Meeting with MP

Hi guys,

I am very concerned about this topic. I became aware of these rules because of an elderly relative who was affected, and I have been horrified by what I have learned. In any case I went to see my MP on Friday, and discussed it with him. I put forward some specific concerns and proposals and I would be grateful to know what everyone else thinks too.

MONEY
1. Financial Deputyship
Problems -
a. A court application is required for every case. At most 4-6 judges but 40,000 'protected' persons. Why is a court application necessary at all to get a financial deputyship, when someone can be locked up on the signature of two professionals without a court application?
b. No automatic review for cases to check the Deputyship is still necessary.
c. Inadequate oversight of Deputies (problem of fraud, or more generally just incompetence)
d. The Court actually charges to consider complaints against Deputies
e. Impenetrable procedure. How is a full blown court under the civil procedure rules accessible TO SOMEONE WITH A DISABILITY?
f. As above, the difficulties of challenging wrong decisions.
g. Did I mention expense?

Solutions -
a. In the first instance why does a Deputyship require a court application? Why not a local action similar to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Standard Authorisation issued by the local Supervising Authority for the first instance. Something like a 'Financial Deputyship Authorisation'.
b. The 'protected' person could then ask for a local review at any time similar to DoLS, without the huge expense of a court application. As I propose below they should also have a right of a second opinion on their mental health and capacity.
c. The Office of the Public Guardian is not the best way to oversee deputies. This duty should be transferred to the local authority. For people with simple finances all that is necessary is visits from a social worker and a clerical grade worker at the authority just to check the person's bank statements.
d. If there is a contention, the first appeal should be to the local Mental Health Review Tribunal, which already exists, already does similar work under the Mental Health Act and is relatively accessible and cheap.
e. The Court of Protection should be the second tier appeal, before the usual higher appellate courts.
f. There should be legal aid for a 'protected' person wishing to challenge a Deputyship or complain about a Deputy.

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS
2. Locking People Up
Problems -
a. There is no second opinion regarding mental disorder or functional capacity required unlike detention under Mental Health Act 1983.
b. The 'Safeguards' overlap with the Mental Health Act 1983 and this causes confusion. In some cases professionals can pick and choose which to use.
c. The 'Safeguards' rely heavily on appointment of a 'representative' to support the detained person and challenge and question the Managing and Supervising Authorities.
    i. The representative is chosen by authority. The criteria can actually include agreeing with detention (the 'best interests' loophole).
    ii. If a professional, they are paid on consultancy basis by the authority. This is an obvious and horrendous conflict of interest.
d. Appeal rights - the right local of review is vague. The authority can simply decline to review. No representation. No legal aid. No requirement the review even be conducted by fresh staff.
e. Appeal rights - to Court of Protection.  How is a full blown court under the civil procedure rules accessible TO SOMEONE WITH A DISABILITY?
f. There is no right of information to relatives, friends other than the representative.
g. If the detained person disagrees with their representative there is a theoretical right to appeal to the Court of Protection anyway but no clear guidelines on safeguarding this right.

Solutions -
a. If the detained person or their representative requests a review, this should include the right to a second opinion for any of the six assessments by a professional from outside the managing and supervising authority. A second opinion for each assessment should be available at least once in the duration of any Authorisation.
c. i. For representative use the nearest relative like the Mental Health Act 1983, power to displace as per subsequent amendments
    ii. If representative is professional they should be centrally commissioned by some body other than the Managing or Supervising Authority outside the Supervising Authority's control, but the Supervising Authority must pay for the representative.
d. First tier appeal should be to to the local Mental Health Act Review Tribunal, not the Court of Protection. Legal aid should be available at the same rates as for people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
e. Second tier appeal should be to the Court of Protection.
e. To protect their appeal rights, the detained person must have the right to - (1) Seek a lawyer, (2) Appeal in Person. Incidental materials such as writing materials, access to a phone etcetera.

Summary
Basically the whole system is expensive, inefficient and treats those within it poorly. It should be localised and made cheaper.

What do you guys think?