Can A Panel Deputy For Property & Financial Affairs Be Removed In Favour Of A Lay Deputy?

Panel Deputies are professional deputies approved by the Public Guardian who will be appointed when no other suitable deputy has been put forward or can be agreed upon. The Court of Protection tends to opt for a professional deputy when the property and affairs of the protected party are particularly large or complex and therefore a professional with experience is required.

On occasion, the family members of a protected party will feel strongly about the use of a professional deputy and may feel they are better placed to act. A similar issue arose in the case of Kambli (as property and affairs for MBR) v Public Guardian when relations between a number of panel deputies and the family broke down.

Kambli (as property and affairs for MBR) v Public Guardian

Case summary

The proceedings prior to this case concerned an argument over who should take on the role of deputy, which led to the current panel deputy being appointed, namely Mr Kambli.

The relationship between Mr Kambli and MBR’s family broke down and an application followed from Mr Kambli to retire as deputy. This was initially refused by the Court of Protection in light of the previous contested proceedings and it was noted when a deputy encounters difficulties, the approach of the Court should not be to chop and change. The ongoing costs for the changes in deputyship were avoidable and not considered to be in MBR’s best interests. Mr Kambli went on to seek reconsideration of his application.

On reconsideration, the Court of Protection noted that this was the third deputyship that was failing due to a breakdown in the relationship between the deputy and the family which must not have been a coincidence. It was agreed it was in MBR’s best interests for Mr Kambli to be removed as panel deputy as it was obvious there is no constructive working relationship between him and the family. Mr Kambli and the Public Guardian were in favour of another panel deputy being appointed in his place. The family, however, wanted to take over the role and put forward themselves (as father and mother to MBR) and in the alternative two cousins of MBR to act. The Court quickly dismissed the father and mother as an option due to the difficulties caused by the father during the previous deputyships and his financial history.

The Court of Protection was, therefore, left to decide between three-panel deputies and those family members put forward. The Court praised the use of the Public Guardian’s panel and commented on its usefulness in challenging cases. They did however note previous three-panel deputies had been unable to maintain a working relationship with MBR’s family and there was no evidence to support that this would not happen again should another panel deputy be appointed.

Considering the two cousins as deputies the Court explained the advantages in that there will be no management fees for MBR, they both have professional backgrounds so are expected to understand the nature of the role and it was expected there would be a greater degree of cooperation between them and MBR’s immediate family. The disadvantage was that they had no real experience of deputyships and could not provide any indemnity insurance. The Court felt these disadvantages were somewhat limited as the management of MBR’s estate should be straightforward from that point and a high level of security could be placed due to the lack of insurance.

What did the Court decide?

The Court, therefore, concluded the cousins would be appointed on the following conditions:

• Any dispute between them and the father which could not be resolved was put before the Court of Protection;
• The initial appointment was for only one accounting year so supervision by the Public Guardian could be reviewed; and
• Their powers of selling property and withdrawing investments were excluded.

Comment

This case may set an interesting precedent in demonstrating that the Court will consider allowing a deputy to retire if there is no prospect of a good relationship with the family, and also that relatives can be appointed in place of a panel deputy who has fallen out of favour.