Lumb v NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB & Anor [2024] EWCOP 57 (T2)

Application for discharge of a property and affairs deputy where there was debate over whether one was necessary.

A deputy had been appointed for SBB as far back as 2017, with the applicant Mr Lumb replacing the original deputy in 2020. However in the course of his appointment, Mr Lumb came to the position that a deputy was not required broadly as SBB’s income is limited to state benefits and the Personal Health Budget is the property of the ICB.

In this judgment, HHJ Hilder sets out the complexities of the case, dealing as it does with whether a representative was required and whether standard authorisations are sufficient to discharge the functions of such a representative (among other issue) before concluding at [107]

"a. the management of direct payments of a Personal Health Budget as ‘representative’ in accordance with the requirements of National Health Service (Direct Payments) Regulations 2013 does not fall within the standard authorisations of a property and affairs deputyship, or of the Deputy’s specific appointment for SBB;

b. a property and affairs deputy could be appointed by the health body as ‘representative’ pursuant to regulation 5(4) but such appointment would be outside the powers of the standard deputyship appointment, and the possibility takes this matter no further;

c. the requirements of a ‘nominee’ do not fall within the standard authorisations of a property and affairs deputyship, or of Mr. Lumb’s specific appointment for SBB either, and for substantially the same reasons;

d. the Court of Protection could specifically appoint a deputy with authority to manage direct payments under the National Health Service (Direct Payments) Regulations 2013 but in respect of SBB there is no need for such appointment (nor seemingly, at present, anyone willing and eligible to be so appointed);

e. a case manager is an appropriate kind of professional to be appointed as ‘representative’ for the purpose of direct payments. Two case managers have been identified as willing to be appointed for SBB, and no order from the Court is required for such appointment."

Accordingly the deputyship was discharged.

Read the judgment on the National Archives