HMCTS caused delay to court application and failed to provide clear information about a hearing

What happened

Mrs G applied to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to register her husband's Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) as she believed he had lost his mental capacity when he was sectioned on a mental health ward. This EPA named Mrs G as the attorney, which would have given her control of his financial affairs. A relative then submitted an objection to this which halted the application. The matter was then referred to the Court of Protection, which is administered by HMCTS.

Following his release from hospital, Mr G became temporarily estranged from his wife and created a new Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) appointing a professional firm as his attorney. The LPA . Mrs G said that Mr G did not have mental capacity during this period and Mr G proceeded to spend his life savings.

Initially, the Court of Protection instructed the OPG to register the EPA. However, matters returned to the Court of Protection when it became aware of the LPA, and the judge decided to revoke the EPA in favour of the LPA.

Mrs G appealed this decision and HMCTS set a date for a Court of Protection hearing. But the hearing notice it sent to her was unclear about whether she was required to attend. She wrote to HMCTSand said she 'assumed she was not required to attend' but HMCTS court staff simply replied saying that the hearing would proceed, but did not clarify if Mrs G was expected to be there. The Court of Protection hearing was then cancelled as no one attended, and as a result it did not consider Mrs G's appeal.

Mrs G believed that the EPA should have been registered and the LPA rejected. She complained to us that both the OPG and HMCTS had mishandled the EPA and LPA applications and caused delay. This led to financial loss, as her husband had access to his finances when she believed he had lost capacity.

What we found

We partly upheld this case. We did not uphold the complaint about the OPG, as the OPG had handled both the EPA and LPA applications correctly and had not caused any delay.

However, HMCTS had caused two significant periods of delay when it failed to take further action to decide whether the EPA should have been registered.

Also, HMCTS should have given Mrs G clearer information about the Court of Protection hearing. While we would not expect it to tell Mrs G whether she should attend the hearing, it should have told her that she was invited to attend to put her case forward.

As such, she lost the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about whether to attend the hearing.

Putting it right

HMCTS apologised for the errors we identified and paid Mrs G £150 for the distress and inconvenience this caused her.