The UK Court of Protection makes decisions on behalf of people unable to decide for themselves at a particular point in time. These rulings may concern financial or welfare matters affecting them. The key point at issue is whether someone has mental capacity to make a particular decision for themselves. We review an unusual case, where the Court of Protection sided with a hoarder against the judgement of a local authority.
The Bare Bones of the Case in Question
The plaintiff in the matter was a 92-year-old lady living at home with her son, who was also her carer. Both of them had previous diagnoses of hoarding disorder, asperger’s syndrome, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive disorder OCD.
- Hoarding disorder is an ongoing difficulty parting with things.
- Asperger’s syndrome is a higher-functioning form of autism.
- Anxiety is worry, nervousness or unease about something.
- OCD is a need for excessive orderliness, or control over others.
Court of Protection Not Asked to Assist Hoarder
The local authority moved the lady to a care home in 2020, in order to clean her house and secure the safety of her son. At this stage, there’s no evidence the Court of Protection sided with the hoarder, so there appears to have been no appeal. Therefore we assume the Local Authority made the decision based on the evidence it saw.
Local Authority Takes Case to Next Level
The Local Authority made its next move in December, 2021. That was when it issued proceedings under Section 16 of Mental Capacity Act 2005. These provisions gave the Court power to make decisions on behalf of a person, lacking capacity in respect of their property and affairs.
But this time, the Local Authority had their sights on the lady’s son too. They requested an order that he leave the home as well. Their submission included a statement that the lady lacked the mental capacity to make decisions as to her home and care / support, and he was presumably not capable of filling the gap.
The Plaintiffs Fight Back for Their Rights
At this stage there was no inkling that things would develop to the point where a Court of Protection sided with a hoarder. The evicted lady merely appeared at the hearing reclaiming her right to return to her own home for a trial period. The full judgement explains how the son launched a similar petition to also return home on a trial basis.
Court of Protection Sides with the Hoarder
The Court of Protection clearly viewed this as no open-and-shut case. However, it also accepted that both the lady and her son were having difficulty functioning independently.
The Court’s Interim Decision
The Court ruled that the family receive interim support, through assistance with house clearing and cleaning services.
Factors Leading to a More Permanent Ruling
The Court and the two parties reasoned, and agreed on which criteria should steer a more permanent solution. In the end, both the family and the local authority settled on the following factors:
SPACE IN HOME FOR LIVING
The first factor centred around the volume of the family’s belongings, and the effect this had on the use of the rooms in the house. To what extent did the situation affect the use of important rooms in terms of the purpose for which the architect intended them? For example, could they sleep in the bedrooms, and prepare food in the kitchen?
SAFE ACCESS AND USE
The Family Court moved on from possibility to practicality. The parties to the dispute agreed which living rooms should also be safe to access, and use for their intended purpose.
How Hoarding Can Become a Hazard © Avery Associates
PRESENCE OF HAZARDS
The parties to this case, where the Court of Protection sided with the hoarder, then debated and agreed on the principles that would confirm whether the accumulated belongings affected the health and safety of the occupants:
- What effect did the clutter have on the maintenance, function and use of utilities?
- These included heating, lighting, water, and washing of residents and clothing.
- The impact on key areas of hygiene (toilets, food preparation and consumption).
- Any potential or actual vermin infestation, or clutter that increased the risk of fire.
- The extent to which accumulated clutter interfered with fire and escape routes.
GENERAL BUILDING SAFETY
The parties agreed that the criteria should include the degree to which accumulated clutter might compromise the building’s structural integrity, and therefore its safety.
WAS CLEARANCE PART OF A STANDARD EVALUATION?
Did the local council have the right, in terms of normal operating procedures, to remove and dispose of hazardous levels of personal possessions?
How the Court of Protection Sided with The Hoarder
- The local authority pressed its case that any home care plan would be unworkable. This was due to the unpredictable situation and the deteriorating state of the home, it believed.
- However, the Court considered the distress currently experienced by the lady outweighed this. This was after the Court visited her, and experienced her anguish from the being separated from her belongings, her son, and her cat, Jasper.
- The Court also weighed up the fact that the lady had agreed to abide by every condition judged necessary before she returned home. It concluded the known risks were worth taking, and she should be allowed to return home.
Avery Associates offers a home-clearing service, including removal of unnecessary clutter. We are happy to collaborate with the occupant, provided a person with authority vested in them is also present to facilitate the process.
