The charity, Missing People has estimated that 95,000 adults go missing each year. Aside from the obvious emotional distress experienced by the person’s family, what is not always considered is the ensuing financial consequences which can also develop especially if the person who has disappeared was their family’s main source of financial support.

Previously such families were stuck in a sort of “legal limbo” as, faced with a disappearance, the law assumes that the missing person is still alive until the contrary can be proved. Whilst the Presumption of Death Act 2013 does enable an application to be made to the High Court it can often be difficult for a family to give up any remaining hope that their loved one may return to them aside from the fact that a period of 7 years needs to have elapsed before this can occur. During this period the family can often be left to deal, as best they can, with demands from unpaid creditors as well as assets which are decaying for want of repair.

The Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 (“the Act”), more commonly known as Claudia’s Law came into force on the 31st July 2019 and is designed to ease the administrative burdens resulting from a loved one’s disappearance by providing far reaching powers which must be exercised in the best interests of the missing person.

The Act creates a new legal status of “Guardian of the affairs of a missing person” by which a family member can be appointed, by the court, to manage the financial affairs of a loved one who has been missing for a period of at least 90 days. However, such a guardian can only be appointed for a period of 4 years following which, they will have to reapply for the guardianship order to be continued. The actions of a Guardian will be strongly supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian (“OPG”).

One particularly interesting point is that under the Act, prisoners are also classified as “missing” as they are absent from the usual residence and activities. Equally, the Government is expecting the already over stretched OPG to absorb the anticipated 50-300 applications which are expected annually under this Act.

Additionally, as the Act only applies to England and Wales it could potentially lead to additional complications where a missing person has assets in other jurisdictions which did not arise under the previous legislation particularly surrounding assets in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

There is also an element of “self-reporting” required by the Act in that even though the Court can revoke a guardianship order (with or without an application being made), Section 13(2) states that if a guardian has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is no longer missing then they must apply to the Courts themselves for the revocation of the order. Whilst this may create an issue for certain unscrupulous individuals, the time limits applied to the order coupled with the anticipated level of supervision requested by the courts are likely to offer a substantial level of protection for the disappeared person particularly if they do indeed return in the future. Also, it is likely that before appointing someone as a Guardian, their ability to act in such a role will be assessed and their relationship with the missing person together with any potential conflicts of interest will be considered.

It is however arguable, that even if the Act is not perfect, if it can assist a family during what must be one of the worst moments in their lives to any degree it can only be viewed as a good thing. Like with any new law, only time will tell whether the safe guards put in place to protect the disappeared are actually effective as it can be extremely difficult to balance the interest of a person who may never return against those of the family members left behind whose lives need to continue in the best way they can.