GUIDES
A COP3 can address more than one decision in a Court of Protection application. Each decision needs its own relevant information, reasoning and conclusion.
Author: Nellie Supports Ltd
Publication Date: 15/05/2026
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice. London: The Stationery Office.
Copywright © 2026 Nellie Supports Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is made available for general information, education and professional reference. It may be downloaded, printed and shared for non-commercial purposes, provided that it is reproduced in full, is not altered in any way, and is properly cited as the work of Nellie Supports Ltd. This material must not be edited, adapted, sold, republished, incorporated into commercial products, or used for commercial training, assessment, report-writing or advisory services without prior written permission from Nellie Supports Ltd.
This article does not constitute legal advice, clinical advice or a substitute for a decision-specific professional assessment. Where legislation, government guidance, court forms or external professional materials are referred to, those materials remain subject to their own copyright, licensing and re-use terms.
A COP3 can address more than one decision in a Court of Protection application. Each decision needs its own relevant information, reasoning and conclusion. The sections below explain the evidence, practical steps and limits of the assessment or process.
A COP3 provides evidence about decisions identified in a Court of Protection application, for example property and financial affairs, a proposed sale, treatment, residence or conducting the proceedings. Number multiple decisions in Part A and address each separately in Part B. For a statutory-will application, the relevant question concerns the person’s capacity to make the will within the Mental Capacity Act framework; they do not personally “make a statutory will”. The court decides whether it has jurisdiction and what order to make.
A defensible assessment begins by recording the decision in ordinary language. In this guide, the practical question is whether the person can make the specific decision or decisions identified in a Court of Protection application. That question should shape the evidence gathered, the conversation with the person and the wording of any report.
For a property and affairs application, assess the underlying financial decisions rather than merely asking whether the person can explain deputyship. Relevant information may include assets, income, outgoings, liabilities, existing help and consequences of mismanagement, proportionate to the actual affairs. Understanding the proposed order may matter to participation in proceedings, which is a distinct capacity question.
Separate the information the assessor needs about the application from the information the person needs for the underlying decision. The order sought helps define scope but is not automatically something the person must understand to manage money or choose a residence. For each decision, identify the salient options and foreseeable consequences and record how they were explained.
The assessment is stronger when the evidence is organised before the conclusion is reached. Useful evidence may include the COP1 application, COP3 Part A, medical and care records, professional instructions, family or deputy information, and direct assessment evidence. Where records are missing, contradictory or out of date, the report should say so rather than overstate the certainty of the opinion.
The person should be given a meaningful opportunity to make the decision. This may involve simple language, written summaries, visual aids, additional time, breaks, support with hearing or sight, an interpreter, a familiar setting or a carefully timed appointment. The report should explain what support was tried and whether it helped.
Financial and welfare decisions need distinct analysis, even if considered in the same instruction or application. Section 16 requires the court to consider whether a decision is preferable to appointing a deputy and to keep deputy powers limited. A welfare COP3 should therefore identify the specific care, contact, treatment or residence questions rather than assert a general inability. Confirm the current forms and filing route for the orders sought.
Risk features should be recorded without turning them into shortcuts. Common issues in this area include vague decisions, incomplete Part A information, unsupported conclusions, copied generic wording, stale evidence and failure to list multiple decisions separately. The assessor should distinguish vulnerability, disagreement, family conflict and safeguarding concerns from evidence that the person is unable to make the decision.
A strong report should include the instruction, the specific decision, the legal framework, the relevant information, evidence reviewed, practicable steps, direct assessment findings, functional analysis, causation and a clear conclusion. It should also explain any limitations, such as missing evidence, refusal to engage, fluctuating presentation or the need for further legal advice.
A COP3 must be current, decision-specific and reasoned. It is court evidence, not an informal opinion. The safest approach is disciplined and evidence-led: define the decision, tailor the relevant information, support the person, apply the functional test and explain the reasoning clearly.
No. A diagnosis alone does not establish incapacity. For a Mental Capacity Act decision, provide practicable support, examine understanding, retention, use or weighing and communication, then explain whether any inability is caused by an impairment or disturbance of mind or brain. The conclusion is specific to the decision and time.
The evidence should match the decisions being covered. For a property and affairs application that means financial records and examples of recent money management; for welfare decisions it means care records and evidence about residence or contact; for a statutory will it includes the estate details and the proposed will instructions. The assessor should record which documents were reviewed for each decision.
A single application can ask the court to decide several things, and the COP3 must address each of them. A combined assessment is useful where deputyship, a statutory will or a property sale are being sought together, because one properly structured assessment can evidence all of the decisions without repeated visits to the person. A conclusion about one decision does not establish capacity for another.
The related pages below explain connected decisions, evidence requirements and legal processes.
Before seeking a report, write down the exact decision, relevant date, reason for concern and intended use. Gather the documents that explain the real options and any communication needs. Check any required form or court direction, agree the scope and total fee, and clarify how missing evidence or further questions will be handled.
A GOOD PLACE TO START
Tell us what is happening and what you need help with. We will listen, explain the options and help you find the right starting point.