The Legal Services Board has published research & guidance on the experiences that vulnerable consumers have when getting legal help.

The qualitative research involved interviews with 60 people drawn from samples including individuals suffering from either mental health problems or dementia and their carers. 

The researchers key findings are set out below:

Mental health problems

• Free initial services from third sector and regulated providers are valued. Reasons include affordability, getting initial advice on options and poor past experience of legal advice.
• Customer support needs depend on the severity of problems, but include extra time for individuals to express themselves, extra communication and increased reassurance.
• It is important to this group to feel listened to and understood, have services adapted to support them, have continuity of personnel and costs transparency.

Dementia

• There is a clear cluster of legal needs: wills, power of attorney and property issues.
• Those with early stage symptoms (e.g. less successful dealing with information) may not flag their needs in advance. Carers for those with later stage symptoms (e.g. confusion, memory loss and discomfort in unfamiliar surroundings) are more likely to.
• This group welcomes initial phone contact to discuss service adaptations; clear information before meeting on the legal issue, options and costs; home visits; ‘dementia friendly’ services (e.g. plain English, patience and respect); and a clear meeting record. 

The LSB has also created some tip sheets and presentations that can help client, carers and professionals understand the best approach. 

​All these resources are available from the LSB website here.

​Fact finding hearing to determine whether the Local Authority's allegations against the person purportedly looking after her were made out. The court made most of the findings the Local Authority sought.

Amendments to the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and a raft of changes to the accompanying Practice Directions have been published. 

An an accompanying explanatory memorandum published on the Judiciary website states that:

"7.1 Amendments to the Court of Protection Rules are long overdue: no comprehensive update of rules has been done since they were first introduced in 2007, and there have been only very limited amendments in 2009 and 2011, and some more substantial amendments in 2015. The changes made by this instrument will strengthen the Court of Protection’s powers to deal with current challenges particularly the increase in caseloads and complexity of cases.

7.2 The proposed rule changes will give the court greater powers, following the model of the Civil Procedure Rules providing for civil restraint orders, to deal with applications which are without merit and allow the court, for instance, to restrain litigants from submitting repeat applications. Further changes will also introduce a new framework for international applications that will reflect current practices and case law in cross jurisdictional cases and bring clarity and consistency to the making of such applications which is now needed as these types of cases are emerging more frequently. "

The Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2017 (SI 2017 no. 187) amend the 2007 Rules in two respects:

1. they insert provision for the making by the Court of Protection of civil restraint orders (a civil restraint order being an order against a person who has brought proceedings which are totally without merit from bringing further proceedings without the court’s permission).
2. they insert a new Part making provision for applications in relation to international protection of adults pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

These changes come into effect on 6 April 2017

Alongside these rule changes several changes to the Practice Directions are in force as set out below: 

• 1 March 2017: Transparency pilot & PD 9E – Applications relating to serious medical treatment
  
• 1 April 2017:  Practice Direction B - Fixed Costs in the Court of Protection 
• 6 April 2017: PD 10AA – Deprivation of liberty applications; PD 13A – Hearings (including reporting restrictions); PD 23C – Civil restraint orders; PD 24A – International protection of adults 

The amendments to the Practice Directions can be found via the Judiciary website here.

Judgment concerning whether the substantial personal injury damages awarded to the P should be paid to and administered by the P's property and affairs deputy or should be held on trust.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs.

​Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii