ORDERED TO PAY COSTS – THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN & APPLICATIONS TO REVOKE LASTING POWERS OF ATTORNEY: LOCALLY GOVERNMENT LAWYER. 25.MAR.2024
The Office of the Public Guardian was recently ordered to pay costs after the dismissal of its application to the Court of Protection to revoke lasting powers of attorney. Christine Cooper explains why.
I recently represented two attorneys for a woman with dementia (MAM) in Court of Protection proceedings brought by the Office of the Public Guardian. The Public Guardian had applied to revoke the attorneys’ lasting powers of attorney alleging they acted contrary to MAM’s best interests.
Unusually the court ordered the Public Guardian to pay half the attorneys’ legal costs.
Office of Public Guardian’s involvement
The Public Guardian became involved in the case after the attorneys disputed the substantial sums the local authority claimed MAM should contribute towards the cost of the care home where she lived.
The local authority then reported the matter to the Office of Public Guardian as the statutory body responsible for supervising attorneys’ actions.
The Public Guardian carried out an investigation and subsequently issued proceedings in the Court of Protection to revoke the lasting powers of attorney.
Court of Protection decision
In a judgment handed down this week, the Court of Protection criticised the investigator employed by the Public Guardian. It found that her approach had been neither reasonable nor proportionate.
The court considered that the investigator’s evidence suggested she had prejudged matters without properly completing her enquiries. It dismissed the Public Guardian’s application.
Attorneys’ costs
The court then considered who should pay the attorneys’ costs of defending the application. (Usually the costs of such a claim in the Court of Protection would have been met from MAM’s funds).
However, the court decided that the Public Guardian’s clear failures justified making a different order and the Public Guardian was ordered to pay 50% of the attorneys’ costs and to make a substantial payment on account.
Christine Cooper is a barrister at Field Court.
Here is the address to write to for Freedom of Information requests from the Public Guardian Office:
Ministry of Justice
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
United Kingdom
DX: 152380 Westminster 8 (used for official mail)
Here is the letter I have sent to Public Guardian Office as per my complaint and in response to the letter I have received from the OPG also below. I hope that this will help others similarly affected especially in the knowledge of the above case. This Department and various other agencies have caused nothing but dismay and the so called ‘evidence’ being accumulated is based upon the derogatory malicious falsehood comments from various individuals. Much of the information put before the OPG is untruthful and to think all of this is being circulated to other agencies. I see it as nothing more than bullying “perpetrated” by a person I have never even met. The OPG 130 Form states “perpetrators and abusers” and it is “guilty before proven innocence” whilst the so called professional/s behind the investigation is totally protected under confidentiality. See below my response:
Subject: Escalation of Complaint – Procedural Unfairness, Use of ‘Perpetrator of Abuse’ Terminology, Non-Disclosure of Allegations, and Legal Defects in Investigation
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to formally escalate my complaint regarding the Office of the Public Guardian’s handling of the investigation into my actions as attorney for EB, and in particular to challenge the adequacy and lawfulness of the response provided by Mr Andy Madeley dated 12 January 2026.
This escalation is not a repetition of my original concerns, but a targeted complaint identifying specific legal and procedural defects which remain unaddressed.
1. Use of the term “perpetrator of abuse” – misleading and procedurally unfair
Mr Madeley states:
“At no point have OPG referred to you as a ‘perpetrator and abuser’.”
This statement is materially misleading.
While OPG may not have directly applied those words to me in correspondence, OPG has institutionalised the term “perpetrator of abuse” within its own official processes, specifically in form OPG130, which contains a heading inviting third parties to identify an alleged “perpetrator of abuse”.
OPG therefore:
- creates the terminology,
- invites allegations under that heading,
- records and processes the information obtained, and
- relies upon it to justify investigations under section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
In those circumstances, it is not open to OPG to disclaim responsibility for the use or impact of that terminology. This is not a semantic issue but one of procedural fairness and lawful administration.
2. Failure to disclose evidence or allegations – denial of natural justice
A fundamental defect in this investigation is that no evidence has been shown to me at any stage.
The investigation appears to rely solely on unparticularised allegations, yet I have not been provided with:
- the substance of the allegations in sufficient detail,
- the evidence said to support them,
- or clarity as to who has made them, beyond vague references to “concerns raised”.
Instead, I have simply been required to respond to accusations in the abstract.
This approach denies me the ability to:
- understand the case against me,
- test or rebut the allegations,
- or provide a meaningful and informed response.
As a result, I am unable to properly defend myself against allegations that are serious, stigmatising, and potentially damaging to my reputation. Requiring a response to undisclosed and unsubstantiated allegations is procedurally unfair and contrary to basic principles of natural justice.
The suggestion that I was “afforded the opportunity to respond” by way of an attorney declaration is illusory where the case I am expected to answer has not been disclosed.
3. Inability to challenge unsubstantiated and potentially manipulative allegations
By withholding the substance and evidential basis of the allegations, OPG places me in an impossible position. I am expected to rebut claims without knowing:
- what precisely is alleged,
- on what factual basis,
- or whether the allegations are inaccurate, misleading, or malicious.
This is particularly concerning given that OPG expressly states it “cannot control the content of the concerns raised”, yet nonetheless relies upon them to justify investigation and scrutiny.
Such a process risks elevating allegation to fact by default, without providing the attorney with a fair mechanism to challenge accuracy, motive, or credibility. This is incompatible with fair decision-making by a public authority.
4. Failure to address reputational harm and Article 8 rights
The response acknowledges distress only in general terms and treats it as an unavoidable by-product of investigation. It fails to engage with the reputational and psychological harm arising from being implicitly framed within an abuse narrative, particularly where no evidence has been disclosed.
Unproven allegations of abuse clearly engage Article 8 ECHR (private life). The response contains no proportionality analysis and no explanation of safeguards designed to minimise unjustified harm.
5. Procedural unfairness and appearance of bias
The assertion that OPG “never start[s] an investigation by assuming the attorney is in the wrong” is undermined by:
- the use of loaded abuse terminology in OPG forms, and
- the absence of transparency about the allegations relied upon.
Taken together, this creates at least an appearance of bias, which the response fails to address.
6. Mischaracterisation of my complaint
My complaint was not that OPG had directly labelled me an abuser, but that OPG’s processes, terminology, and non-disclosure of allegations create an inherently unfair investigatory framework.
The response addresses a narrower point than the one raised and therefore fails to properly consider my representations, contrary to section 58(1)(h) MCA 2005 and established public-law standards.
7. Failure to address data protection concerns
If personal data relating to me is recorded, assessed, or categorised under headings such as “perpetrator of abuse”, without disclosure, qualification, or evidential verification, this raises serious concerns under UK GDPR, including:
- accuracy (Article 5(1)(d)),
- fairness and transparency (Article 5(1)(a)).
The response does not address these issues.
Resolution sought
I request that this escalation be reviewed by a senior officer not previously involved, and that OPG provide:
- A substantive response addressing OPG’s responsibility for the terminology used in OPG130;
- Disclosure of the substance of the allegations and the evidence relied upon, sufficient to allow a meaningful response;
- An explanation of safeguards to ensure procedural fairness and protection against reputational harm;
- Clarification of how Article 8 and UK GDPR obligations are complied with in investigations of this nature;
- Confirmation of whether the use of “perpetrator of abuse” terminology has been reviewed for necessity, fairness, and proportionality.
If these issues are not adequately addressed, I will consider referral to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
Susan Bevis
Office of the Public Guardian 12 January 2026
PO Box 16185
Birmingham
B2 2WH
Dear Ms Bevis
Re: EB – OPG reference: Investigation/7000-8109-7458
Thank you for your email of 15 December 2025.
My name is Andy Madeley, and I am responding on behalf of the Public Guardian and Chief Executive in my role as Deputy Head of Supervision and Investigation Services. I am sorry to hear you are unhappy that the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has been investigating your management of EB’s affairs. I have taken this opportunity to review the case file, and I am satisfied that OPG have acted correctly in light of concerns being raised to us and our legal authority to investigate in such circumstances.
We recognise that there is a difficult situation between you and the local authority, but I’m afraid that OPG cannot comment on that.
We have conducted the investigation in line with our authority and requirement to do so.
I will elaborate further below:
The investigation and our authority OPG investigations are a process via which we gather information and evidence relating to an attorney’s management of a donor’s affairs as a result of concerns being raised to us.
A previous investigation having taken place does not mean that further concerns raised do not also require the necessary consideration and investigation.
OPG investigations are not criminal in nature and there is no requirement for an attorney to inform an employer that this process is taking place.
An investigation is essentially a fact-finding exercise. I do, however, apologise for any distress that has been caused by the investigation.
Whilst it is never our intention, we do appreciate that an investigation has the potential to cause stress or upset to an attorney being investigated. We try to address this, to a certain extent, by way of our explanation in the initial letter that we never start an investigation by assuming that the attorney is in the wrong, and that the investigation will be carried out fairly and without bias, which is absolutely the case in all circumstances. However, we realise that there are instances where this will not alleviate worry.
Unfortunately, by its very nature, an investigation is something that is difficult to undertake without this being a regrettable consequence.
It is necessary that I explain though that the Public Guardian has a legal duty to investigate where concerns are raised to about the way in which an attorney is making decisions for a donor and managing their affairs. This is stipulated at section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – Section 58 – Functions of the Public Guardian
(1) The Public Guardian has the following functions –
(h) dealing with representations (including complaints) about the way in which a donee [attorney] of a lasting power of attorney or a deputy appointed by the court is exercising his powers Therefore, it is important that, where concerns have been raised, OPG gathers and considers the necessary evidence to ascertain the facts of the situation and investigate them thoroughly.
I must remind you that when you agreed to be an attorney for EB, and you signed the LPA to accept this role, you also signed to say that you understood and were agreeing to the terms of such an appointment. Legally, you have a duty, as an attorney, to provide information to the Public Guardian when you are asked to do so. Therefore, by conducting the investigation and asking you for such information, we have not requested anything that isn’t legally expected of you when required.
You have questioned why you have “not had a formal interview”. On this point, I must clarify that OPG investigators do not conduct in person interviews with attorneys, but you were absolutely afforded the opportunity to respond to the concerns.
You were sent an attorney declaration form at the start of the investigation to do this.
However, you have not returned the attorney declaration or directly addressed the concerns about your management of EB’s affairs. Instead, you have used the investigation to raise concerns about the local authority’s actions towards EB and yourself.
We understand that that is a complex situation, but I must clarify that OPG cannot investigate the actions of local authorities nor intervene in disputes of this nature.
You have also asked “why it is just you who is being targeted” and I must clarify that this is not the case. You have not been targeted, you have been asked for information regarding your management of EB’s affairs, and it is not just you who has been asked for this information. Mr xxx as EB’s other attorney, was also contacted appropriately for information but has not responded.
I can confirm that the investigation is now in its final stages and is in the process of undergoing a final review.
This matter has required a comprehensive legal review due to its complexity and the substantial volume of documentation involved.
To ensure that all relevant evidence and information are fully considered and nothing material is overlooked, the review process has necessarily taken longer than initially anticipated.
This approach is essential to safeguard the integrity of the decision-making process and to ensure that the outcome is based on a complete and accurate understanding of the case.
The investigator will update you as soon as this is complete, and we appreciate your patience.
Concerns raised to OPG:
OPG cannot control the content of the concerns raised to us or any wording used by the concern raiser. At no point have OPG referred to you as a “perpetrator and abuser”.
As above, our initial correspondence to you made it clear that we never start an investigation by assuming that the attorney is in the wrong.
Local authority
If you have concerns regarding the actions of the social worker or local authority, you will need to raise this with them directly via their own complaints process.
Current court application
Any court proceedings ongoing at present have not been brought about as a result of any action by OPG, so we cannot comment on this.
Your opportunity to dispute the court application and information presented by the local authority about your actions, if you wish to, will be via those ongoing proceedings, which OPG are not involved in at present.
Information requests
You have received responses from our Information Assurance Team regarding previous information requests you have made, and you have quoted these responses within your complaint letter. As this has already been addressed by the relevant team, I will not be revisiting the matter of previous information requests that have been made and considered.
However, I note that in your most recent email you have made a further request for “the most recent extracts of personal data” on you, and I can therefore confirm that this new request has been passed on to the Information Assurance Team for consideration and they will contact you further in due course. In summary
Once again, I acknowledge that this is a difficult situation for you, and I am sorry for any distress you have experienced.
However, OPG are correct in investigating concerns raised to us, and I’m afraid we cannot intervene in issues you may have with the local authority.
You should contact them directly in that regard, and if you wish to challenge their xxxxx application, you will need to do that via the xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
You will be informed of the outcome of OPG’s investigation as soon as possible.
I hope I have been able to assist with this matter.
If you are unhappy with my response, please respond in writing explaining why you feel your complaint has not been handled fairly.
This may then be escalated in line with our complaints process. Further information about our complaints process can be found here –
Complaints procedure – Office of the Public Guardian – GOV.UK
Yours sincerely
Andy Madeley
Deputy Head of Investigation and Visits Services Office of the Public Guardian compliancecomplaints@publicguardianoffice
Psychiatric Abuse UK 