Managing the financial affairs of a Protected Party (P) is a core responsibility for professional deputies, and with it comes the need to ensure that all general management costs are properly incurred, recorded, and recovered. As the Court of Protection landscape continues to develop, a clear understanding of what costs are recoverable, and how they will be assessed, is essential for protecting both P’s estate and the deputy’s position. 

General management work covers the ongoing financial and administrative responsibilities of acting as P’s deputy. The costs of this work must be reasonable, proportionate, and directly linked to P’s needs. While Practice Direction 19B provides set categories of fixed fees, many cases, especially those involving complex care arrangements, property matters, or safeguarding issues, require assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). 

A key challenge often arises around the level of fee earner undertaking the work. The SCCO emphasises the importance of delegating tasks to the appropriate grade. Routine activities, such as paying bills or updating financial records, should usually be completed by Grade D or administrative staff. Only substantive decision-making and higher-level professional input should be carried out by senior fee earners. Deputies who do not delegate appropriately may find their costs reduced on assessment, even where the work itself was necessary. 

Practitioners must also remain mindful of the distinction between general management costs and costs properly attributable to litigation. As highlighted in recent SCCO decisions, work undertaken in support of litigation proceedings, such as schedules for interim payment applications, providing information to litigation solicitors, or assisting with case strategy, is not usually recoverable from P’s estate as deputyship costs. Instead, these should be claimed within the litigation bill, ensuring that P is not charged for overlapping work. 

Detailed record-keeping remains crucial. The SCCO expects detailed time records, clear attendance notes, and supporting invoices. Missing or vague entries often result in reductions, regardless of the necessity of the work undertaken. Ensuring that file notes are properly maintained also helps deputies justify decisions to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), particularly in relation to best interests, property management, and large expenditures. 

As assessment trends shift and further guidance emerges from both the SCCO and OPG, Court of Protection practitioners must remain agile. Proactive delegation, careful file management, and a detailed understanding of assessment principles not only support full recovery of costs but also help ensure that deputies meet their duties to act diligently and in P’s best interests. 

If you have any questions or queries relating to Court of Protection Costs, our team is on hand to help out and can provide you with end to end costs support on your matters.