Mental Capacity Law and Policy
  • Welcome
  • About the author
  • Articles and papers
  • Resources and blogs
    • Cheshire West resources
  • Posts
  • Legal advice
  • Disclaimer
  • Welcome
  • About the author
  • Articles and papers
  • Resources and blogs
    • Cheshire West resources
  • Posts
  • Legal advice
  • Disclaimer
  • Home
  • Legislative developments
  • Ordinary residence guidance updated (finally) to take account of Cornwall decision

Ordinary residence guidance updated (finally) to take account of Cornwall decision

December 9, 2016 Leave a Comment Written by Alex RK

In the most recent of its rolling series of updates to the Care Act Statutory Guidance, the Department of Health has finally updated Chapter 19 to take account of the Cornwall case, and to outline how the ordinary residence of a person with impaired capacity is to be determined.

I reproduce the material extracts below:

“Cases where a person lacks the capacity to decide where to live

19.23 All issues relating to mental capacity should be decided with reference to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) […]. Under this Act, it must be assumed that adults have capacity to make their own decisions, including decisions relating to their accommodation and care, unless it is established to the contrary.

19.24 The test for capacity is specific to each decision at the time it needs to be made, and a person may have capacity to make some decisions but not others. It is not necessary for a person to understand local authority funding arrangements to have capacity to decide where they want to live.

19.25 If it can be shown that a person lacks capacity to make a particular decision, the 2005 Act makes clear how decisions should be made for that person. For example, if a person lacks capacity to decide where to live, a best interests’ decision about their accommodation should be made under the 2005 Act. Under section 1(5) of the 2005 Act, any act done, or decision made (which would include a decision relating to where a person without capacity should live), must be done or made in the best interests of the person who lacks capacity. Section 4 of the 2005 Act sets out how to work out the best interests of a person who lacks capacity and provides a checklist of factors for this purpose.

19.26 Where a person lacks the capacity to decide where to live and uncertainties arise about their place of ordinary residence, direct application of the test in Shah will not assist since the Shah test requires the voluntary adoption of a place.

19.27 The Supreme Court judgment in Cornwall made clear that the essential criterion in the language of the statute 61 ‘is the residence of the subject and the nature of that residence’.

19.28 At paragraph 51, the judgment says in relation to the Secretary of State’s argument that the adult’s OR must be taken to be that of his parents as follows:

‘There might be force in these approaches from a policy point of view, since they would reflect the importance of the link between the responsible authority and those in practice representing the interests of the individual concerned. They are however impossible to reconcile with the language of the statute, under which it is the residence of the subject, and the nature of that residence, which provide the essential criterion…..’

19.29 At paragraph 47, the judgment refers to the attributes of the residence objectively viewed.

19.30 At paragraph 49, the judgment refers to an: assessment of the duration and quality of actual residence.

19.31 At paragraphs 47 and 52, the judgment refers to residence being ‘sufficiently settled’.

19.32 Therefore with regard to establishing the ordinary residence of adults who lack capacity, local authorities should adopt the Shah approach, but place no regard to the fact that the adult, by reason of their lack of capacity cannot be expected to be living there voluntarily. This involves considering all the facts, such as the place of the person’s physical presence, their purpose for living there, the person’s connection with the area, their duration of residence there and the person’s views, wishes and feelings (insofar as these are ascertainable and relevant) to establish whether the purpose of the residence has a sufficient degree of continuity to be described as settled, whether of long or short duration.

19.33 Physical presence provides a starting point for considering ordinary residence but does not necessarily equate to ordinary residence – a person could be physically present in an area but of no settled residence. This is covered in paragraphs 19.23 to 19.25 of the Care Act statutory guidance.

19.34 In certain situations, ordinary residence could be deemed to be in a different area to that in which a person is physically present. This is covered in paragraphs 19.44 to 19.59 of the Care Act statutory guidance and in the section below on looked after children transitioning to adult social care services.

19.35 Other situations such as temporary absences and people having more than one home are covered in paragraphs 19.70 to 19.74 of the Care Act statutory guidance.

19.36 The issue of duration is covered in paragraph 19.15 of the Care Act statutory guidance.”

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related

Legislative developments
capacity, ordinary residence
When to bring an s21A application – flowchart
Book Review: “Lasting Powers of Attorney: A Practical Guide”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Posts

  • Vulnerable adults – another opportunity for change?

    April 15, 2018
    As many will know, I spent a considerable part of 2017 seeking to persuade the Law Commission to take forward …Read More »
  • CRPD corrections and updates

    April 4, 2018
    In an unusual step, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has published a correction to General Comment …Read More »
  • 39 Essex Chambers Mental Capacity Report April 2018

    April 3, 2018
    The April 2018 Report is now available. Highlights include: (1) In the Health, Welfare and Deprivation of Liberty Report: the …Read More »
  • Law Society Mental Health and Disability Committee vacancies

    March 29, 2018
    The (English) Law Society MHDC is recruiting to fill 3 vacancies, with a deadline of Friday 13 April.  Despite the inauspicious …Read More »
  • The Skripals before the Court of Protection – more detailed analysis

    March 27, 2018
    The Court of Protection was thrust into the centre of a major international incident in SSHD v Sergei Skripal; SSHD v …Read More »

Log In


Lost your password?
Register
Forgotten Password
Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Monthly Post Archives

  • April 2018 (3)
  • March 2018 (14)
  • February 2018 (6)
  • January 2018 (4)
  • December 2017 (5)
  • November 2017 (6)
  • October 2017 (9)
  • September 2017 (12)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • July 2017 (4)
  • June 2017 (9)
  • May 2017 (12)
  • April 2017 (6)
  • March 2017 (14)
  • February 2017 (4)
  • January 2017 (3)
  • December 2016 (16)
  • November 2016 (13)
  • October 2016 (6)
  • September 2016 (6)
  • August 2016 (7)
  • July 2016 (4)
  • June 2016 (10)
  • May 2016 (7)
  • April 2016 (5)
  • March 2016 (9)
  • February 2016 (8)
  • January 2016 (8)
  • December 2015 (7)
  • November 2015 (4)
  • October 2015 (9)
  • September 2015 (3)
  • August 2015 (4)
  • July 2015 (11)
  • June 2015 (9)
  • May 2015 (4)
  • April 2015 (9)
  • March 2015 (6)
  • February 2015 (4)
  • January 2015 (4)
  • December 2014 (2)
  • November 2014 (8)
  • October 2014 (9)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (5)
  • July 2014 (8)
  • June 2014 (5)
  • May 2014 (7)
  • April 2014 (13)
  • March 2014 (24)

RSS Bailii capacity cases

  • NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group v LB & SHC [2018] EWCOP 7 (28 March 2018) April 13, 2018
  • AR, Re [2018] EWCOP 8 (28 March 2018) April 6, 2018
  • CORREIA DE MATOS v. PORTUGAL - 56402/12 (Judgment : No Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial : Grand Chamber) [2018] ECHR 299 (04 April 2018) April 6, 2018
  • St Clair v King & Anor [2018] EWHC 682 (Ch) (28 March 2018) March 30, 2018
  • HU128082015 [2018] UKAITUR HU128082015 (8 March 2018) March 28, 2018
  • ET v JP & Ors [2018] EWHC 685 (Ch) (28 March 2018) March 28, 2018
  • MDA , R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2132 (Admin) (18 August 2017) March 28, 2018
  • Reen -v- Murphy & ors [2017] IESC 67 (18 October 2017) March 27, 2018
  • JC -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IEHC 213 (28 March 2017) March 27, 2018
  • Wheat v Alphabet Inc / Google LLC & Anor [2018] EWHC 550 (Ch) (26 March 2018) March 26, 2018

RSS MHLO updates

  • Job advert. Bishop & Light Solicitors, Hove - Court of Protection Solicitor (listed until 13 July 2018).
  • Book chapter uploaded.
  • Sentence appeal case. R v Thompson [2018] EWCA Crim 639
  • Panel JR announcement. GT Stewart Solicitors and Advocates, 'GT Stewart file claim for judicial review in the High Court challenging decision of the Law Society' (6/4/18)
  • Law Society panel concerns cont'd.
  • COP costs case. NHS Dorset CCG v LB [2018] EWCOP 7
  • Deputyship case. Re AR [2018] EWCOP 8
  • Law Society panel concerns. Law Society mental health accreditation scheme - CPD requirements
  • Litigation friend case. Jhuti v Royal Mail Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure) (2017) UKEAT 0062/17
  • Vexatious COP application case. Re SW (No 2) [2017] EWCOP 30

Copyright Alex Ruck Keene 2014-2018. All pages subject to disclaimer