The Court of Protection (CoP) was asked whether a trust corporation without its own external regulatory body could be appointed as both a property and affairs deputy for a “third sector” charity application.

Background:

In January 2024, Enable & Thrive Ltd. applied to be the property and affairs deputy for an individual identified as AB, acting through a specific legal partnership. The application initially faced hurdles because Enable & Thrive is classified as a “Category 3” trust corporation, a designation for entities that lack external oversight by bodies such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). This status raised significant concerns for the Court because, unlike traditional law firms, Category 3 corporations do not provide clients with access to the Solicitors’ Compensation Fund or the Legal Ombudsman if funds are mismanaged.

The proceedings became more complex when AB’s children opposed the company’s appointment, prompting the Court to join the Public Guardian as a respondent to investigate the applicant’s suitability. During a Dispute Resolution Hearing in March 2025, the parties eventually agreed to appoint a neutral panel deputy for AB, effectively settling the personal dispute on behalf of the family. However, the Court decided that the broader legal question regarding Category 3 corporations was too important to leave unresolved and continued the case “on the papers” to establish a precedent.

Decision:

The Court ruled that Enable & Thrive and similar Category 3 entities could be appointed as deputies, provided that they satisfy a strict new set of “undertakings,” or legal promises. These requirements include naming specific SRA-regulated directors who must oversee all client accounts and ensuring that the company maintains equivalent levels of professional indemnity insurance to those of a law firm. The judgement concluded that, as long as there is regulated leadership at the director level, the lack of corporate-level regulation does not automatically disqualify a trust corporation from serving as a deputy.

Implications:

This case is a significant “win” for consumer choice. It essentially creates a new middle ground between hiring an expensive, ‘full-service’ law firm and relying on a family member to manage a loved one’s finances.

This decision balances the need for a diverse market of professional deputies with the essential requirement to protect the assets of those who lack the capacity to manage their own affairs. Before this case, there was some uncertainty as to whether private companies that are not “law firms” could act as professional deputies. The Court has effectively said ‘yes’. This means families have more choices. These “Category 3” companies often charge fixed fees rather than high hourly rates, making professional management accessible for those with modest savings or smaller estates.

The biggest concern was that these companies are not overseen by the SRA. Thus, if money went ‘missing’, there was no “compensation fund”. To protect the public, the Court has ruled that these companies can only act as deputies if a qualified solicitor is a director of the company.

The Court did not merely give these companies a green light – it effectively put “padlocks” on the bank accounts, as only the regulated solicitors at the company are allowed to be named on the client bank accounts. This effectively prevents unregulated staff from having unchecked access to a vulnerable person’s funds. Moreover, these companies must carry at least £3m in professional insurance—equivalent to a high-street law firm—so there is a substantial fund available if a mistake is made. To add to the due diligence, every year the company must submit a detailed report of every penny that has been spent. The Office of the Public Guardian will review these to ensure that the deputy is acting in the “best interests” of the individual they are looking after.