TDB is a young adult with complex needs. The hearing referred to autism, ADHD, cognitive and adaptive-functioning questions, risky behaviour and difficulties involving relationships, internet use and daily living. Haringey completed a Care Act assessment in December 2024. TDB challenged it, arguing that capacity and specialist expertise had not been addressed lawfully. HHJ Bird dismissed the judicial review at first instance.
The appellant argued that where evidence gives reason to query capacity for decisions relevant to care needs, the authority must grapple with and assess capacity before completing the needs assessment. The argument relied on the Care Act guidance and MCA Code, and stressed that capacity is decision-specific. Haringey argued that the Care Act does not impose a universal requirement to complete a capacity assessment before a needs assessment; capacity may become critical later, particularly in care planning and acceptance of support.
The appellant argued that TDB’s unusually complex and multiple needs required consultation with a psychologist or psychiatrist. Regulation 5 of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 requires assessors to have appropriate skills, knowledge and competence, and requires consultation with a person who has relevant expertise where the individual’s needs require it. Haringey maintained that specialist input was not shown to be necessary and that the assessors’ professional judgment was open to them.
Mind supported clarification of when practitioners must investigate capacity. Its concern was that the MCA presumption can be misused as a stopping point rather than a starting point. The hearing also explored how articulate or effective supporters may mask a person’s underlying difficulty: apparent decision-making ability may depend on support that will not always be present.
The hearing linked the appeal to AGNI. The discussion suggested that if fewer situations are treated as a deprivation of liberty, greater weight may fall on ordinary Care Act assessment, care planning, MCA decision-making and other safeguards. That was an argument explored at the hearing, not a concluded finding in TDB.
The court must decide whether the appeal remains live despite later Court of Protection work; whether and when capacity must be assessed within the Care Act process; and whether specialist consultation was legally required in this case. Later evidence reportedly indicated lack of capacity for several decisions, but the Court of Protection position was still developing at the time of the appeal hearing.
Good practice checklist
- Identify the actual decisions arising from assessment and care planning; avoid a global label of capacity.
- Record the evidence that raises — or does not raise — a genuine doubt about capacity.
- Take all practicable steps to support the person before concluding that they cannot decide.
- Do not confuse participation in an assessment with capacity for each care, residence, contact or support decision.
- Consider whether family or staff support is enabling decision-making or unintentionally masking difficulty.
- For complex or multiple needs, record whether the assessor has sufficient expertise and why specialist consultation is or is not required.
- Connect identified needs to realistic services and record how recommendations will actually be followed through.
- Review the assessment when significant new capacity evidence or circumstances emerge.
- Until judgment is handed down, follow the existing Care Act, regulations, statutory guidance and MCA rather than treating hearing submissions as law.