January 2026 – Updated OPG Guidance For Re ACC & Ors

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has issued an updated version of the ACC and Others: Guidance for Property and Affairs Deputies, published 9 January 2026, reaffirming the standards expected of professional deputies and clarifying the practical application of the Re ACC and Others [2020] EWCOP 9 judgment.

The guidance sets out the Public Guardian’s position on deputy authority, conflicts of interest, and the limits of a deputy’s powers – key areas long recognised as high‑risk for professional deputies.

General Authority: Reconfirming Operational Boundaries

The OPG reiterates that a deputy’s general authority extends only to the common, ordinary day‑to‑day tasks necessary to administer P’s estate. This includes:

• Management of P’s finances, including accounts and investments
• Management of P’s property, including maintenance and discharging financial liabilities under a tenancy
• The preparation of an annual tax return, and obtaining advice in relation to the same
• Payment of care costs and attending to employment contracts for directly employed carers

Professional deputies must continue to assess, for every non‑routine action, whether it:

• Falls within the scope of general authority; or
• Requires specific Court of Protection (COP) authorisation

Specific COP authorisation is required to:

• Purchase freehold or leasehold property
• Sell, lease or charge freehold or leasehold property
• Appoint an investment manager
• Use P’s funds to provide for others
• Make gifts to charity or on customary occasions
• Obtain a grant of representation; and
• Execute or sign deeds or documents

If the deputyship order does not contain specific authority in relation to the above tasks, then the deputy must apply to the COP for specific authorisation.

Legal Services & Litigation: Key Constraints for Professional Deputies

The practical implications of Re ACC for legal work remain unchanged but are now emphasised more firmly.

Deputies cannot conduct litigation on P’s behalf unless the COP has granted explicit authority.

Where a deputy has specific authority to carry out tasks for P, then they are authorised to engage in contentious litigation up to the point of receiving the Letter of Response, but no further.

Where contentious litigation relates to personal welfare decisions, a deputy may seek directions from the COP but may not initiate the litigation process.

If the Deputy considers that urgent litigation is required, the deputy may proceed at risk with respect to costs but seek retrospective authority from the COP.

Self‑instruction rule: the £2,000 threshold

If a deputy intends to instruct their own firm and the anticipated costs exceed £2,000 plus VAT, COP approval is required. This reflects Re ACC’s concern about potential and actual conflicts of interest.

This requirement is especially relevant for multidisciplinary practices where deputies also work within private client, litigation, or conveyancing teams.

Conflict of Interest Management: Heightened Expectations

The updated guidance strongly restates the Re ACC position:

Any time a deputy proposes instructing their own firm, they must:

1. Obtain three quotes
2. Undertake and document a best interests decision
3. Seek COP approval where costs may exceed £2,000 plus VAT

Role Boundaries: What Professional Deputies Cannot Do

The guidance re‑emphasises important restrictions:

• No welfare decision‑making: Deputies cannot make decisions about medical treatment, care, or living arrangements; welfare matters must be referred back to the COP
• No automatic authority to buy/sell property or commence litigation unless the order explicitly grants these powers

These reiterations align with ongoing OPG supervisory themes around role clarity and avoiding scope creep.

Practical Steps for Professional Deputies

The OPG emphasises structured, evidence‑based decision‑making and early escalation. Deputies should:

• Re‑examine their deputyship orders for any gaps in authority
• Maintain clear, contemporaneous reasoning in all best interests decisions
• Distinguish rigorously between tasks within general authority and those requiring specific authorisation
• Conduct conflict checks and self‑instruction assessments at the outset of any legal matter
• Seek directions promptly where authority is uncertain

What This Means for Professional Practice

The January 2026 update consolidates the last several years of supervisory focus following Re ACC, ensuring professional deputies operate with transparency, documented decision‑making, and heightened sensitivity to conflicts.

Key takeaways for practice management:

• Audit your internal processes, especially around legal instruction and conflicts
• Update team training to reinforce the litigation boundary and the self‑instruction threshold
• Build decision‑making logs into digital case management systems
• Review retainer processes with in‑house legal teams to avoid accidental overreach
• Obtain specific authority for work outside the general authority and provide these to your Costs Draftsman

Ultimately, the updated guidance strengthens safeguards for P while providing clarity for deputies who must balance efficiency with regulatory compliance.

Our aim at A&M Bacon is to maximise recovery for our clients, whilst delivering expert advice in a friendly and approachable manner. If you found this article helpful, then please ensure you read the articles from my colleagues which cover a number of topics, including Litigation v General Management, What should you look for in a Court of Protection Costs Draftsman, and Fixed Costs Guidance for Deputies.

Should you have any queries following this article, please do not hesitate to contact us. Our friendly team is always happy to help.

Jill Thomason-Stewart, Court of Protection Costs Lawyer

04.02.2026