Few stewards in the service of the public can have been asked to rearrange the deckchairs as many times as those employed on board the currently named ‘Public Guardian’.

The Office of the Public Guardian is an honourable one, referring as it does to the historic defender of the rights and welfare of the most vulnerable in our community. Any argument as to whether public services should be cut must start well away from the boundaries of protecting the very weakest of our community.

Yet with monotonous regularity, the budgets of that department are cut, the headed paper redesigned, new logos ordered, telephone numbers changed, experienced staff replaced with new – and cheaper – ‘trainees’. The paintwork is changed, buildings leased and relinquished – the confused occupants are in a constant state of ‘change’.

As fresh management whizz kids are released proudly clutching their MBAs, and sign up to do their stint in this least fashionable of public sector jobs – the entire organisation lurches and remerges with a fresh vocabulary, a ‘new landscape’, and a ‘fresh approach’ to what should be a remarkably simple and repetitive job.  Ensuring that those who have lost their mental capacity are not preyed upon by relatives, legal advisors, banks, or merchants, to their detriment.

Time was, all were employed in the office of the Official Solicitor in Greystoke Place, S.W.1. That was declared no longer fit for purpose when the new Mental Health Act emerged in early 1963. Some experienced staff were transferred to a building in Sardinia Street, WC2 and renamed employees of the Public Trustee. The deckchairs moved with them, and once they had settled down they recommenced the same work as before.

Not for long – another new MBA entrant had taken control of the ship and two distinct divisions of employees were merged, with all the in fighting, battle for filing cabinets, misdirected phone calls and utter confusion that such a merger of entrenched positions within the civil service can occasion. The Foyer repainted purple this time, a ‘fresh landscape loomed’. The job remained the same.

The advent of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 predicated anther move – to Archway this time. Those who had bought homes convenient for work in WC2 were bluntly told to ‘get themselves on the Northern line and don’t be late’ – the most vulnerable in society are still waiting for you to answer letters and phone calls, the job remains the same. By the way – you work for the ‘Public Guardian’ now.

Another MBA entrant and the name of the game was diversity, and regionalisation. Who knows what happened to the £5 million plus that the old building in Sardinia Street was sold for – now even the newly acquired £913,000 a year lease in Archway was obsolete. A second lease in Birmingham was taken up – a snip at £174,000 a year, and yet another in Nottingham for a mere half million a year.

No relocation costs were offered to staff who found their jobs zooming up the M1. New staff were hired – ‘providing new jobs’, ‘building a better service’, no mention of the ones lost! Experienced staff sloped off to the Public Records Office or anyone who would have them – grateful to still find a job at the end of their chosen commuting line.

Unsurprisingly, the newly hired staff in Birmingham and Nottingham found life difficult; the move coincided with a 100% increase in applications to the office and so ‘twilight working hours’ were undertaken. According to the evidence Martin Johns, the current Public Guardian, gave to the House of Commons Justice Committee last week, this gives staff a ‘work/life balance’ and is popular for that reason. Perhaps with those who seek part time evening work, but there was little concern for work/life balance in those experienced employees he discarded in London. Enough of the staff difficulties. Now that the good ship ‘Public Guardian’ is berthed in three different ports, what is life like for the customer you ask?

Perhaps you are writing to tell of some abuse of an elderly neighbour? You address your letter to Birmingham as per the information on the web site. There it may be opened by one of the ‘twi-lighters’ enjoying their work/life balance. They of course have only worked there for a few weeks, so are unable to do anything with your letter – besides, the files are stored in Archway in London so they have no information on the case you refer to.

They courier the letter down to London. It is an urgent attempt to stop abuse after all.

In London, an experienced case officer looks at the letter and agrees it really should be seen by the Court of Protection – except that the judge for this case is based in Nottingham.

He couriers the letter up to Nottingham. There it is seen by the presiding Judge – who has no details of the case. He e-mails London and asks that the file be sent to him. It is. By courier up to Nottingham.

The Judge makes his decision and asks the administrative arm of the court to write and convey his thoughts to all concerned. Did I mention that was in Birmingham? Hmmn. Back we go.

Now that all concerned have decided that ‘regionalisation’ has its difficulties, not least when you don’t have a dedicated intranet, we find that it will cost a ‘mere £22 million’ to rationalise the service in one place. This has added advantages in that it will ‘create 177 new jobs’ in Birmingham for experienced case officers – keep your eye on the ‘lady’ card folks, for unless the ‘177 experienced case officers’ in London can sell their homes and move sharpish, there will be 177 simultaneous redundancies that no one will mention. Quite possibly they will turn up in a future report detailing the savings made in this move!

So many millions spent rearranging deckchairs and none of it of benefit to the ultimate customer – but then as the Public Guardian carefully reminds us in his evidence to the House of Commons:

The services of the Public Guardian ‘are not a price sensitive market’.

That will be because neither the taxpayer, nor the vulnerable, nor even the experienced staff, have any say in the matter. The Office of the Public Guardian has a monopoly in the matter of protecting the vulnerable from financial abuse, a monopoly hidden behind a veil of secrecy.

The current level of fees agreed by the Public Guardian as applicable to supervising the payment of gas bills for those who have lost mental capacity run to a stunning £409 an hour – based, we are blithely told in management business school speak, on ‘comparable private civil litigation costs’. This is ‘not a burden’ to the vulnerable because in many cases the cost of these fees is added to the damages awarded against – for instance – the National Health Trusts.

If ever there was a public sector that should undergo a ‘management buyout’ – it is the Public Guardianship Office. There are experienced staff there who have spent their entire carer understanding the requirements of the mentally vulnerable.

Time for the MBA careerists to leave the building and let the experienced staff get on with the job.

Pericles December 1, 2010 at 10:46

Whilst the Public Guardian is signally failing in his statutory duty of
protecting the vulnerable from financial abuse, he is allowing — nay,
encouraging — similar abuse of the tax-payer.

A well crafted article, Anna, as usual, but is there here anything we have
not come to expect from to-day’s ‘public servants’ ?

I think your suggestion of a management buy-out, however,
misguided :  who, after all, is the management ?  Perhaps
the formation of a co-operative along the lines of the John Lewis
Partnership.

(Can’t help agreeing with Ian’s assessment of media studies … sorry, the
M.B.A.)

ΠΞ

Anna
Raccoon December 1, 2010 at 10:58

Agreed Pericles, ‘managment’ was a poor choice of words – they are a big
part of the problem, too remote from the human issues, too obsessed with
following standard ‘business practice’.

Christine
Hockett December 1, 2010 at 14:04

Never mind the deckchairs, there are not enough lifeboats on the MV
Public Guardian for ALL the vulnerable, places are strictly limited to the
481 staff of the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG Annual Report and
Accounts 2009-10 (376 staff in 2008-9)) and the rowing is done by the 35,000
“patients”and those registering the new Power of Attorney.

If you were to contact the Office of the Public Guardian with concerns
about an elderly neighbour or child, I would like to think there would be a
flurry of activity, but the reality is that you would either be referred
directly to your Local Authority Adult Social Services Department or the
Children’s Services Department, or in the case of an EPA the OPG would make
a “Protection of Vulnerable Adults referral” to them as the Local
Authorities have “a lead coordinating role in situations of suspected
abuse”.

http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/suspect-abuse.htm and
Annual Report and Accounts 2009-10 page 30 (Case Study) http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/docs/opg-annual-report-final-web.pdf

With regard to its budgets, I believed that as The Office of the Public
Guardian is the administrative arm of the Court of Protection it is deemed
to be self funding from the fees of those under the Court of Protection and
from the fees for registration of Lasting Power of Attorney.

I tried the link to hear what Martin John had to say, but the link would
not work for me, however, found the following document on the OPG website
under: Home, About the Public Guardian, News. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/Memorandum-Justice-Select-Committee.pdf

I think the following statistics from the above document speak for
themselves on what the OPG has been doing since 1.10.2007:

58. Since the implementation of the MCA on 1st October 2007, the OPG has
received 265,000 and registered 210,000 LPAs and EPAs. Of the number
registered , 38,000 have been health and welfare LPAS

62. In September 2010 there were just over 35,000 Deputyship cases
subject to the Public Guardian’s supervision

Investigations

67. In section 58 of the MCA the functions of the PG include the ability
to deal
with representations (including complaints) about the way in
which a
donee (otherwise know as an attorney) of a lasting power of
attorney or a
deputy appointed by the court is exercising his powers.

68. As a result, the OPG deals with referrals from a number of sources
such
as the general public and Local Authorities and has a duty to
investigate.
Since 1 October 2007 the OPG has received a total of 2,559
referrals all
of which have undergone an initial risk assessment. Of
those, 1,195 were
deemed to require a more formal in depth investigation
by the OPG.

69. The breakdown of these year on year is:
. Oct–Dec 2007 29
.
2008 294
. 2009 544
. Jan–Sep 2010 427

70. As it can be seen, the total is going up year on year. Part of this
reflects
the increase in the number of LPAs and EPAs that have been
registered,
but part of it is also a reflection of the addition publicity
that the MCA has
given to the role of the Public Guardian. This includes
the increase in
knowledge amongst the general public that the OPG is the
place to
contact should they have doubts about the behaviour of an
Attorney or a
Deputy. To put the impact of the MCA in context, in the 12
months ending
31 March 2007, the former Public Guardianship Office
commenced only
44 investigations.

71. Of these initial investigations the majority (1080) have been
signposted to
a third party such as the police or a social services
department as they
fall outside of the OPGs jurisdiction, often because
they do not relate to a
registered EPA, LPA or a court appointed Deputy.

72. There are a range of possible outcomes in cases where the
Public
Guardian has commenced a full investigation, ranging from a
finding that
there is no cause for concern, to applications to Court to
discharge a
Deputy or revoke a Power of Attorney and call in the Deputy’s
security
bond. In some cases, prosecution has followed. Since
implementation the
outcomes of investigations have included:

. 94 Court applications to discharge Deputies/Attorneys (117
Deputies
and 38 Attorneys removed by the Court to date)
. 42 other
Court applications (for example, ordering the Deputy/Attorney
to
account)
. 60 applications by third parties, mainly local authorities,
working in
partnership with the OPG
. 35 cases reported to the
Police
. 31 formal censure letters from the Public Guardian to
Attorneys
. 62 Deputies placed in a higher supervision level for
ongoing
monitoring.

73. An additional 64 Court applications have been made as a direct result
of
the Public Guardian’s supervision of Deputies.

74. A key aim of the Act was to protect those who lack capacity and the
OPG
introduced its first Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults policy in
December
2008. The policy pulls together the various protective
activities of the
Agency and is supported by a set of procedures, key
performance
indicators and service Standards for responding to
allegations or
suspicions of abuse. A protocol for working constructively
with local
authorities in their lead role of co-ordinating and leading on
safeguarding
issues has also been developed, and includes guidance on the
respective
roles of the OPG, Court of Protection and local authorities
and a protocol
for the exchange of information.

The statistics speak for themselves. Life for this customer goes like
this:
My involvement has been since 2003 as “Receiver” for my aged frail
aunt, who paid to join, paid a security bond, accounting fee and admin fee
each year. Since implementation of the Mental Capacity Act she paid a total
of £522 to rejoin, and for me to now be called her “Deputy”. She now pays a
security bond and single annual supervision fee for me, as well as £400 for
any Court application that may be necessary for me to get the permission to
make any changes in her affairs. Cheaper as promised? Not. What does she get
for her money? Not advice, not help, but the checking of my annual accounts
(presumably if selected). Her affairs are not contentious, and have not
needed change since 2003. She is resident in a care home and currently
requires £30,000 pa for basic room and board only. Her two pensions and
attendance allowance are paid into a “Deputyship” current account which is
supplemented by £1400 per month from her capital held at the Court Funds
Office where the interest has dropped from 6% to 0.5% interest. Her care
fees are paid by standing order and I have a cheque book on the account for
any other needs. Her capital is made up of some savings and the sale of her
home and contents which has been sold to fund care. We therefore abuse her
by lying to her each time we visit as she does not know of her house sale.
Previously the top up was made mostly from the interest earned on the
capital, it now comes directly from her capital. I have no objection to
scrutiny and think it is right as I am managing my aunt’s money. However, in
the current financial situation I need some good advice and more importantly
she needs a break from the fees etc ., which are draining her capital, which
is committed for her current and future care. Although I have a Court order
allowing me to do so, I have not moved her money from the “safe haven” of
the Court Funds Office where it is fully guaranteed, therefore my bond next
year will be £375. To tell the Court that I want to leave the money where it
is, as I fear moving it, and get the bond accordingly reduced, will cost
£400 for a Court “hearing”. Another truly frustrating aspect is the tendency
not to add a direct dial phone number to a letter, so one thing I have
learned and that is not to phone the “helpline” in Birmingham to be put
through, but to have a name and number to phone in London. And so it goes
on…

She is not a burden on the State, the State is the burden on her.

Deifying Officer November 30, 2010 at 13:28

Is it ‘IM? – http://www.flickr.com/photos/ministryofjustice/3968180333/

Or is it ‘IM? http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/Mick%20Jagger%20biography.htm

Yes indeedy, Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, the Pumpkinification
of the Public Guardian! I am pleased to announce the stand -in for Old
Rubberlips Himself has today, with the machination of High Govt., become
effectively unaccountable to any mortal being.

Logically, what this mans, considering his great exaltation and the Powers
conferred upon him, as -er “protector” of the weak and vulnerable, and the
removal of the last bastion of and constraint upon Him etc etc, that he has
become…

A GOD!

However, he doesn’t want any big fuss about it. He has chosen to retain his
mortal form, including the appearance he presents, reminiscent of a cross
between a certain Stones member and somebody from Spandau Ballet! He is still
the same loveable man he always was, and will continue in his agenda of
breaking up families, protecting corrupt solicitors, and giving the measliest
of lip service to his supposed duties as stated in the OPG guidelines etc.

Please enjoy the film!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITuvkuYKz6I

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Office
of the Public Shyster November 30, 2010 at
00:00

Aaawwww. Hmmm.

Yes, sympathy, compassion, indeed, I think I’ve heard of those.

THROW THEM OFF THE SHIP!

Ed P November 29, 2010 at 21:38

Although it sounds like a total mess presently, suitable application of the
internet will remove all these delays. It’s just possible that that’s what’s
intended anyway.
Just thought I’d look on the bright side.

Rog November 29, 2010 at 20:26

Why does that sound so similar to the organisation of the Police?
‘Full
circle’ was an expression used years ago which meant a new boss comes in,
changes everything gets promoted, then another comes in changes things a bit
more, gets promoted, then another one changes it back to what it was and of
course, gets promoted.
Meanwhile the public gets chaos, the workforce gets
pissed off and money gets wasted.

Ian R Thorpe November 29, 2010 at 19:15

Around the time I was getting my MBA which back then was a qualifaction for
mid career executives but for which now the bar is set so low I’m embarrassed
to admit I have one, there was a big craze going on for “total quality
management (ISO9000, BS5750) which purported to measure the quality of every
activity in an organisation. It demanded everything be documented.

Total quality management did not measure the quality of the product or
service but the quality of the box ticking.

Now it seems box ticking and form filling has become an end in itself.

Dioclese November
29, 2010 at 18:18

I may have got this wrong, but wasn’t this one of the quangos that the
government has decided to axe – presumably by reincorporating it into the
‘appropriate’ government department? I hear the deckchairs scraping on the
decking….

Anna
Raccoon November 29, 2010 at
19:32

It is the Public Guardianship board which is for the chop – that was the
organisation which oversees what the Public Guardian does……..

JuliaM November 30, 2010 at 08:26

Removing the oversight? Well, what could go wro…

Oh.

Truthfulness
November 30, 2010 at 15:39

Well in fairness Anna, it is not exactly like the Public Guardianship
Board has been exactly high profile in its tireless protection of the
vulnerable has it?

In all these stories of heinous injustice I have read, many of them
penned by your charming self, I never read of a happy ending where the
board stepped in and sorted everything out.

Am I mistaken? Do I malign these people? Or are they in fact as useless
as one might expect from reading your blog?

Anna
Raccoon November 30, 2010 at
16:38

Truthfulness,
The day I find a story showing how the OPG have
stepped into a bad situation – and returned the money to its rightful
owner, I shall be delighted to publish it, I shall crow from the
hilltops – unfortunately all I hear are stories where a Deputy or
Receiver as they used to be known has ripped off someone he was suppsoed
to be protecting – and the Court have ordered a new Deputy to be
appointed………..

robbiehered November 30, 2010 at 18:44

Agreed. The system doesn’t work, it does far more harm than good,
and I just get the impression they’re ALL REET SHYSTERRS!

(Begorrah!)