Fixed costs and remuneration of professional and public authority court appointed deputies: the new approach for deputies.

Professional deputies managing the property and financial affairs of Protected Parties (P) operate within a structured framework governing how their costs may be recovered from P’s estate. The fixed-cost regime for professional deputy costs continues to evolve, and the updated guidance issued by the Office of the Public Guardian on 18 June 2025 provides further clarity on how Practice Direction 19B should now be applied.

This guide explains how Court of Protection fixed costs operate for professional and public authority deputies, when fixed fees apply instead of detailed assessment, how the revised asset threshold affects recoverability and what deputies should consider when reviewing existing deputyship orders. It also highlights the practical implications of the updated guidance and explains how deputies can ensure their approach to costs remains compliant with current expectations.

What are the Court of Protection fixed costs?

Court of Protection fixed costs are the standard remuneration professional deputies may recover for managing P’s property and financial affairs without the need to prepare a bill for detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office. The fixed-cost regime provides certainty where estates fall below defined thresholds and ensures costs remain proportionate to the size of P’s estate.

These fixed fees typically relate to the ongoing annual management of the deputyship and the routine responsibilities carried out by professional deputies in administering P’s financial affairs. Where estates exceed the relevant threshold, or where the deputyship order provides authority for assessment, deputies may instead seek detailed assessment through the usual Court of Protection costs process.

Who can claim professional deputy fixed costs?

The fixed-cost regime applies to deputies appointed by the Court of Protection to manage property and financial affairs when those deputies act in a professional or public-authority capacity. This includes solicitor deputies, trust corporations and local authority deputies acting under court appointment.

Whether fixed costs apply in a particular case depends not only on the nature of the appointment but also on the wording of the deputyship order and the value of P’s estate during the relevant period. Reviewing the order carefully remains essential before deciding whether assessment authority exists.

The £20,300 threshold and when detailed assessment applies

Following revisions to Practice Direction 19B, professional deputies appointed in property and financial affairs matters, on or after 1 April 2024, will not generally be entitled to seek a detailed assessment where P’s net assets fall below £20,300, unless the court has made a specific order permitting assessment. In these circumstances, deputies are expected to rely on the Court of Protection fixed-fee regime instead.

When determining whether the threshold has been exceeded, the court takes a broad view of what constitutes net assets. These may include:

• Property owned by P, whether occupied or not
• Capital currently held
• Agreed damages awards
• Inheritance entitlements
• Recoverable debts or future capital receipts

The approach to calculating net assets was clarified in PennTrust Ltd v West Berkshire District Council & Anor [2023] EWCOP 48, which confirmed that assets not yet in possession may still be relevant when determining whether a detailed assessment is available.

Where estates fall below the threshold, deputies should normally proceed on the basis that fixed costs apply unless the deputyship order expressly preserves authority for assessment.

What happens if a deputy seeks assessment without authority?

Where a deputy obtains an assessment of costs without authority to do so, the Office of the Public Guardian expects the deputy to apply to the Court of Protection for retrospective approval to recover costs at the assessed level together with relief from liability arising from the recovery of unauthorised fees.

Such applications should address:

• The circumstances of the original deputyship appointment
• The steps taken in managing P’s affairs during the relevant period
• Why were fixed costs not considered appropriate?
• Why was an assessment sought without authorisation?
• The value of P’s estate
• The amount of costs assessed

Where a deputy does not make such an application, the Office of the Public Guardian may consider making its own application to discharge the deputy.

Annual management fees where estates fall below the threshold

Practice Direction 19B confirms that professional deputies may take an annual management fee not exceeding 4.5% of P’s assets on the anniversary of the deputyship order where the estate falls below £20,300.

Where taking fixed costs reduces the estate below the threshold level, deputies should be prepared to explain why the costs remain reasonable and proportionate in light of the size of the estate and the work undertaken. The Office of the Public Guardian continues to expect deputies to demonstrate