In the first of a series, this article examines the impact of the Derby case on how local authorities should apply and charities can claim business rate relief.
The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) - the bespoke authorisation process for people deprived of their liberty in care homes and hospitals – were described by the House of Lords Select Committee for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as “frequently not used…leaving individuals without the safeguards Parliament intended” and social care providers “vulnerable to legal challenge”.
The Law Commission was tasked with undertaking a complete review of the relevant legislation and, following a lengthy and detailed consultation, published its final report and draft bill on 13 March 2017.
Care providers have been hoping to see a new system put forward; one which is less convoluted, more straightforward to administer, and one that provides meaningful benefit for the individual concerned, whilst not overburdening providers with bureaucracy and expense.
Does it deliver?
The report sets out 47 recommendations that cover not only deprivation of liberty, but also reforms that aim to improve MCA decision-making more widely. It is fair to say that the report and the provisions in the draft bill will probably receive a mixed reception from care providers.
The good news
There is a new scheme for authorising deprivation of liberty; the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS). This offers a simplified process, which retains some of the more useful features of DoLS, but happily dispenses the inefficient and unhelpful aspects. There are still three assessments to be undertaken, by at least two different independent assessors.
Good news for providers
Providers may particularly welcome the following features of the new proposed scheme:
- It will no longer, necessarily, be left to care homes to identify a deprivation of liberty and apply for authorisation; instead the local authority or NHS body (the “responsible body”) becomes responsible for the entire process, where it has commissioned or put the arrangements in place. This significantly reduces the burden of form filling for care home managers and staff. The intention is that arrangements will be authorised in advance of being implemented.
- It will no longer be the care home, but the "responsible body" who must notify the regulator if a deprivation of liberty is authorised.
- “Urgent authorisations”, commonly used now by care homes to plug the gap, form no part of the proposed new system; although there will be authority to deprive a person of their liberty in truly urgent situations, pending authorisation by the responsible body.
- The LPS will apply across all settings: care homes and hospitals; supported living; shared lives; respite; children’s homes; special residential schools; domestic and private arrangements; and potentially community provision, such as day centres.
- LPS can cover transport to or between places, and arrangements carried out in more than one setting.
- LPS can apply to anyone aged sixteen or over.
- Initially, LPS can last up to twelve months. This can then be renewed for a further twelve months, after which time they can be indefinitely renewed for periods of up to three years.
Good news for the individual
- The LPS will authorise particular arrangements which give rise to a deprivation of liberty – the arrangements must be specific, not broad or vague.
- LPS can only authorise arrangements that give rise to a deprivation of liberty, not, for example, restrictions on contact with family or friends.
- Four key safeguards are included: reviews, independent advocacy, the right of legal challenge, and monitoring and reporting requirements.
- Proposed amendments to s4 MCA mean that best interests' decision-making imposes an active duty to ascertain and give particular weight to the wishes and feelings of the individual.
- Greater emphasis on the requirement to consult with family.
Challenges for providers
However, there are elements to the report and draft bill that may worry health and social care providers and prompt a review of certain aspects of practice - particularly in relation to admission procedures.
If care arrangements have not been commissioned or set up by an NHS body or a local authority, as in the case of self funders in care homes, it will still fall to the provider to apply to the responsible body for authorisation.
The draft bill creates a new civil claim for damages, should private care providers put arrangements in place that are not authorised, and give rise to a deprivation of liberty. However:
- the provider will not be liable if it is reasonably believed that the arrangements did not give rise to a deprivation of liberty or the deprivation of liberty was in fact authorised; and
- if the provider has made the appropriate referral to the responsible body, it will be covered for as long as it takes the responsible body to deal with the referral, if at all times they reasonably believe the individual lacks capacity to consent, and the arrangement is necessary for to prevent a serious deterioration in the person’s condition or to deliver life sustaining treatment.
What happens next?
The draft Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill was laid before Parliament on 13 March 2017, and so now it has been passed over to the Government. It is impossible to guess how much of the original draft will survive the scrutiny and debate of the House of Commons and then the House of Lords, to ultimately receive Royal Assent by becoming an Act of Parliament. For the time being, therefore, it remains very much business as usual for the health and social care provider as far as deprivation of liberty is concerned.
Our team at Anthony Collins Solicitors will be monitoring the progress of this draft bill and will provide regular updates.
If you require advice and assistance in relation to the implementation or management of the existing schemes to authorise a deprivation of liberty, including DoLS, please do not hesitate to contact Sheree Green.
You can find out more about the work we do regarding liberty and protection on our website here.
“Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19” published by the CQC, has found that although improvements have been made, healthcare services need to do more to comply with their human rights duties.
The IPPR North report says that this Parliament must be the “Devolution Parliament” to truly “level up” the country.
On 20 January 2020, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) issued Advice for Building Owners of Multi-storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings.
The Society for Computers and Law (SCL) has introduced an Adjudication Scheme for IT Projects and Services.
The board of a housing services company was reportedly dismissed in December 2019 following the discovery of a variety of safety and hygiene issues in the properties they manage.
The Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) place certain responsibilities on anyone supplying and charging for heating, cooling or hot water (the heat supplier).
In our latest Company Secretary Update, we focus on the Queen’s Speech over Christmas and the recommendations and commitments in relation to housing.
So after two days of legal argument, the Supreme Court have now retired to reach their decision in the joined cases of Tomlinson-Blake v the Royal Mencap Society and Shannon v Rampersad.
Anthony Collins Solicitors has revealed details of its annual social impact, including advising on funding deals for building 19,603 new homes and setting up 90 new charities.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.