We need to talk! - levels of contact.

On review of recent court assessments of Court of Protection bills of costs, it has been noted that costs officers are making more reductions on time claimed for attendances on P, their family members, or other parties. This will either be for meetings, long telephone calls, or routine items where they feel the time spent is too high. The costs officer will often refer to the case of Trudy Samler (unreported) as the reason for the reduction.

As ever, this article will be of interest to professional deputies and/or those assisting a professional deputy and to practitioners working within the Court of Protection.

The case of Samler and background 

The case of Trudy Samler is a relatively old case heard back in 2001 and concerned the level of costs incurred at the instigation of P and whether the deputy should be expected to be paid in any event. Master O’Hare conveyed that a deputy has a duty to P to find a way to avoid such expenses. Master O’Hare also looked at the cost of quarterly visits to P and commented that beyond annual visits, further subsequent visits would need to be justified.  Ultimately, Master O’Hare concluded that any attendances upon P or their family would need to be reasonable and proportionate.

In our view, however, the application of this case is somewhat flawed.  Whilst this case deals with issues regarding levels of contact on P, it is, as detailed above, an old case from 2001, which pre-dates the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  There is much more emphasis on the deputy to seek, obtain and consider the wishes and feelings of P and their family, when making decisions in P’s best interests.

What can be done?

It is difficult to ignore correspondence or calls if P or a family member continually contacts the deputy or deputy team. Indeed, we are certain that the Court of Protection and Office of the Public Guardian would take a dim view if this was ever done, not to mention P themselves or their family!

On some matters, we do see daily contact requests from either P or a family member. You may wish to consider preparing an attendance note on any discussions had with P or the family where it had been explained that continued contact or request of contact will increase costs at the expense of P. Also, it would be useful to highlight any strategies in place to curb contact levels. This will demonstrate to the court that the deputy is making ongoing efforts to reduce any unnecessary communications. This may help to recover the time claimed for any attendances/calls.  We appreciate that such conversations may be considered sensitive in nature and are not always easy to have with your client.

amilies also may request additional meetings over and above the annual review within the general management period. It would be recommended to explain to the family the additional costs involved and seek agreement with them before proceeding. This can then be highlighted to the court that the family were advised on the costs, where happy for said costs to be incurred and, therefore, this help justify the time claimed.

Further recommendations are to provide a small summary at the beginning of an attendance note to explain the purpose/reason of the meeting/call before going into further details of that attendance. This will assist the cost officer by immediately highlighting the reasons for the time claimed.

A&M Bacon are committed to assisting our clients to maximise their profit cost recoverability. For further information or advice in relation to levels of contact, or any other Court of Protection matter, please contact us further.

Brian Ferry, Court of Protection Costs Lawyer 

19.02.2025