The Court of Protection must address the ‘catastrophic impact’ of the Mental Capacity Act on visitors.

Court of Protection (CoP) appointed deputies, managing the affairs of those who lack mental capacity, and receivers (pre-Mental Capacity Act 2005), benefited substantially over the years from the wisdom and experience of the CoP’s visitors. But those visitors are now in a deeply troubling position.

Before the act came into force on 1 October 2007, visitors were self-employed, either working part-time or full-time, and appeared to have come from senior professional backgrounds. Solicitor members of the CoP’s deputies panel can vouch for the contribution they have made in ensuring the proper care and supervision of those lacking mental capacity. Nevertheless, I am reliably informed that their remuneration was based on a per-visit payment, which ranged from £95 to £120, from which visitors were expected to cover all their own administration, travel costs, and other overheads. Of those working full-time, the average visitor was carrying out 40 to 60 visits a month, and thus earning annually before expenses no more than £60,000.

However, this already poor level of pay has been drastically reduced by two-thirds since the act came into force, following the court’s reasonable decision to exercise greater control on CoP visitors by making them employees rather than self-employed. All CoP visitors will therefore still be working from home, thus providing the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) with what amounts to free office space and overheads, though they will receive travel costs.

Pay scales have been banded into five areas of the country and represent civil service band C. Therefore, depending on where the employee is living (and not on his place of work) the scale will be applied. Band C commences at £17,712 for what is considered the lowest area and increases to £24,764 for central London, including London weighting. Most visitors are expected to be employed on the minimum scale, though some may have slightly increased payments in line with experience. In any event, the maximum scale for the highest-paid area is £35,000, including London weighting and is not expected to be attainable; £32,314 is the target maximum.

It appears that the OPG/CoP are now using a ‘hub and spoke’ model. This model involves employed visitors (‘hub’ visitors) undertaking the majority of visits on specified pay scales, with ‘spoke’ visitors remaining self-employed and paid on a per-visit basis as before, but with a drastic reduction in the numbers of visits and much shorter time-scales.

However, this model is preventing economies of scale, and driving up costs per visit, as visitors cover vast geographical distances and can only manage three to four visits a day as opposed to six to seven under the old system. Highly experienced visitors in these posts are being asked to work on an unqualified school leaver’s salary. It should also be noted that the number of visits being carried out overall has drastically fallen, so ‘spokes’ are likely to receive too few visits to make the system workable.

The overall result is that visitors’ remuneration has been reduced by 65% since the act came into effect. Needless to say, this is a catastrophic blow to current visitors whose skill, professionalism and dedication have been shamefully ignored.

Visitors express concern that their positions will no longer be filled by experienced professionals because of the unattractive pay. They also fear that the huge reduction in visits will result in more inappropriate deputies, and that a lack of monitoring of the service will adversely affect vulnerable clients and deputies alike.

Immediate action is required to save this vital service for the protection of the most needy and vulnerable members of our society who, being incapable of campaigning for its survival, need the support of all who share the above concerns.

Finally, I have been asked to stress that special visitors are not motivated solely by financial considerations – and that their chief concern in airing the above issues is to ensure that vulnerable clients who are being put much more at risk do not suffer from a lack of proper support and service.

Trevor Lyttleton is founder and chairman of Contact the Elderly