The mishandling of the finances of some of the most vulnerable people in Britain by the faceless apparatchiks in the Public Guardian’s Office (who handle the paperwork for the Court of Protection )has been given another airing by the excellent Fran Abram’s of the BBCs ‘File on 4′ programme. Available here, in case you missed it.
The arrogance and insensitivity of the Court of Protection is well documented.
Perhaps their deadliest failing is the ‘Catch 22’ situation in which they place their so called ‘patients’ – who have to be very patient indeed.
Abram illustrated her piece with a number of real life stories. Neil Barker, for instance, who suffered a horrific motor bike accident, for which he received £1.7 million in damages to pay for the cost of trying to nurse him back to full health or his life time care if that was not possible. Since he had suffered head injuries, not surprisingly, he was initially suffering from memory loss which made everyday tasks difficult.
The money was paid into the Court of Protection. The solicitor who had handled his personal injury claim was appointed by the court as his ‘Deputy’ to handle his day to day financial needs under the court’s supervision.
However, Neil is making remarkable progress. He has renovated a house and sold it for a profit (money paid into the Court of Protection, naturally) and now bought, with the Court’s permission, another house to do up. In the meantime he has worked part time at his old job as an IT engineer.
Neil feels that he is back in control of his life, and would like to be free to get on with it. He understands that many people who have suffered head injuries are unaware of their limitations and may think that they are ‘fine’, when in fact a consultant neurologist would soon discover that there are flaws in their reasoning ability which would make it unwise to leave them in control of their finances, so he asked his court appointed Deputy to release the money necessary to undergo such a test.
The Deputy replied with words to the effect of ‘No, I don’t think so, sorry, not doing that’. The Deputy of course, controls the money, without the money to pay for the consultant neurologist’s report, Neil had no hope of proving to the court that he no longer had need to pay for its expensive services.
Neil approached Fran Abrams. Could she perhaps interview his Deputy for her forthcoming programme and find out how he was supposed to escape from this ‘Catch 22’?
The Deputy turned down Fran Abram’s request for an interview due to client confidentiality. Neil wrote to his Deputy and gave him specific permission to reveal his details and conduct the interview. The Deputy replied that he couldn’t take Neil’s instructions….because he was under the Court of Protection and therefore didn’t have the mental capacity to give him instructions!
One of the reasons that Neil was so keen to prove that he could control his money was that one of his IT clients was a bank that could invest his money at 4.1%, whereas the Court was investing his money at 0.5%, which he estimated had cost him £50,000 over the preceding 18 months, but of course as far as the Court is concerned, Neil doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand high finance and complicated things like investment rates – and he can’t prove to them whether he has or he hasn’t, because his solicitor won’t accept his instructions, because his solicitor has now become his court appointed Deputy to make decisions on his behalf……..
You may wonder why his solicitor, now his Deputy, is so reluctant to help him fight his way out of the Court of Protection?
Perish the thought that it has anything to do with fees earned.
However, you might like to consider these facts whilst making your mind up. The published material covering the fees professional Deputies are allowed to charge (‘family member’ Deputies, are not allowed to charge a single penny, these fees are purely for the Court’s ‘preferred’ professional solicitor/Deputies) show that £1,100 a year is the normal fee, however there is provision for higher ‘approved fees’. These you might think are the exception rather than the rule.
In 2008, 4,710 applications were made for fees to be so ‘approved’. The total value of those fees for less than 5,000 clients was……..£26,906,688. Almost £27 million pounds in fees from some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
These swinging amounts are deducted directly from the damages received by the client. The client is never asked whether he agrees to these charges – he is considered too ‘mentally incapacitated’ to understand them……
‘Catch 22’ is a growth industry for the legal profession.
SBML is the landlord of the Raccoon Arms. He lives North of Watford and has an eclictic range of interests from Science and Technology to Politics including Woodwork and Genealogy. His political viewpoint has evolved from being a student demonstrator to more liberal views and has now seen the light in Libertarianism.
{ 22 comments }
I’m acting as Deputy for a relative with severe dementia who needs nursing care. From the start, it was quite obvious that ‘amateurs’ like me were not welcome – as you said in an earlier post, lay people without specialist legal knowledge are regarded as a nuisance.
Having filled in the six lengthy A4 forms in duplicate, had them countersigned by the doctors and sent them off, I waited anxiously for a reply. My relative had been admitted to a nursing home at
Cheers! For a few weeks, I was placing lawyers slightly higher than cockroaches on my personal scale. Thanks to this article, they are now down far, far below them. Where it seems they belong.
Its that pesky big State will provide concept again !
I suffer from outrage fatigue now when I heard about how the state consistently abuses those it claims to be helping.
I should be furious after reading this, but its just all so familiar it makes me weary.
sick as parrot! That is all I can muster without swearing profanly. OK fuck it they are scum and should be lined up and shot.
No it’s still not working I’m still bloody furious. How fucking dare they.
Is there a special word for the feeling you have when you are shamed by your own country ?
When I read things like this I actually shudder.
I’m now beyond anger, despair , disgust, well past the awful feeling that comes from knowing nothing will be done, no-one will take any notice.
I despise so many aspects of the UK–don’t start me on Family Courts–that I now quietly wish it ill—-smile at thoughts of how it will implode one day ; hope for the worst to punish the place collectively.
But most of all I despise the country for making me feel like this.
I gues the thing here is to recognise it’s not “the country” that does this. It’s people……
Would having a ‘power of attorney’ be a way to escape the grip of the state ? Have your relatives look after your cash and best interests should you be incapable ?
Registration fees for Power of Attorney go to The Office of The Public Guardian. I would like to know why we cannot make provision for mental incapacity by way of a codicil to a will. One document, one fee for all eventualities.
Actually the government in their collective wisdom have done away with power of attorney – I do not wonder why!
Powers of attorney taken out prior to the govs action are still valid – thank the Lord, no not the ones that sit in the other house.
Christine,
That was a heart rending and very well written article. Best of luck and good wishes to you and your aunt.
Many thanks for your good wishes
As an occasionally practicing lawyer, I am very interested in this. I have a client (a lovely caring lady) who is about to embark on deputyship on behalf of a mentally impaired young man she has been caring for (Note – my advice was for her to take up the post because appointing a professional would be too expensive – we are not all that bad!). I shall report back!
Gildas the Monk
The only hope that any of us can have is that light – such as your posts, and the radio programme – is thrown on this horrible mess.
When the Mental Capacity Act came into force, I thought perhaps I should apply to the Court so that I could safeguard my adult daughter. (Parents of adults with damaged brains are often treated as irrelevant and ignored). It was quickly made clear to me that as she didn’t have any money, no-one was too interested in protecting her “best interests”, so a deputy was not needed. Fast forward a couple of years to a clinical negligence award, and things change fast. The Court of Protection is inescapable, and so, it seems, are lawyers very keen to become professional deputies. I have no problem with the idea that her interests need to be protected; I would be more than happy to accept legal and financial guidance, and to pay approriate fees for it. I cannot understand why that means I have to hand rather a lot of power, and rather a lot of her money over to people who know little about her and do not show much interest in learning more. The Court Rules are dense and overcomplicated so that they can only be filled in with legal assistance, and the lawyers who have the expertise have no interest unless you agree to them being deputies – then they can decide where you live, how much you spend and for all I know when you breathe. One advertisement I saw offered to fill in the forms for a fee of
Families Against Court of Protection Theft- http://www.factuk.org.uk
The OPG and Court of Protection is full of fraud and corruption simple!
Brilliant article. Let’s face it, it’s organized crime whichever way you look at it. My aunt was defrauded by a deputy and his lawyer because they filled out a form to say they had contacted relatives about applying for Power of Attorney through the Court of Protection. They did not contact relatives and the application was, therefore, fraudulent. It was approved by the Court of Protection because they have no policy or procedure to check the facts. When this was pointed out to the Public Guardian, The President of the Family Court, The Master of the Court of Protection, The Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, The Home Secretary, the Chief of Police, The Auditor General, The Prime MInister, etc. etc., they just gave me the run-around. They did this until my aunt died and then Martin John, Public Guardian, said it was too bad about my aunt and completely ignored the fact that I was telling him the Public Guardian’s system is flawed if they don’t check the facts when applications are made. Nobody cares because they SIMPLY DON’T WANT RELATIVES TO KNOW THEY HAVE HIJACKED THE VULNERABLE. There is obviously corruption if none of the above will look into the matter and correct the policies and procedures. It is intentional.
The answer is simple, do not approach the Court of Protection.
My grandmother’s affairs were put into the hands of the CoP brecause she was suffering dementia due to strokes and people around her such as the woman who came to clean her flat were stealing from her. Unwisely I took the advice of an accountant friend and put her affairs with the CoP. My grandmother lost both her sons in WWll, they were twins, my father survived Dunkirk and transferred from the army to the RAF, his brother flew bombers in the North Africa campaign. My father was killed while flying on a radar callibration flight.
My time was therefore rather divided between my grandmother in London and my mother in Kenya. At the time the CoP seemed like a good option. However. when I went for an interview I was told that I had no say in the matter, in spite of it being my application, since I was not a close enough relative. My remonstrations that I was her nearest blood relative bore no merit in the eyes of the official behind the desk.
The next time Itried to visit my grandmother in her flat I found that the locks on the doors had beem changed and the people who I wanted to save my grandmother from in the first place, had been given carte blanche control over her.
I went to the police to report the crimes of theft, but the police said they could do nothing as it was a matter for the court to decide.
I now had to get permission from the CoP every time I wished to see my grandmother. She died within the year.
Then a new nightmare began over her will which had been changed by a solicitor brought in by one of her nieces. I was eliminated from her will and any residue was to be put in trust for any children I might have. The trust could be disbanded when they reached the age of 21. I have 2 children, when the youngest reached the age of 21, I wrote to the Public Trustee (note the word Trustee) to have the trust divided between my son and daughter. The trustee responded that I might have more children in the future so no it was not prepared to let them have their inheritance. I replied that there was no likelihood of me having any more children because my wife had had an hysterectomy.This made no difference to the Public Trustee. The trust was set up in 1974 with
Anna,
I reached your blog via the IndigoJo blog. Few things get me more upset than people taking advantage of vulnerable populations (i.e. those who are ill, incapacitated, elderly, etc.) I am saddened to read about the clearly-broken Court Of Protection system. It’s really quite outrageous! The good news is your post is shining a light on the problem and there are some enlightening comments above too.
Jeanne
my mother was confirmed by local authority dols two psychiatrists that my mum has mental capacity regarding her residence and yet judge at court of protection overruled the experts decisions and authorised my mother’s deprevation of liberty and now the social services keep my mum in her care home like a prisoner where she is being abused,harassed and even assaulted by care staff. the judge is a prejudiced racist bastard who thinks he can do whahe likes and i feel the court of protection should be re-named court of thieves. as that what they all are.the previous labour goverment inventent this crappy law for their own benefit. the bastards. they have destroyed my mother’s life and treated mum like a p[risoner and banned her from seeing her family. i didn’t know there was a dictator living in downing st. this country is a worst then iran or any other african countries.
how can a country treat their old people like money making machine for their own benefits.
Can you name the judge? I think we should start naming names. I took my aunt’s case to court and Judge Suzanne Walker of the FAmily court said she had not read my affidavit completely because it was too long. It contained very important information and evidence. She made a judgement anyway, without considering all the facts. There were two copies of wills which she said were suspicious, but she decided to overlook this small point and probate the will presented by the deputy, in which he was also both the executor and beneficiary. She probated the will, which I believe was “more than fishy”, let’s say. Let’s get some of these names out there.
Neil,Change your deputy,its your right.
we have a great one,she arranged for an assesment at his request and he has been approved his money back.