​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.

A team of researchers from Cardiff University think that the Court of Protection’s ‘low participation’ model is ‘no longer compatible with developments in international human rights law’. As a result they feel there is 

“an urgent need to address the model of participation of P in the CoP. This will require revisions to the rules and practice directions, through increased resources for various elements of participation, and by addressing the question of when and how cases should come to the CoP. “

Their thinking is presented in a research report published this month that looks at The Participation of P in Welfare Cases in the Court of Protection. The team of Lucy Series, Phil Fennell & Julie Doughty consider different elements of participation in the CoP in turn, highlighting some particular concerns as below:

• difficulties experienced by P in accessing the CoP to challenge a decision made under the MCA or to review a deprivation of liberty;
• resource constraints on making P a party to the proceedings;
• the serious detriment to the fairness of proceedings done by a decision not to notify P about the case;
• uncertainty about whether and how judges should take evidence from P and form their own view as to P’s mental capacity;
• the limited resources available for representation of P within the proceedings – either via a legal representative or, in some cases, even a lay representative;
• difficulties reconciling the ‘best interests’ model of representation currently adopted by litigation friends with recent human rights authorities on deprivation of legal capacity and deprivation of liberty proceedings;
• a lack of recognition of the centrality of P’s ‘personal presence’ in proceedings in the CoP’s rules and guidance;
• a lack of provision for special measures and reasonable adjustments in the CoP’s rules, as well as no specific allocation of resources for this purpose;
• inadequate training of legal representatives and judges on disability and access to justice matters;
• a lack of accessible information about the CoP for those who are subject to its jurisdiction

The report, which also sets out 20 specific recommendations to enhance the participation of P, can be found on the Cardiff University website here.

The OPG has announced that there will be new report forms for court appointed deputies from 1 March 2016.

Two new forms will replace the existing combined one. OPG102 will be used for property and finance and OPG104 for health and welfare. A shorter form of the OPG102, which will be known as the OPG103, will also be available for use by existing property and finance deputies assessed under minimal supervision when they report for the first time.

All other deputies, both new and old, will be asked to complete either the OPG102 or OPG104 depending on their court order. This will need to be done annually.

The changes are partly to improve safeguarding as in both forms there will be a requirement to give more detail about the client's care and funding to assess whether the client is receiving the appropriate level of support. According the OPG these new sections will act as 

"early indicators that a client may be at risk of neglect or a red flag that the client is not receiving adequate support. If there are any inconsistencies, we can act quickly and investigate further."

As well as the new report forms, professional and public authority deputies will be asked for more information about their fees and charges, using the new professional fees insert (OPG105) or the public authority deputy fees insert (OPG106).

There is a transitional period from 1 March to 1 September  2016 when deputies can use either the old or new versions.

The forms are not yet available on the OPG website but we will let you know when they are. You can however read the full news release here.