The Court of Protection has handed down a ruling that clarifies the nature of the decisions that need to be made by those managing direct payments on behalf of people who lack capacity, and the authority required to manage such payments.

The case involved seven applications by professional deputies who were managing direct payments on behalf of individuals who had received damages for personal injury. The payments were made under four schemes, involving different regulations, by which public authorities could make direct payments to enable a person's care and support needs to be met rather than commissioning such provision themselves. The deputies were managing the payments in what they considered to be their deputyship capacity and were only willing to manage them within the framework of a deputyship appointment. The applications sought to achieve clarification of whether the Court could appoint deputies with authority to manage direct payments made under the schemes and, if so, the terms of the authority required. At issue was whether any of the schemes required the person managing the payments to make decisions of a welfare nature, as none of the deputies had authority to do so.

Two of the applications involved the National Health Service (Direct Payments) Regulations 2013. The Court had previously ruled, in Lumb v NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB, that managing direct payments under the Regulations was not within the 'general authority' of a property and affairs deputy because compliance with the Regulations required some welfare decisions to be made. The deputies contended that that decision had been incorrect.

However, the Court was not persuaded that it should depart from its conclusions in Lumb. It further concluded that management of direct payments under the Care and Support (Direct Payments) Regulations 2014, the Special Educational Needs (Personal Budgets) Regulations 2014 and the Community Care, Services for Carers and Children's Services (Direct Payments) (England) Regulations 2009 also required some decision-making of a welfare type. Management of direct payments under all four schemes was not within the meaning of general authority in a standard-terms property and affairs deputyship appointment.

The Court found that it was within its jurisdiction to appoint deputies with authority to make both property and affairs decisions and health and welfare decisions. In order to obtain appropriate deputyship authority, an application to the Court would be necessary. The Court gave guidance on what information should be provided in support of such an application, and on suitable wording for authority to manage direct payments.