Office of the Public Guardian

4. Mr J complains the OPG provided poor service in 2024 and 2025. Specifically, Mr J complains the OPG: • failed to supply him with its policies and ignored his requests for reasonable adjustments • wrongly charged supervision fees from the date of an invalid Court of Protection (COP) court order • did not correctly review his March 2024 annual report and wrongly told him this was incomplete • issued harmful and inflexible deadlines • supplied inaccurate information and harassed and bullied him to supply information.

5. Mr J tells us the OPG failed in its duties, and this caused significant distress. He said the time he spent dealing with its poor service and mistakes took away from the time he could have spent with his elderly parents. He said the OPG refused to acknowledge its failings in a meaningful way, and he now has no confidence it can competently supervise his deputyship or act in his mother’s best interests.

6. Mr J wants the OPG to acknowledge its mistakes and apologise for them. He also wants the OPG to improve its service and pay him a financial remedy.

7. The OPG helps people in England and Wales to stay in control of decisions about their health and finances and make important decisions for others who cannot decide for themselves.

8. Mr J was acting as a deputy on behalf of his mother, Mrs J.

9. A deputy is authorised by the COP to make decisions on behalf of the person who lacks capacity. A deputy is typically responsible for managing the person’s property, financial affairs and personal welfare. The deputy must act in the best interests of the person they support.

10. One of the OPG’s roles is to supervise and monitor the conduct of deputies to ensure they act in line with the COP’s court order which appointed them.

11. It says there are two key aspects to supervision. Firstly, it may visit the deputy and the person they represent to ensure all is well. Secondly, it expects the deputy to submit annual financial reports which detail the represented person’s income, expenditure and assets, along with every major decision and action the deputy has taken.

12. Mr J first complained to the OPG following submission of his annual financial report and bank statements for 5 March 2024 to 4 March 2025.

13. The complaints process ended in October 2025.

16. We will consider each of Mr J’s concerns separately for clarity. Where matters are similar in nature or are closely related, we will consider them together.

Policies and reasonable adjustments

17. Mr J tells us he informed the OPG from the outset he was neurodiverse and requested clear policy details to help him plan and meet its requirements. He said the OPG never provided this information.

18. The OPG do not appear to have addressed this specific issue during the complaints process. While we usually require the organisation to address matters before we consider them, we felt it was proportionate to give a view in this matter without the need for Mr J to go back to the OPG.

19. Our complaint standards say public bodies should respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. This means a public body should consider how it may need to adjust its normal approach to handling complaints.

20. Our Principles say in their decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant guidance, policy or legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately.

21. We have carefully reviewed Mr J’s communication with the OPG and can find no evidence he requested policy details.

22. We can see he asked the OPG for ‘guidance’ in his email dated 3 June 2025, but this does not appear to be a request for any physical guidance or policy documentation. Instead, Mr J appears to be asking the OPG for guidance in terms of practical assistance or advice.

23. We asked Mr J if he could provide us with any evidence to support his claim. He provided us with two email chains and said he told OPG staff he was neurodiverse. He said his emails expressed continued concerns about the OPG’s actions and this should have indicated its approach was not working.

24. We understand Mr J feels that because he made the OPG aware of his neurodiversity and because he continued to express concerns about its actions, the OPG should have understood its communication was not working. Mr J believes it should then have offered him its relevant policies around access to its service.

25. We respectfully disagree with Mr J. If Mr J wanted the OPG to supply its policies, we would expect him to request them.

26. We can see there were disagreements between Mr J and the OPG during the complaints process. Disagreements between parties are commonplace during the complaints process.

27. In our view, a disagreement is not necessarily indicative of a wider problem in the organisation’s ability to communicate. Unfortunately, meaningful discussion between parties does not always lead to agreement.

28. We do not agree that because Mr J and the OPG continued to disagree on matters this indicates the OPG should have automatically supplied Mr J with its policy details.

29. Overall, we can see the OPG attempted to resolve Mr J’s complaint by engaging with him. We are satisfied the OPG acted in line with our Principles and our complaint standards in this matter.

30. Mr J also complains the OPG consistently ignored his requests for reasonable adjustments.

31. The OPG recognised Mr J said he was neurodiverse and that he found its telephone intelligent voice recognition (IVR) system to be ‘bombarding’. The OPG said it was working to make its telephone system more accessible through the possible introduction of ‘voice based IVR selection.’

32. An IVR system will usually present the caller with verbal options and require them to use their telephone keypad to make their selection. Voice based IVR selection allows callers to interact with an automated phone system by speaking their choices instead of using the telephone keypad.

33. The OPG added that if Mr J did not wish to call and use its IVR, he could email and, if required, request a call back.

34. Our Principles and our complaint standards set out at paragraphs 19 to 20 are also relevant here.

35. We understand Mr J called the OPG on 14 March 2025. We expect it was during this call Mr J made the OPG aware of his neurodiversity and that he was experiencing problems in navigating its IVR.

36. We can see the OPG wrote to Mr J on 17 March and supplied its email address and telephone number. It also supplied his case number and the option he would need to press on its IVR to reach the appropriate team.

37. We cannot see Mr J then raised further concerns about his accessibility to the OPG’s service until his email on 12 June. At this point he said he had previously advised he was neurodiverse and added that despite this disclosure, there was no reasonable adjustment offer.

38. He said the OPG’s subsequent communications were in a manner he found difficult to process and this caused stress. He said the OPG had failed to meet its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010).

39. In response, the OPG noted in its 20 June complaint response that he could email if he did not want to navigate the OPG’s telephone IVR.

40. It also said he could request a call back in his email if he needed to discuss matters. The OPG added that if he wanted further adjustments, it would be happy to consider these upon further request.

41. It is not for our Office to give a view on whether the OPG acted in line with its legal obligations under the EA2010. This is for a court to consider.

42. Our Office can consider whether the OPG acted in line with applicable guidance and standards in how it responded to Mr J’s reasonable adjustment request.

43. We think the OPG appropriately responded to Mr J when he made it aware of his neurodiversity and the problems he was experiencing with its telephone IVR.

44. It gave further guidance around how to more easily navigate the IVR and if he did not wish to do so, it said he could email it and request a call back. We think this approach is reasonable and would allow Mr J to discuss any matters he found difficult to process. We are also pleased the OPG is looking to improve the accessibility of its IVR system.

45. The OPG also explained that if Mr J wanted further reasonable adjustments, it would be happy to consider them. Based on the information we have seen, we cannot see Mr J contacted the OPG to ask for further adjustments.

46. We are satisfied the OPG acted in line with our Principles and our complaint standards in its handling of Mr J’s reasonable adjustment request.

47. We have therefore decided to take no further action in this part of his complaint.

Supervision fees

48. Mr J tells us the OPG wrongly charged supervision fees from an ‘invalid’ court order dated 5 March 2024.

49. The OPG charges annual supervision fees to cover the cost of the supervision and support it provides to deputies.

50. Mr J explains this court order from the COP misspelt his mother’s surname. He said the OPG should not therefore have charged supervision fees from 5 March 2024. He said the OPG should instead have charged fees from 12 September 2024 when the COP reissued the court order which spelt his mother’s name correctly.

51. The OPG explains the misspelling of his mother’s surname does not invalidate the COP’s court order and supervision fees are payable once this order is issued.

52. We are not aware of any guidance, policy or legislation which sets out when OPG supervision fees begin.

53. Our Principles set out at paragraph 20 are also relevant here.

54. We contacted the OPG to get a better understanding of what involvement it had in Mr J’s case from March 2024.

55. The OPG said its supervisory role commenced upon receipt of the COP’s court order. It said upon receipt, the OPG reviewed the court order, allocated the case to a case manager and wrote to Mr J on 15 May. This letter set out the OPG’s supervisory role and gave Mr J advice on what to do next.

56. The OPG said it made an introductory call to Mr J, which is standard process with all new deputies and had a more in-depth call with him on 6 June. It said it sent a letter to Mr J on 10 June summarising this discussion.

57. We are satisfied the OPG’s explanation shows it was actively involved in Mr J’s case following the initial court order.

58. The OPG also supplied further information in response to Mr J’s claim the COP’s initial court order was invalid. It said The Court of Protection Rules 2017, Section 5.15, says: ‘The court may at any time correct any clerical mistakes in an order or direction or any error arising in an order or direction from any accidental slip or omission.’

59. The OPG explained this ‘slip rule’ in legislation allows the court to amend orders which do not change the legal content of the order itself or effect its validity. It says the courts commonly use the ‘slip rule’ to amend court orders where typographical errors to the name, date of birth, place of birth or marriage occur.

60. The OPG said it is clear the court intended the legal effect of the order to stay the same and only made a slight amendment. It said the order remained in force and the deputy was still legally appointed. It said it was therefore correct to charge fees based on the original court order.

61. It is not for our Office to give a view on the legal validity of a court order. This would be for a court to consider.

62. We can consider the reasonableness of the OPG’s position and whether we think it is in line with applicable guidance and standards.

63. We can see the OPG acted following receipt of the COP’s court order and carried out supervisory tasks prior to the reissued order in September 2024. We can therefore see the OPG was carrying out its supervisory role following the original court order.

64. As such, we are persuaded it is reasonable and in line with our Principles for the OPG to have charge fees for the period before the COP amended its court order.

65. We have decided to take no further action in this element of Mr J’s complaint.

March 2024 annual report

66. Mr J tells us he submitted his first annual report in March 2024 and provided all the necessary information. He said the OPG wrongly told him it was incomplete and asked for additional bank statements.

67. He said this demonstrates the OPG had not correctly reviewed his report and this caused avoidable distress.

68. An annual report is a document deputies must complete to show what actions they have taken on behalf of the person they represent over the past year. The OPG reviews this report to ensure transparency and accountability in how the deputy managed the represented person’s affairs.

69. The OPG said its staff member did make a mistake when reviewing Mr J’s annual report and as a result incorrectly requested additional bank statements in a letter dated 14 March 2025.

70. It said the staff member called Mr J later that same day. It said the staff member explained they had located the missing bank statements on the OPG’s system and apologised for their earlier letter.

71. We appreciate Mr J will have been upset by the OPG’s 14 March letter setting out that he had not supplied the correct information. While we recognise he will have experienced some upset, we do not see it lasted more than a day because the OPG called him to clarify matters and apologise.

72. We do not see the OPG’s actions on 14 March is so far below what we would expect to see that it warrants maladministration. We therefore view it as a shortcoming and have decided to take no further action.

73. We are pleased, nonetheless that the OPG called Mr J without delay on 14 March to clarify matters and provide an apology. We think this would have provided Mr J with some reassurance around his annual report submission.

74. We also think it would have helped to lessen any lasting doubt or distress he experienced upon receiving the OPG’s earlier contact concerning the missing information.

75. We have decided to take no further action in this element of Mr J’s complaint.

Harmful and inflexible directives and deadlines alongside harassment and bullying 76. Mr J explains the OPG instructed him to rearrange his parents’ joint bank accounts. He said this made the practical management of his mother’s finances significantly more difficult and time consuming.

77. Mr J said this directly reduced the time he had to care for his parents.

78. He adds the OPG issued threatening correspondence concerning delays in rearranging his parent’s bank accounts and set deadlines for completion of this work. He said he already explained to the OPG that a bank caused delays in him completing this work, but the OPG chose to respond in an unreasonable and aggressive manner.

79. The OPG said it wanted to be as supportive as possible to deputies but must also strike a balance with its statutory duty to protect people who lack mental capacity from abuse or exploitation.

80. It said it is mindful that deputies may require third party organisations to act before they can respond. It said in these circumstances it will always be open to extending deadlines, when asked.

81. We understand the OPG and Mr J discussed what should happen with one of his mother’s bank accounts. From what we can see, it was agreed Mr J would remove his mother from the joint accounts she shared with her husband.

82. The OPG said this would make it easier for Mr J to report on his mother’s finances.

83. The OPG Deputy Standards, Standard 4b, says deputies must make sure the funds of the person they represent are kept separate and account management is fully transparent.

84. Our Principles set out at paragraph 20 are also relevant here.

85. The OPG is duty bound to ensure the deputy acts in line with their obligations and that their duties are carried out in a timely manner.

86. We acknowledge Mr J was likely under a great deal of stress in caring for his parents and acting as a deputy for his mother.

87. The OPG’s request for Mr J to rearrange his parents’ bank accounts is something we can see it discussed with him and its request is in line with OPG Deputy Standards. We appreciate the OPG felt such action would, overall, benefit Mr J as it would mean his financial reporting would be clearer and more transparent.

88. We do not see the OPG’s contact with Mr J, or any deadlines it supplied are unreasonable or inappropriate. As the OPG set out, if Mr J was unhappy with any of those deadlines, it was open for him to raise his concerns and request an extension.

89. We also cannot see, based on the information available to us, that the OPG issued threatening letters or emails to Mr J.

90. In our view, the OPG’s correspondence throughout appears both clear and respectful. More generally, we can see no evidence of the OPG bullying and harassing Mr J.

91. We have decided to take no further action in this part of Mr J’s complaint.

Inaccurate information

92. Mr J tells us the OPG gave factually inaccurate information concerning its own financial redress policy. He said the OPG initially told him it could not offer consolatory payments and later had to retract this information. He said this was an example of the OPG’s poor service.

93. The OPG agreed its 11 June 2025 response wrongly said it could not offer a consolatory payment as these payments come from the public purse. It apologised to Mr J for this mistake.

94. The OPG explained that because such payments come from the public purse it must be careful any payments are reasonable and proportionate to the mistake.

95. It said it had apologised to Mr J for its mistake in telling him he needed to provide further bank statements on 14 March (which we discussed at paragraphs 66 to 75 of this statement and appears to have been one of the key reasons for Mr J’s request for financial remedy) and felt this was sufficient to put right what went wrong.

96. Our Principles and our complaint standards set out at paragraphs 19 to 20 are also relevant here.

97. We recognise Mr J is frustrated the OPG initially provided misleading information about whether it could provide financial remedy and appreciate this may have caused him some frustration. We think this is an indication of maladministration.

98. Having carefully considered this matter and the impact it had upon Mr J, we think he is at level one of our severity of injustice scale. Our severity of injustice scale has six levels with increasing injustice. As the severity of injustice increases in the scale, so does the remedy we think will put it right. This scale assists us in assessing impact and remedy.

99. At level one, we usually deem an apology is enough to put matters right. This is because the person will typically have experienced low-level impact of frustration, worry or inconvenience where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impacts.

100. We think the OPG’s apology is sufficient to put right Mr J’s frustration. We also do not agree there is a cumulative impact which would warrant financial remedy as Mr J claims.

101. Where the OPG made some minor handling mistakes it appropriately apologised for them. As set out above, we think an acknowledgement of what went wrong and an apology is sufficient to put right the impact of what went wrong.

102. We have therefore decided to take no further action in Mr J’s complaint.

103. We appreciate our decision will likely come as a disappointment to Mr J. We hope our decision statement clearly sets out our reasoning, and this provides him with some clarity in these matters.

1. We have carefully considered Mr J’s complaint about the OPG. We were sorry to read of the events that caused Mr G to complain and recognise these have been very difficult circumstances for him.

2. We cannot see any indications of maladministration in the way the OPG communicated with Mr J or managed his account. We can see it acted in line with applicable guidance and standards. For this reason, we have decided to take no further action in Mr J’s complaint.

3. We appreciate our decision will likely be disappointing. We understand Mr J has been through a great deal over the past few years and hope our statement clearly sets out how we reached our decision.