makes their life very difficult in many ways, also as an
aside the court has control of accounts, now worth

Mick Turatian
July 30, 2010 at 12:52

Utterly dreadful.

This leads me to bless the time when I accompanied my mother whose
faculties were beginning to fade on a visit to her solicitor.

During the course of the meeting he suggested that she execute an enduring
power of attorney to allow me to act for her.

The formalities were relatively straightforward and I was able to look
after her affairs for the last few years of her life.

A lucky escape!

Gildas July 30, 2010 at 12:42

As I mentioned in response to the previous post, I have just advised a
client to take on the office of Deputy. There were important reasons for doing
this, in that she is the long term carer of a mentally disabled man (she has
cared for him without reward for 25 years for no other reason that she she
wanted to – she is not related, and his parents had been unable to cope and he
had been consigned to a hospital for his life until she took him in). For
reasons I need not explain in detail, he now needs legal representation
because he has an entitlement to his now late father’s estate, but he is not
receiving his due share – he does not have the capacity to instruct lawyers,
so someone must act on his behalf. Hence the need for a Deputy. Even brief
research caused me concern at the level of fees involved, although I
understood that there were ways of recouping the fees.
However, I am more
than concerned at the excellent and helpful information on this site. Although
a Chancery lawyer, I am not an expert in Court of Protection practice.
It
does strike me that the level of fees involved is little more than a
racket.
It is deeply troubling.
Gildas