Rebirth of the Public Guardianship Office

Meg Andrews says the overhaul of the Public Guardianship Office has produced a positive outcome

The move of the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) and Court of Protection from Stewart House to Archway Tower in January of last year did not produce the promised improvement in service.

This was because of a combination of several factors, including the loss of valuable experienced staff and the introduction of working practices, which meant that in July last year the situation was approaching meltdown, with more than 22,000 items of correspondence outstanding and some staff spending 80% of their time dealing with complaints.

The Law Society and specialist practitioner groups have been inundated with examples of unacceptable delays, causing problems for vulnerable clients, and PGO files being mislaid or lost.

The Society raised its concerns with the PGO about the difficulties that had arisen for many practitioners.

This culminated in a recent meeting between Jonathan Spencer, director-general of the policy group, Jeanette Martin, head of the management performance unit, David Thompson, director of client services at the PGO, and members of the joint liaison working party between the Society, the Court of Protection, and the PGO.

It is clear that the concerns that have been raised have not fallen on deaf ears and that real progress is now being made in dealing with the situation.

Reorganisation

Vacant posts are being filled and training undertaken.

Staff members have been reorganised into three groups, two dealing with lay receivers and one with local authority and professional receivers.

Files are now kept on the same floor as those using them, rather than in a central store.

The call centres have gone and receivers have been supplied with a contact telephone number for the team dealing with their matter.

A positive attitude is emerging.

Staff members have been working evenings and weekends to clear the backlog of work and of complaints, 80% of which are about delays.

At 13 January 2003, the number of outstanding complaints had been reduced to 250 and the overall level of arrears to 3,770.

There has been a noticeable improvement in the speed of response over the past few weeks and the PGO hopes that this will lead to a virtuous circle, with less delay meaning fewer complaints, meaning more time free for the office to deal with its core role.

Conscious of the fact that the PGO's difficulties last summer have led to clients blaming their solicitors for problems not of their making, chief executive David Lye, fulfilling a promise made by Mr Thompson, has recently written to receivers, acknowledging the poor level of service and explaining the steps taken to improve matters.

The letter is written in such a way that professional receivers could pass it on to clients.

In an unusually positive step, when the next annual account is sent in, the PGO will be examining clients' circumstances and spending patterns to see whether a regular release of monies would be helpful, rather than the receiver having to make a specific application each time.

The office is offering receivers the chance to request this before the year-end.

Increased autonomy

The PGO knows that there have been problems and accepts responsibility for them.

It maintains, with some justification, that the measures put in place recently will turn the situation around.

The office aspires to deliver a service that everyone can be proud of and it is hoped that this will be achieved within the next few months.

Progress will be watched with interest.

One way of freeing caseworkers to spend more time with lay receivers, or more complicated cases, arises from a suggestion early last year from Denzil Lush, the Master of the Court of Protection.

He proposed that professional receivers be given similar autonomy to that enjoyed by attorneys under a registered enduring power of attorney.

The first general order is likely to give the professional receiver general authority to deal with the client's affairs, subject to a fairly lengthy list of exclusions.

These will include such matters as making a will or settlement, conducting legal proceedings, buying property or buying or selling investments, for which a specific order or authority would be needed.

However, no additional order would be required to sell the client's former home, which means a saving of fees and, more importantly, time.

Monies to be held on deposit would no longer have to be lodged in court, allowing easier and swifter access to funds needed to pay for a client's care.

To protect the client's interests, annual accounts could still be called for, as they can with a registered enduring power of attorney, and a receivership bond is likely to be required.

The point that is causing some problems is the question of the professional receiver's costs.

Clearly, the professional receiver is entitled to be paid, but the PGO is anxious that clients should not be exploited, or rather put at risk of being exploited.

There is concern that work may not be delegated sufficiently, or that such delegation might not be reflected in the fees charged.

Taxation causes delays and additional costs and it has been suggested that fees at or under a specified figure would simply be accepted, while those above it would require justification.

Many practitioners will have received the first annual satisfaction survey from the PGO, if they have not already been involved in the telephone survey that preceded it.

This represents a brave, but possibly ill-timed venture.

Procedures have been put in place to improve matters.

It appears, at this early stage that they may be producing a beneficial effect.

There is little doubt that the survey results will reveal dissatisfaction.

How will the researchers tell how recent the experiences complained of are?

Meg Andrews is the Law Society Council member for Yorkshire and a member of the Society's mental health committee