OPG Fees

4372

Hello. I am seeking help in appealing against and opposing the new fees recently introduced by the OPG in respect of Deputies (appointed by the Court of Protection). The fees are payable from the accounts of the vulnerable person.

In my case, in which I act as Deputy for a family member, the annual fee charged by the OPG has risen to £320 from £175. In addition, there is an annual compulsory fraud insurance policy payable of around £200. This means that the vulnerable person in my family pays a total of over £500 this year and every year at the behest of the OPG.

It is my contention that the financial affairs of the family member are simple (consisting of little more than payment of Nursing Home Fees), and that the care of the individual is monitored by the Nursing Home in liaison with the local NHS Trust and other family members. In these circumstances I am contending that the charges are wholly disproportionate, and unneccessary.

I have acted as Deputy for the family member for nearly 3 years, and have liaised with OPG as necessary, including the preparation and presentation of Annual Reports as required I choose not to take a fee for my work on behalf of the family member, and I believe that most people on here would similarly offer their help at no cost in relation to their own relatives.

My communications with OPG to date appear to indicate that the organisation does not intend to recognise that their fees are prohibitive.

Regards

4372
I

dzug1

Trouble is OPG is required by government diktat to cover its costs and £500 is not actually that much. It would I guess cover a couple of hours work a month.

I seriously doubt you'll get anywhere but good luck in trying.

Had you/the relative acted in time to get a power of attorney you'd be saving a lot of costs. (This is not a dig at you BTW but advice to others who may be reading)

4372

Good Evening.
Thanks for the reply. I accept your point that it is Government Policy driving OPG fees, and that perhaps that is where I should direct my attention. There was an LPA fully in place. Circumstances combined in such a way that the LPA holder had to retire through ill health, and the family member in the meantime became incapable of appointing a replacement. It is one of my contentions that the OPG has been unable to treat this as suitable to be treated as an LPA case, even though it can be shown from the records of the Court of Protection that the retirement of the LPA holder and my own appointment as Deputy were simultaneous and linked events.
Best Wishes and thanks for you interest

4372

Biggles

4372 wrote: »

Circumstances combined in such a way that the LPA holder had to retire through ill health, and the family member in the meantime became incapable of appointing a replacement.

It is good practice to always appoint at least two Attorneys.

As per the prev post, I'm not trying to be wise after the event but other readers may find it helpful to know that you can't replace an Attorney after the Donor has lost mental capacity.

4372

Good Evening and thank you for your response. It was like moving heaven and earth to get the family member concerned to cede control of his own financial affairs to one Attorney, so we had to settle for that.

I am grateful for your consideration of my post. The issue for me is fundamentally one of mistrust. My limited research suggests that the OPG was set up to safeguard the interests of vulnerable people, particularly in relation to Mental Health. The OPG performs this function by monitoring the work of Attorneys and Deputies.
Whenever I google OPG and Deputies, I get a list of results about how to report Attorneys/ Deputies who are suspected of mishandling the funds of their charges.

My own view is that, with the help of other family members, I am more than capable of looking after the interests of the vulnerable person. Indeed I work on a daily basis with the individual who held the LPA to consider the welfare of the individual concerned. Both of us have held down professional jobs, myself for over 30 years.
Neither of us has any criminal conviction, and we are both born UK citizens. This is not to imply any superiority over others. My point is that we should be free ( as should any other family member in similar circumstances) to protect the person's interests, with minimal intervention from the OPG, and lower fees.
If there was suspicious activity, then by all means throw the book at myself or anyone who is misappropriating funds. Until that time, then I believe that people should be trusted to do the right thing by their own family members.

I am of the view that there may be others like myself who believe that the OPG simply has the wrong line here. At the risk of becoming political, I suggest it does fit with the idea of the Big Society that we should look after our own, and not look to government for help.

Once again, many thanks.

4372

John_Pierpoint

This is just "anus protectus" by the 9 to 5 (or is that 10 - 4) government department involved.
I very much doubt it will prevent more than a tiny fraction of the exploitation of the vulnerable, but it ticks the boxes and it gives the impression that "something has been done" to combat fraud - the world's largest criminal activity.

Personally I don't know what the answer is, it is just part of the price we are all paying for the amoral behaviour that seems to current these days.

I remember the advice of a wise auditor, who ended up as chairman of a merchant bank:
Set up a system where 3 people have to conspire in the criminal enterprise and eventually they will fall out amongst themselves.
I think families should be allowed to set up such a "rule of three" amongst themselves.

4372

Good Evening, and thank you for your comments. I think you summarise the wider issues very well if I understand you right.
I am still consulting with OPG about fees and level of supervision issues, but I am confident that it will come up with a response along the lines of "rules are rules".

I am going to explore the issue further by seeking the advice of a older person's mental health advocate, and will probably approach my mp at the right time. I know its difficult, but I think the vulnerable person would have wanted to appoint another Attorney, rather than face the supervision regime and fees burden imposed on Deputies by the OPG. Alternatively, it could be argued that should a Deputy be able to show good management of the property and affairs of the individual then over time the fees at least (if not the level of supervision) should be reduced.

Again, many thanks for your advice.

Regards

4372

Errata

I'm sure your 'rules are rules' comment is correct. Sometimes with some things there just has to be blanket rules, the cost of decision making on a case by case basis for the fees would have to be borne by someone, and that should not be the taxpayer as the decision would need regular reviews. I think it's a bit like tax allowances and MOT's - one size fits all.

lissadenton

am in the same position-very annoying

4372

Good Evening and thank you for your interest.
I am still very concerned about this issue. I had a final reply from Martin John at OPG, in which he summarised the arguments for fee revision, but it did not convince me at all. I have seen my MP, who is currently looking into this matter. He has written an interim reply, in which he indicated that there has been several complaints to his colleagues in Parliament. I'm not sure I will get anywhere, but it cannot harm your case to complain to OPG, and if necessary your own MP.

In his reply Martin John wrote that it had not been considered feasible or appropriate to approach Deputies such as myself in the fee revision consultation process. And yet we represent the vulnerable people who have to pay the charges! According to my research, there will be no customer satisfaction survey this year either. Ostensiby this is a cost saving measure, but added to a lack of prior consultation its a kick in the teeth of vulnerable people.

By chance I recieved a glossy brochure from OPG yesterday (you will be getting one?), illustrating how OPG is able to help Deputies. Nice to know the £250 of the family member is being well spent-NOT.

Regards
4372

2112

I've had (still have) loads of issues with the OPG regarding supervision fees.

Not only have they increased the fee from £175 pa to £320, they've also changed (unfairly imo) the threshholds under which 'patients' could claim a fee remittance (ie due to low income). In my father's case, because his income was below £13.5k pa he qualified for a fee remittance of 75%, taking his fee down to £43.75. Now the income threshhold has been reduced to £12k pa, my father has to pay the full £320 supervision fee - an effective increase of over 550%!

One other point which may be of interest is that in a letter to me in during February this year, Martin John (the then Public Guardian) stated that "the review of annual reports does not usually include re-checking the extent of a Deputy's authority" (i.e. when conducting their supervision checks, the OPG does not usually check that the 'deputy' has acted within the terms of their Court Order!). This was no surprise to me as I have cast iron evidence that the OPG did not check that the actions I took to spend money for my father were within the pararmeters of my Court Order. When I wrote back to Mr John to advise that the OPG's own booklet entitled 'How you will be supervised as a deputy' (doc FS05) clearly and unequivocally states: "The OPG has a responsibility to check you are doing everything you should be doing. This includes making sure that you comply with the terms of your Court Order" he then subsequently wrote to me again saying sorry, he'd made a mistake - the OPG does carry out checks against the Court Order!

My specific issue is that the OPG have been charging supervision fees but have not carried out the checks they are manadated to do, and now, they expect 'patients' to pay even more for the supervision service (a service which is supposed to help to protect the 'patient's' interest)

Well I'm taking a stand and have told the OPG my father is not paying the fee!

One other interesting post script to this is that at the beginning of April, Martin John was replaced as the Public Guardian by Alan Eccles.