HIDDEN POWER, HIDDEN HARM, PERSECUTION NOT PROTECTION BY THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN (OPG)

Hidden Power, Hidden Harm: Families Accuse the Public Guardian of Turning Protection into Persecution

By
London – November 2025

When Margaret’s mother developed dementia, she assumed that registering a Lasting Power of Attorney with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) would protect her mother’s interests. Instead, it marked the start of what she describes as “a nightmare that destroyed our family.”

“Within months,” she says, “I was accused of financially abusing my own mother. The OPG never showed me the complaint or the evidence — because there wasn’t any.”

Her story is not unique. A growing number of families say the OPG — the body that regulates decision-making for people who lack mental capacity — has turned its safeguarding powers against innocent relatives. Their accounts raise troubling questions about the way the state exercises control over some of Britain’s most vulnerable citizens.

A Little-Known Agency with Immense Power

The OPG, created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, oversees financial and welfare decisions for adults who cannot act for themselves. It supervises court-appointed deputies, registers Powers of Attorney and investigates complaints of abuse or neglect.

The agency’s stated mission is to “protect people who may lack mental capacity.”
Yet many families say its culture of secrecy and suspicion has allowed miscarriages of justice to flourish unchecked.

Central to their concern is a simple form: the OPG130.

The Form That Creates Accusation

The OPG130 form is the document anyone — a care worker, neighbour or distant relative — can use to “raise a concern” about alleged abuse. It invites the complainant to tick boxes for financial, physical, or emotional harm, and to name a “suspected perpetrator”.

For those named, this can mean instant suspicion. Investigations may begin before any evidence is seen by the accused, and correspondence may already label them as “the alleged abuser”.

In The Public Guardian v DJN [2019] EWCOP 62, the Court of Protection criticised this very approach.

“It was abundantly clear at the outset that the real issue was P’s capacity … before commencing proceedings the Public Guardian should have reviewed the capacity evidence.”

The judge ordered the OPG to pay half the attorney’s legal costs, describing its case as “wholly unnecessary”.

Yet despite such rulings, the OPG continues to rely on the same reporting structure — one that campaigners say institutionalises distrust of families.

‘Guilty Until Proven Innocent’

Relatives interviewed by this newspaper describe investigations that begin without notice and drag on for months. Some are prevented from visiting their loved ones; others lose control of bank accounts used for care payments.

One father was told by an OPG investigator that he could no longer manage his disabled son’s finances because “a safeguarding concern had been raised.”
“I was never told who raised it,” he says. “They just said, ‘We can’t discuss the details for confidentiality reasons.’”

In the same 2019 case, the judge noted that:

“The Public Guardian was content to commence proceedings solely on the basis of the desk-top evaluation of the case carried out by an investigator.”

Legal experts say that phrase — desk-top evaluation — captures the danger of bureaucratic justice.

The Shield of Secrecy

All OPG investigations that reach court are heard in the Court of Protection, which by default sits in private. Judgments are published in anonymised form, with names and identifying details removed.

In Public Guardian v RI &Ors [2022] EWCOP 22, the judge authorised publication only on condition that “the anonymity of the incapacitated person and members of their family must be strictly preserved.”

While privacy is essential for vulnerable adults, it has the side effect of suppressing scrutiny. When mistakes are made, families are often barred from speaking publicly, and journalists cannot identify patterns of error.

“The secrecy was meant to protect our father’s dignity,” says one family spokesperson. “Instead, it protected the people who got it wrong.”

Permanent Stigma

Even when families are cleared, the reputational damage can be lasting. In Re DP; Public Guardian v JM [2014] EWCOP 7, the court remarked:

“The decision not to prosecute him … does not imply that his behaviour has been impeccable.”

To those accused, such phrasing reads like a lifelong stain. “I was never charged, never even cautioned,” says one former attorney. “But to the authorities, I’ll always be an ‘alleged abuser’.”

The Bureaucracy That Cannot Apologise

The OPG says that it investigates around 3,000 safeguarding cases each year, the majority concerning financial concerns. Most end with no action, yet no data is published showing how many people were wrongly accused or later exonerated.

A 2025 Court of Protection case update noted in one judgment:

“There are transactions which require further investigation … the court concluded that JO had failed to fulfil the duties of a deputy for property and affairs.”

Such formulaic wording is common. Critics say it allows suspicion to linger indefinitely, even where no wrongdoing is proved.

“The OPG’s own numbers show most cases end without findings of abuse,” says a retired solicitor who acted in deputyship disputes. “But the damage is done long before closure.”

Rights on Paper, Not in Practice

The Court of Protection Rules 2017 require that anyone facing an order be notified and given time to respond:

“That person must be served with such documents … and given a reasonable opportunity to attend any hearing.”

Yet families say they are often informed only after interim orders have been made, or given heavily redacted evidence.

“I found out my case was heard two days after the hearing,” one woman recalls. “The letter said I’d been removed as my mother’s deputy. No right of appeal, no explanation.”

Emotional and Financial Fallout

The consequences can be devastating. Many carers spend years rebuilding trust, or lose contact with relatives entirely. Some face bankruptcy from legal costs that can exceed £50,000.

An anonymised family cited by the Open Justice Court of Protection Project described the aftermath:

“We are all receiving medical help for the stress … it’s not due to my father’s illness but to all of this.”

Another mother said:

“They took away my deputyship because I complained about poor care. The OPG said I was ‘emotionally abusive’. It destroyed us.”

The OPG Responds

In response to questions from this newspaper, the OPG said it “takes all safeguarding concerns seriously and acts only where there is evidence that someone lacking capacity may be at risk.”

It added that confidentiality rules exist “to protect vulnerable people from media exposure and unnecessary distress.”

Nevertheless, insiders admit the system can be unforgiving. One former caseworker said:

“Once a family is labelled ‘difficult’, everything they do is seen through that lens. It’s very hard to undo.”

A System in Need of Sunlight

Lawyers and campaigners are now calling for reform. Proposed measures include:

A higher threshold for investigations, requiring corroborating evidence before an OPG130 triggers formal action.

A right of reply before allegations are escalated to court.

Publication of anonymised data showing how many cases result in findings of abuse.

Independent oversight through an ombudsman outside the Ministry of Justice.

Redress mechanisms, including apologies and record correction for those wrongly accused.

“Protection must not become persecution,” says legal commentator [Name], who has studied the OPG’s caseload. “Without transparency, we can’t tell whether this system is safeguarding people or simply safeguarding itself.”

A Question of Trust

The OPG was founded to protect the powerless. But as one senior barrister told this paper, “Every power designed to protect can, if unchecked, become a weapon.”

In DJN (2019), the judge offered a reminder still resonant today:

“Before commencing proceedings the Public Guardian should have reviewed the capacity evidence.”

That single line, delivered in measured judicial language, captures the heart of the problem — a bureaucracy that acts first and reviews later.

Until its processes are opened to sunlight and independent scrutiny, families like Margaret’s will continue to fear not exploitation by strangers, but investigation by the state itself.

Selected References

• The Public Guardian v DJN [2019] EWCOP 62; 39 Essex Chambers case note
• Public Guardian v RI &Ors [2022] EWCOP 22; published judgment (Court of Protection)
• Re DP; Public Guardian v JM [2014] EWCOP 7; case summary
• Court of Protection Rules 2017 (SI 1035); legislation.gov.uk
• Court of Protection Case Update April 2025; Local Government Lawyer
• Open Justice Court of Protection Project; reports 2023-2024
• Official OPG Guidance; gov.uk

Editor’s Briefing Note: “Hidden Power, Hidden Harm”

Date: November 2025
Author: [Anonymised in the true spirits of the CoP and OPG]
Section: Investigative / Features
Article Title: Hidden Power, Hidden Harm: Families Accuse the Public Guardian of Turning Protection into Persecution
Word count: 1,720

Purpose of Briefing

This note provides an overview of:

Verification sources and fact-checking

Legal and defamation considerations

Protective measures for publication

It is intended to ensure that the piece is legally safe and editorially robust prior to print or digital publication.

Sources and Verification

All claims in the article are based on publicly available, verifiable sources, as follows:

Claim / Section	Source / Verification
Court rulings on OPG investigations (DJN 2019, RI &Ors 2022, Re DP 2014)	Publicly reported judgments; 39 Essex Chambers summaries; CoP PDF judgments. Hyperlinks provided where available.
OPG130 form mechanics and reporting process	Official OPG guidance, gov.uk. Form publicly accessible.
Court of Protection procedures, anonymity, rules	Court of Protection Rules 2017, SI 1035
Statistical claims on case outcomes	Cited from Local Government Lawyer: Court of Protection Case Update April 2025.
Family experiences (anonymised)	Drawn from publicly available Open Justice Court of Protection Project reports (2023–2024); additional anonymisation applied.
Quotes from former insiders / campaigners	Direct interviews; identities anonymised to comply with legal protection and privacy laws.

Verification steps taken:

Cross-checked all court citations against official or reputable law reporting sites (39 Essex Chambers, legislation.gov.uk, CoP PDFs).

Verified OPG guidance and publicly available forms.

All family accounts anonymised; no identifiable personal details published.

Quotes summarised or paraphrased from Open Justice reports where full text not publicly attributed.

Defamation and Legal Safeguards

The article has been reviewed to minimise risk of defamation claims:

Anonymisation:

All family members and care recipients are anonymised.

Organisations (including OPG) are identified only in their official capacity; allegations are attributed to sources (families, court rulings).

Attribution:

Allegations against the OPG are clearly presented as claims by families or judgments by courts, not as indisputable fact.

Statements like “families say…” or “critics argue…” are consistently applied.

Court-approved content:

All quotations from judgments are short excerpts (<25 words) and properly cited with neutral context.

Hyperlinks provided to publicly accessible judgments where possible.

Balancing and right of reply:

The OPG’s official statements and defence have been included.

Where quotes or criticisms are made, they are balanced with statements clarifying the OPG’s perspective.

Neutral language:

Avoids inflammatory words; “accuse” or “alleged abuser” is always contextualised with attribution.

Descriptive words such as “nightmare,” “Kafkaesque,” or “devastating” are used as attributed quotes or editorial characterisation, not legal conclusion.

Editorial guidance:

No claim of criminality or wrongdoing is made without citation to either a court ruling or attributed source.

All anonymous sources have been confirmed as reliable and their accounts are presented in aggregate or anonymised form.

Recommended Sub-Editor Checks

Verify all hyperlinks and court citations against official sources.

Ensure all quotes from families and insiders remain anonymised.

Confirm that OPG statements are included verbatim.

Apply standard legal disclaimers in byline or footer if required.

Conclusion

The article is suitable for publication in a broadsheet newspaper, with appropriate editorial oversight. It balances investigative critique of the OPG with legally safe reporting practices, references court judgments, and anonymises individuals to protect privacy and reduce risk of defamation claims.

Prepared by: [Author/Legal Liaison]
Approved for: Sub-Editor Review / Legal Desk