The Public Guardian has failed to address a catastrophic decline in the income of Court of Protection visitors.

All practitioners involved in Court of Protection work will warmly welcome new Public Guardian Martin John’s initiative in reviewing serious problems arising from the new lasting power of attorney (LPA) process (see [2008] Gazette, 7 August, 3).

I was, however, sorry to note his inadequate response to the serious issues raised in my article ([2008] Gazette, 31 July, 6) concerning the serious plight of Court of Protection (CoP) visitors. He fails to address the catastrophic decline in their income, and rejects their claims that moving more CoP visitors supervising vulnerable adults on to an employed, rather than self-employed, basis was a cost-cutting exercise that would lead to a decline in expertise and proper supervision of a vital support service for the incapacitated.

The facts are that existing visitors are simply unable to apply for employed posts as their pay remains at the abysmally reduced levels stated in my article. The increased rates to which the Public Guardian refers are being paid to those visitors who remain (and are currently in the process of applying for their own jobs, but on a part-time ‘spoke’ basis).

I am reliably informed that, under the new system, visitors will have drastically reduced numbers of visits and that routine visits will generally stop, leaving huge numbers of incapacitated persons very vulnerable.

The six-week turnaround to which the Public Guardian refers has been in operation since October 2007 and, while some visitors have been hanging in there simply because they enjoy the job, the future is uncertain. They all have to apply for what was their previous job with no certainty that they will actually be offered a post. Indeed, if they are lucky enough to be taken on (as a part-time, self-employed ‘spoke’), the likelihood is they will all have to supplement their income from other work as the numbers of visits are so drastically reduced. That is assuming the majority of work does not go to those employed individuals who are still stuck on dismal pay scales.

If the Public Guardian is constrained by a lack of funds from tackling these issues, I trust that he will place this matter before the justice minister. He must demand that justice be done without further delay, before the CoP loses a dedicated and experienced team of visitors who provide an invaluable service.

Trevor LyttletonFounder and chairman, Contact the Elderly