Annex
RESPONSE FROM
JOHN RIPLEY
(HAMPSHIRE COUNTY
COUNCIL, SOCIAL
SERVICES)
1. Proposals to change the work and role
of the Public Trust Office should be considered in the light of
the proposed Incapacity Bill and the ongoing review of the Mental
Health Act. Need to avoid decisions being made in haste and repented
of at leisure. The service could be improved from within as far
as possible until relevant new legislation is in place.
2. Monitoring role of the Public Trust Office
is needed—probably more so now than at any other time—obvious
demographic factors. Monitoring should be extended to effective
oversight of EPAs (this should sit well with the Mental Incapacity
Bill and the advent of the CPA). Underpinning these roles should
be that of the Lord Chancellor's Visitor—Lord Irvine's eyes
and ears. LCVs should continue to function as at present: impartial
individuals with relevant experience/necessary skills—not
attached to any other organisation eg the Benefits Agency, Social
Services or even Voluntary Organisations (the local representative
selected to visit may know the person or their family who are
being visited and this may be inhibiting). Primary purpose should
be to visit client in her/his surroundings as soon as possible,
preferably before a Receivership Order is made or an EPA is registered.
The LCV might usefully be involved in the process of serving notice
on the Client, certainly as far as Receivership is concerned.
Number of LCVs would need to be expanded and
care taken in appointing them. They will need appropriate skills.
May need some training.
Training needs for Public Trust Office staff
in exercising increased monitoring role. Important that staff
are enabled, at least from time to time, to meet clients and carers.
3. If Public Trust Office is no longer to
act as Receiver of last resort then alternative potential Receivers
need to be identified as soon as possible and accredited. Training
implications for voluntary organisations and solicitors. Dangers
of acting too quickly on this.
If Receivers who are currently operating well
are to be considered for taking on cases where Public Trust would
normally act as Receiver then the resource implications need to
be considered urgently.
Receivership work is labour intensive at the
best of times and in these Receivership Division cases many are
probably very different, complex, and requiring a higher staffing
ratio. (Does this partly explain why Receivership Division has
historically run at "loss" compared with Protection
Division of the Public Trust Office, despite its enhanced fees?).
If the new service for these last resort cases
is to work well it will need to be realistically costed and funded
either entirely from the public purse, entirely from the client's
means, or a combination of both. Grasping the funding nettle is
vital.
Whilst perhaps in an ideal world no charges
would be made to the individuals for this service, there is much
to be said for levying an affordable fee from the person for whom
the service is provided and who could reasonably be expected to
pay.
4. We are very concerned about the plight
of those incapacitated persons who have limited means—eg
capital below £10/£16K. Chant recommendation that these
should no longer be subject to Receivership Order. How is a 3rd
party to manage these and how will the work be funded if no family
or friends to carry out role? If subject to a Short Order from
Public Trust Office/Court of Protection the order should, if necessary,
provide for costs to be taken. These should be affordable. NB
£200 commencement fee (+£73 fee due to Doctor for medical
evidence) may be unacceptably high where savings involved are
only £2-£3K.
We believe that a new fee structure should take
account of these more modest cases with reduced fees applying.
At present where fees are relatively high on small estates potential
applicants are discouraged from using Public Trust Office/Court
of Protection and therefore incapacitated person may be unable
to access their savings. A way around this unacceptable situation
needs to be sought.
Need for an "evolving" order which
would assist the above situation. Suggest a new form of Appointeeship
with powers over savings up to a certain level, a Short Order
if necessary to deal with further savings and which might convert
to a Receivership Order if extent of funds, complexities of issues
demand this.
Where Short Orders are made by the Public Trust
Office/Court of Protection these clients should also be visited
by the LCV. They are not usually at present.
31 March 2000
| 
