As we continue to emerge from lockdown measures and deal with local measures and the short and long term economic impact of Covid-19, local authorities will need to re-assess how services will be delivered for years to come.
You would hope that anyone looking after the financial affairs of a friend or relative, or indeed, making any decision on behalf of another, would be motivated to make a decision that was in the individual's "best interests".
Before the MCA
Before the MCA, however, “best interests” had never been formally codified, and the concept was not routinely referred to in legal decisions.
There had always been limited situations where one person might make decisions on behalf of another adult:
- The court might make an order, appointing a third party as “receiver”, to look after the financial affairs of someone who has lost capacity to do so themselves.
- The Enduring Power of Attorney (“EPA”) regime enabled an attorney to make decisions on behalf of the donor, which the donor could not make for themselves.
However, neither the court order nor the EPA required the proxy to act in the “best interests” of the person or gave guidance on how they might go about their decision-making.
Post MCA implementation
The MCA came into force on 1 October 2007; one of its five key underlying principles states:
Principle 4: Best interests
Anything done for or on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity must be done in their best interests.
Principle 4 of the MCA sets out how you determine “best interests”, which includes a consideration of the person’s “past and present wishes and feelings” and “beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision if he had capacity”. However, it is also necessary to consult others and to take on board all relevant considerations.
So how much weight is to be given to those wishes and feelings when deciding what is in a person’s best interests? There has been a tendency by the courts to attribute greater significance, the closer the person is to having capacity to make the decision for themselves. Another interesting twist has been the inclusion of “how a person will be remembered after their death” or “being remembered for doing the right thing” as a best interests consideration when the court has decided on the content of a will for a person lacking testamentary capacity.
The end game is not to identify what the person necessarily would do if they could make the decision themselves, but what decision is in their best interests. We are in the realms of “substituted” decision-making.
The courts have also had to grapple with a number of ethical and moral issues and the changing mores of society when considering best interests. One aspect of this has been the impact of the financial crisis and reduced local authority social care budgets. Best interests, in these straitened circumstances, has to be interpreted in the light of the limited (affordable) options, rather than an exercise to truly identify what will be best for the person.
Ten years on the issue of best interests is still very live.
At the end of August 2017, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”) reported to the UK Government on a number of concerns, including their view that our legislation does not promote equal recognition under the law for people with disabilities. (The UK ratified the CRPD in 2009).
One of the CRPD recommendations is that the UK:
“in close consultation with organisations of persons with disabilities, including those representing persons from black and minority ethnic groups…abolish all forms of substituted decision-making concerning all spheres and areas of life by reviewing and adopting new legislation in line with the Convention to initiate new policies in both mental capacity and mental health laws. It further urges the State party to step up efforts to foster research, data and good practices of, and speed up the development of supported decision-making regimes.”
Essentially, the recommendation is that we tear up the MCA and start again. Any new legislative regime should be based on “supported decision-making” with greater emphasis on the wishes and preferences of the person, rather than what is perceived as a paternalistic “best-interests” model.
With the Government focused on the significant quantity of new legislation required to support Brexit, together with Theresa May’s pledge to review the mental health legislation, it is highly unlikely that there will be any appetite to review the MCA any time soon.
However, the courts do already seem to be heading closer to the idea of supported decision-making, giving more and more prominence in a best-interests balancing exercise to the person’s own views.
The judgment delivered last month in B v D  EWCOP 15, considered whether it was in the best interests of D, a former soldier who sustained a serious brain injury at the hands of another soldier, to travel to Belgrade for experimental stem-cell treatment. Although the Ministry of Defence and the Official Solicitor opposed the plan, Baker J noted, “I am satisfied that he wants the treatment and that he wants it very much”. D’s strength of feeling was a key factor in a finely balanced “best interests” decision, which resulted in an order approving the plans.
What is unlikely to change going forward is the wisdom of ensuring that you let others know your thoughts and wishes, on how you would want your affairs or your health to be managed should you lose capacity in the future.
At Anthony Collins Solicitors, we can help with that planning.
For further information about making a lasting power of attorney or advance decision, please contact Alex Elphinston.
The Government first announced plans for a shared ownership right to buy in October 2019. At the time the sector raised concerns about the impact the plans would have on housing associations ability to borrow. An election and a pandemic later the Government announced, during the CIH Housing Festival last week, the return of the right to shared ownership as part of its Affordable Homes Programme (AHP).
Two final pieces of the possession jigsaw have been published on 15 September 2020. Mr Justice Knowles’ working group on possession proceedings has issued its guidance on the “overall arrangements” for possession proceedings.
One change proposed by the Building Safety Bill is the introduction of a duty holder regime, which will see statutory responsibility for the safety of higher risk buildings placed on key individuals
Throughout this pandemic, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been publishing various “Statements on Coronavirus” (Statements) which provide guidance on consumer rights during this time.
A recent increase in COVID-19 cases in the UK means new measures are being put in place in an effort to reduce the risk of a second wave. Whilst the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt, it is important to remain focused on the sector’s road to recovery.
Sometimes half an hour at a conference gives you the reality that has been staring you in the face all along. That was my experience watching “Change is on the Horizon”
Following our recent e-briefing on Possession Notices, Helen Tucker and Emilie Pownall from our housing litigation team discuss the impact of the changes on social landlords.
Not only has the possession stay been extended until 20 September, the notice periods to be given to tenants has been extended in certain circumstances with some important exceptions.
The Court has confirmed that a party cannot withhold its consent in order to re-write the original bargain.
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.