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
  • Miscellaneous
  • Powers of attorney, care homes, best interests and deprivation of liberty

Powers of attorney, care homes, best interests and deprivation of liberty

March 7, 2016 1 Comment Written by Alex RK

I have been asked by a good BIA (you know who you are!) to write something about powers of attorney, care homes and best interests. Because I am nice like that, here are some thoughts, but with the usual caveat that none of this represents legal advice.

A confusion that regularly arises in the context of self-funders is as to the respective roles of property and affairs attorney(s) and local authority social workers who may have involved in consideration of the care arrangements for the person.   In particular, whose ‘call’ is it that the person should move into a care home?

This is an aspect of a wider confusion that regularly arises (and, indeed, is almost structurally designed into the MCA) in relation to who the decision-maker is in relation to informal decisions, i.e. those being taken where the person delivering care and treatment is going to rely upon the provisions of the defence in section 5 MCA.   We discussed this confusion, how to identify the decision-maker, and what is a best interests decision, in our best interests guidance note we published in the autumn of 2015.

However, in relation to attorneys, then the answer is – for once – clear.   Where a person has granted a power of attorney in relation to property and affairs (or where the Court of Protection has appointed a property and affairs deputy), then it is in the first instance for the attorney or deputy to decide where to commission the care the person needs, on the basis that they are the proxy for the person.   That proxy will have to make decisions on a best interests basis which will, inevitably, include consideration of the impact of the move upon the person’s welfare, for instance if it is going to mean they cannot see their friends as frequently or they are not going to be able to go to the same church.

The relevant local authority social workers can advise and assist at the behest of the attorney/deputy, but it is not for them to make the decision as to where the person should live if the local authority is not funding the accommodation.    If the local authority social workers genuinely consider that the attorney/deputy is taking decisions that are not in the best interests of the person, then this a matter that needs to be addressed by way of an application to the Court of Protection which can – as a last resort – direct the removal of the attorney or the deputy.

It should be noted that, by the same token, a health and welfare attorney (or deputy) cannot decide on behalf of a self-funding individual lacking the material capacity where they should live, although by definition the views of the attorney/deputy as to where their interests would best be served should carry very great weight with any property and affairs attorney (or deputy) appointed if the same individual – or individuals – is not discharging both health and welfare and property and affairs functions.

In relation to deprivation of liberty, an attorney (or deputy) has a veto power under DOLS (see paragraph 20 of Schedule A1).   Conversely, it is important to note that it is not possible for a donor to ‘opt out’ of DOLS by providing that an attorney can consent on their behalf to the deprivation of liberty, and any attempt to include such a provision in the instrument is likely to end up being struck out upon the Public Guardian’s application to the Court of Protection (see the unreported decision of Senior Judge Lush in Re Stewart).   So even if the attorney considers that the arrangements are in the person’s best interests, and what the person would have wished, this does not obviate the need for the DOLS authorisation procedure to be invoked.  The courts have not decided whether the ‘substituted consent’ of an attorney would also obviate the need for an application to the Court of Protection in the context of a deprivation of liberty taking place outside a care home or hospital, but the decision in Birmingham City Council v D  would suggest that a court would approach such a proposition with considerable caution.

It should also be emphasised that even if local authorities are not the decision-maker when it comes to the placement decisions made by property and affairs attorneys in relation to ‘self-funders,’ this does not mean that the local authorities do not have responsibilities in consequence of those decisions.  In particular, and as emphasised by Baker J in AJ, local authorities have obligations to secure the article 5 rights of those deprived of their liberty in care homes, no matter how they came to be placed there.   This will include taking the appropriate steps to appoint (or confirm the appointment) of a suitable Relevant Person’s Representative and (where necessary) an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate, and, as a last resort, bringing cases before the Court of Protection where the machinery provided for under DOLS is not working to ensure that those who wish to challenge their deprivation of liberty are enabled to do so.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related

Miscellaneous
attorneys, Best interests, care homes, deprivation of liberty
Court of Protection Handbook second edition – your chance to make a difference
March Mental Capacity Law Newsletters now out!

1 Comment

  1. SAH SAH
    July 19, 2016    

    This is the clearest comment that I have seen on the position of a Property & Affairs appointed deputy under the COP and in particular self funders.
    I am in the position of social workers stepping in to conduct best interest meetings where they have been the decision makers over placement decisions for my parents even thought I am my parents deputy. The social workers decisions have real financial consequences for my parents and on the face of it, I have had no option as my parents deputy but to implement their decisions. The implied threat has been that I will not be acting in my parents best interest if I don’t do as they tell me.

    My parents are self funders and will be for some time to come. In making decisions the social workers are in this case dictating how my parents funds should be spent and where both in terms of geographical location and nature of the accommodation my parents reside in. This cannot be right.

    The situation is further complicated in that my parents are now split apart by the social services decision against their wishes. Social services acted as decision maker in a hospital discharge despite the hospital consultant telling me and them that it was not their responsibility. Under NICE guideline, Care Act and MCA all seem at odds with what they have done.

    Decisions made are not in my parents best interest but I feel powerless to sort this mess out.

    Log in to reply.

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

  • PA053292017 [2018] UKAITUR PA053292017 (5 April 2018) April 24, 2018
  • Flanagan -v- The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform [2018] IEHC 208 (23 March 2018) April 24, 2018
  • Matthews v Matthews & Anor [2018] EWHC 906 (Fam) (11 April 2018) April 23, 2018
  • NHS Windsor And Maidenhead Clinical Commissioning Group v SP (Withdrawal of CANH) [2018] EWCOP 11 (20 April 2018) April 20, 2018
  • Nutt & Anor v Nutt [2018] EWHC 851 (Ch) (19 April 2018) April 20, 2018
  • M v ABM University Health Board (Mental health) [2018] UKUT 120 (AAC) (27 March 2018) April 20, 2018
  • 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

RSS MHLO updates

  • Parole Board delay case. LV v UK 50718/16 [2018] MHLO 22
  • Newsletter. Mind, 'Legal Newsletter' (March 2018)
  • Covert medication case. M v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board [2018] UKUT 120 (AAC)
  • Medical treatment case. NHS Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead CCG v SP (Withdrawal of CANH) [2018] EWCOP 11
  • Law Society panel concerns cont'd. Law Society mental health accreditation scheme - guidance documents
  • 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.

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