Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 assumes that adults have the mental capacity to make their own decision at the time the decision needs to be made. However, a person may lack mental capacity due to the impact of conditions such as dementia, a learning disability, an acquired brain injury, or mental illness. 

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables actions or decisions to be made in the best interests of a person who lacks mental capacity to make a specific decision.  

Under the DoLS framework care homes and hospitals are known as ‘managing authorities’. When a managing authority believes an adult (18+) in their care lacks the mental capacity to consent to be admitted to the care home or hospital, and whose circumstances means they are deprived of their liberty, it must make a request to the relevant local authority (known as the ‘supervisory body’) for a DoLS assessment.

Following the AGNI judgment, each situation must be considered individually, using a broader and more person-centred assessment.
This means that professionals must now consider a range of factors, including:

• the person’s individual circumstances
• the type of restrictions in place
• how long the restrictions apply for
• the impact of the restrictions on the person
• how the arrangements are implemented
• whether the person appears content or objects to the arrangements
• the person’s wishes, feelings, understanding and presentation

A person's views and feelings are an important part of any assessment.

The judgment confirms that some people who lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 may still be able to give valid consent under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This means they may not be considered deprived of their liberty if they understand the basics of their situation and can show they accept or are happy with their care and support arrangements.

If there is any serious doubt, valid consent should not be assumed.

This is on this basis if they have a basic understanding of their situation and are able to express that they accept or are happy with the arrangements. However, where there is serious doubt, valid consent should not be assumed. Read the UK Supreme Court 2026 judgment on what constitutes a deprivation of liberty.

The Managing authority (care home or hospital) should inform family members of the person in their care that they have made an application to the supervisory body for an authorisation. This is known as a Standard Authorisation.  

Managing authorities will send requests for an authorisation to the Local Authority where the person normally lives (where they are deemed to have “ordinary residence”).  

Where the person is already being deprived of their liberty when the managing authority applies for an authorisation to the supervisory body, it can grant itself an urgent authorisation for up to seven days for the relevant assessments to be carried out. This urgent authorisation can be extended by the supervisory body for a further 7 days.

Assessors

The DoLS authorisation process may involve 2 assessors visiting and interviewing the person who is believed to be deprived of their liberty.

One assessor is called a ‘Best Interests Assessor’ (BIA). This is often a social worker. They will visit the person to assess the person’s mental capacity to make the decision to consent to remain at the care home or hospital to receive care and/or treatment. The BIA will also check whether the person can provide ‘valid consent’ as per the AGNI ruling, even if they are found to lack legal capacity.

The BIA will then check the arrangements do not conflict with any decision made by a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), or Deputy, for health and welfare.

They will confirm that where the person is being deprived of their liberty this is in their best interests. They will check the deprivation of liberty is necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm the person would otherwise experience and the care or treatment cannot be safely given in a less restrictive way.

The Best Interests Assessor (BIA) will also consult family and friends during the assessment process. Where there is no one to consult who is not involved in a paid professional capacity (with the exception of a Paid Relevant Persons Representative), the supervisory body will arrange for the person to be supported during the assessment by an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA).

If the BIA identifies that the person is not deprived of their liberty, the assessment process is concluded as there is no deprivation of liberty to be authorised.

If the BIA identifies that the person is deprived of their liberty, a Mental Health Assessor would be asked to undertake their assessments.

The second assessor is a Mental Health Assessor (a doctor). They visit to make sure the person has a diagnosis which allows the DoLS to be used (to confirm they have what is described as a mental disorder) and they have checked that the use of DoLS is the correct legal route (rather than the Mental Health Act).

If all the relevant assessments are considered to be met the Supervisory Body will grant a Standard Authorisation.

Once the assessment reports by the Best Interests Assessor (BIA) and Mental Health Assessor (doctor) are completed, they are sent to the supervisory body (Local Authority).

An authoriser at the supervisory body will scrutinise the information contained in the assessments. If the criteria in the assessments are met, a standard authorisation will be granted.

Where appropriate, conditions may be attached to the standard authorisation for the managing authority to follow so as to reduce the level of restrictions. If the authoriser finds the criteria are not met, a standard authorisation will not be granted.  

A standard authorisation can have a maximum duration of 12 months.

The BIA will recommend an authorisation period, which the authoriser can agree with or reduce. The BIA can also recommend conditions to be attached to the standard authorisation, which the authoriser has the power to agree with or add their own conditions.

A review of a standard authorisation can be requested from the supervisory body at any point throughout its duration. The standard authorisation can be reviewed by the supervisory body at the request of the relevant person, managing authority, or relevant person’s representative (RPR).

The standard authorisation can be challenged by the relevant person through an application to the Court of Protection, with support from their RPR or IMCA if necessary.

Where a person (the relevant person) is subject to a standard authorisation the supervisory body must appoint a Relevant Person's Representative (RPR).

The role of the RPR is essentially to speak up for the relevant person and help to protect, and where necessary, exercise their rights. 

The RPR should act and make decisions in the person’s best interests as stipulated in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).  

The importance of the RPR role is reflected in the supervisory body (the local authority) having to follow a set of eligibility criteria when considering appointing someone to be the RPR.  

To be eligible to be the relevant person’s representative, a person must be:

• 18 years of age or over  
• able to keep in contact with the relevant person, and  
• willing to be appointed

The person must not be:

• financially interested in the care home or hospital where relevant person is being deprived of their liberty  managing authority (i.e. a partner, director, other office-holder or major shareholder of the managing authority)
• a relative of a person who has a financial interest in the relevant person’s managing authority
• employed by, or providing services to, the care home in which the person relevant person is residing
• employed by the hospital in a role that is, or could be, related to the treatment or care of the relevant person
• employed to work in the relevant person’s supervisory body in a role that is, or could be, related to the relevant person’s case 

During the DoLS assessment, checks will be made to confirm if the relevant person has the capacity to select their own RPR. If the person selected meets the eligibility criteria, the supervisory body will appoint this person.

Where the relevant person lacks the capacity to select their own RPR and there is a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) or Court-appointed Deputy with health and welfare decision making authority, they can select a person (including themselves) to become the RPR. 
 
Where there is no LPA or Court-appointed Deputy for health and welfare but there is a family member or friend who wishes to undertake the role the BIA will check they meet the eligibility criteria and then will recommend they are appointed as the RPR. 

The supervisory body will then confirm whether they feel the selected person is appropriate for the role. 

Where it is confirmed that there are no family members or friends available to undertake the RPR role, the supervisory body will appoint a paid RPR from a local advocacy provider. This is provided at no cost to the relevant person.

Once the RPR has been appointed and the Standard Authorisation Granted paperwork has been shared with them, they must confirm in writing that they are willing and able to take on the role.

An unpaid RPR (family or friend) can request Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) support for the relevant person to help them understand the authorisation and their rights. An unpaid RPR is able to request IMCA support for themselves to help them understand and carry out their role effectively. This support could be especially useful when dealing with processes such as reviews and considering making an application to the Court of Protection.

Find out more about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards on the POhWER website.

The managing authority should also keep the RPR updated with changes to the relevant person’s care plan and treatment as this may make a request for a review of the standard authorisation appropriate.

The RPR can request a review of the authorisation from the supervisory body (Local Authority) if they feel there has been a change in the relevant person’s circumstances which makes the authorisation valid but for a different reason than originally stated, or, one or more of the requirements are no longer met and it should be ended, or if the conditions should be changed.  

Where the relevant person appears to be trying to leave, or asking to live somewhere else, or objecting to parts of their care or treatment plan, the RPR has to be willing to consider an application to the Court of Protection on their behalf to challenge the DoLS Standard Authorisation.

Where the RPR concludes this is necessary, they must be willing and able to make an application on behalf of the relevant person to the Court of Protection to challenge the DoLS Standard Authorisation.

There will be occasions when family members or friends prefer not to take on the RPR role and no pressure will be placed on any individual by West Northamptonshire Council, as the supervisory body, for them to take on the RPR role. In these circumstances, the supervisory body will appoint a Paid RPR from a local advocacy service.