Council did not improperly delegate functions of deputyship appointments, Court of Protection rules

However, in The London Borough of Bromley v The Public Guardian [2026] EWCOP 58 (T2) (30 October 2026), Her Honour Judge Hilder identified a number of requirements to ensure the arrangements comply with the law.

Outlining the case, the judge noted that, for each of the people listed in the schedule to the judgment, "the authorised officer for property and affairs deputyship for the London Borough of Bromley" was currently appointed as property and affairs deputy.

The issue to be determined was whether the functions of those deputyship appointments had been “improperly delegated”.

She said: “For several years now, the London Borough of Bromley has arranged for certain practical tasks of deputyship to be undertaken via a contract with Liberata UK.

“This arrangement came to the attention of the Court in the course of welfare proceedings concerning BJ in case number 14028761. Those welfare proceedings concluded on 10th April 2024 and BJ herself has since died, but proceedings continued in respect of the deputyship issues common to all Bromley appointments with NW 13704510 as the lead case [B48].”

The judge found that the tasks assigned to Liberata “could constitute permitted delegation of ministerial acts”.

However, she was not satisfied that the arrangements were operating that way in practice.

The judge identified scope for “mission creep” and “no evidence of robust decision-making structures to avoid that, or of sufficiently detailed reporting and oversight to enable proper supervision of that.”

HHJ Hilder said: “It is not the role of the Court to tell either the deputy or the Office of the Public Guardian how to discharge their functions lawfully. However, neither may the Court conclude the issue in these proceedings without setting out what it requires to be satisfied that Liberata is performing only ministerial acts.

“In my judgment the following matters are missing from the evidence currently available to me and need to be addressed:

“a. for each P for whom the authorised officer of London Borough of Bromley is appointed as deputy, there should be:

i. a clear record of who the social worker is;

ii. a clear record of who the Case Manager/Review Officer in Liberata is;

iii. a clear process for ensuring that each of them knows who the other is, and how to make contact.

“b. for decisions being made on a delegated basis within the London Borough of Bromley (ie by Bromley social workers, their managers and above), there should be:

i. broad criteria for what decisions can be made at each level, clearly available to all;

ii. explicit exposition of the escalation path, clearly available to all;

iii. a process for formal recording of how and when decisions have been made and by whom, including when a 'request' for funds has been 'rejected' by Liberata on the basis of insufficient funds and the 'dialogue' afterwards.

“c. in respect of Liberata's tasks, there should be:

i. clear understanding that any 'advice' given is part of being consulted by the decision-maker, as distinct from being the decision;

ii. clear understanding that reference to "any other functions permitted/required as set out in the Court order" in the Specifications document (see paragraph 48 above) is limited to functions permitted/required within the scope of ministerial acts, not decision-making;

iii. clear understanding that Liberata's direct engagement with Ps or their representatives is limited to 'queries and matters' within the scope of ministerial acts, not decision-making;

iv. no arrangement whereby ministerial acts relating to property sale are undertaken simply on the basis that a generic threshold (% of asking price) has been met – acceptance of an offer to purchase is a best interests decision, not a ministerial act.

“d. supervision of each of the matters (a) – (c) via the annual report to the Office of the Public Guardian.”

The judge added: “It seems to me that none of these requirements is disproportionate to the estates typical of local authority deputyship appointments.”

Concluding the case, HHJ Hilder emphasised that deputyship is a “fiduciary relationship”, and therefore fiduciary obligations apply.

She said: “After detailed consideration, I am satisfied that the contractual arrangements between Bromley and Liberata UK are capable of operating as permitted delegation of ministerial acts. However, I am not satisfied that this has always been understood or manifested. I have therefore identified four 'requirements' which need to be addressed going forwards.

“Clarificatory documents must be developed and submitted to the Office of the Public Guardian. Annual reports must provide the required information and records, and supervision must consider whether all the requirements have been met. On that basis, new applications may be made if and when necessary but these proceedings can now stand concluded.”

Lottie Winson