Does a financial deputy need to get a Court of Protection Order for a private care regime which might be a deprivation of liberty?
Yes, says the Court of Protection
In the case of SRK, the Court of Protection made it clear that even where a care regime is entirely private and there is no local authority involvement at all, a deputy still needs to be alive to the possibility of a deprivation of liberty.
Deputies are instructed to identify all relevant cases and to approach the relevant local authority, whether they have been involved previously or not, to establish whether there is a deprivation of liberty. If there is, Deputies need to work with the local authority and the care provider to see if adjustments to the care package could prevent a deprivation of liberty. If that is possible the deputy needs to keep the situation under regular review. If that is not possible the deputy needs to apply to the Court of Protection for a welfare Order.
This case is of course very significant for professional deputies. There are immediate implications for deputies and their clients. There are also costs implications.
Wrigleys are involved in cases where the Senior Court Costs Office is assessing off costs incurred by a financial deputy which has crossed over between financial and welfare matters. In this case though, a financial deputy is still instructed to make an application to the Court of Protection on a welfare matter.