When Family Care Payments Go Wrong
The recent case of (AECO, Re [2025] EWCOP 5 (T2)) makes it clear to both Lay and Professional Deputies what is expected of them by the Office of the Public Guardian and the Court of Protection when dealing with Family Care Payments. And importantly what the consequences are for breaching these expectations.
Deputies are subject to more oversight by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) than Attorneys and this occurs annually. At the initial application stage, Deputies are required to provide a full list of P’s assets to the Court; and thereafter to submit annual accounts to the OPG to prove that they are managing those assets appropriately. Deputies are also required to pay an annual supervision fee for this annual monitoring process as well as a surety bond fee in case of any mismanagement.
This recent case of AECO involved a young person – AECO – and her mother – JO – who had been appointed as AECO’s Deputy for Property and Financial Affairs.
In his judgement, HHJ Cronin described AECO as having “a diagnosis of Retts Syndrome and she has a number of mental and physical disabilities. A great deal of her care has always been provided by her mother and her brother and she has always been entitled to benefits for her support. It is not in dispute that she lacks capacity to manage her property and affairs”.
The OPG made an application to the Court for JO’s removal on the basis that she had –
- Failed to file annual Deputy reports as required and they were always very late.
- Failed to pay the OPG supervision fees.
- Allowed AECO’s funds to become mixed with her own (by not using separate bank accounts).
- JO and her son were occupying AECO’s property without contributing to the costs incurred and putting the tenancy at risk.
- Spending transactions which required further investigation and explanation.
- Failed to co-operate with the reasonable requests of the OPG and the Interim Panel Deputy.
At an earlier hearing of this case, the Court had suspended JO’s Deputy appointment and put in place an Interim Panel Professional Deputy for AECO.
At the final hearing HHJ Cronin permanently removed JO on the basis that JO had “not been able to fulfil the duties of a deputy for property and affairs. Her failures as set out above and the consequences of them … lead me to the firm conclusion that it is in AECO’s best interests to remove JO as deputy.”
“The simple consequence of these failures is that AECO’s money has been lost: the deputy reports that there is now a monthly surplus of income over outgoings which is not recorded or saved anywhere and the expenses of running the property have been higher than they should have been. The delay in filing the reports has led to delay in discovering the failures.
In addition, the occupation of AECO’s home may have prejudiced AECO’s entitlement to housing benefit because of having lodgers who should be expected to contribute to costs and/or pay rent, and it is likely to be in breach of her tenancy agreement with Advance Housing who part-own the property.”
The case is a timely reminder that the OPG will not hesitate to act to remove a Deputy who does not discharge their duties appropriately.
Following this judgment, the OPG published updated guidance to Deputies about Family Care Payments, which includes factors to consider for Attorneys.
If JO had taken note of the Dos and Don’ts, she may not have lost her position as her daughter’s Deputy. And more importantly, this vulnerable young woman’s finances would not have been jeopardised.
For expert advice on arranging and administrating Family Care Payments and fulfilling your duties as Deputy or Attorney, contact our Court of Protection and Community Care Law team on 01273 609911, or email info@ms-solicitors.co.uk.
