Author and Publication
Author: Nellie Supports Ltd
Publication Date: 15/05/2026
Citation
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice. London: The Stationery Office.
Copywright
Copyright © 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.
What happens after a COP3 is completed?
Once a COP3 is completed, it is filed with the Court of Protection alongside the application, usually a COP1, and becomes the core capacity evidence the court relies on. The court may accept it, raise questions with the assessor, direct further or updated evidence, or list a hearing where the evidence is contested. This guide explains the journey after completion: how the form is used, how long it stays current, the questions courts and the Office of the Public Guardian raise, and what happens when a COP3 is challenged or needs updating.
The COP3 joins the application, it does not decide it
A completed COP3 is evidence, not an outcome. It is filed with the application forms and supporting documents, and the Court of Protection then considers whether the evidence establishes that the person lacks capacity to make the decisions the application concerns and whether the orders sought are in the person's best interests. Understanding this helps set expectations: a well-completed COP3 makes the court's task straightforward, whilst a weak one generates questions, directions and delay.
Notifying the person and others
After issue, the person the application is about must be notified in a way they can best understand, and specified family members and others with an interest are notified or served. This stage matters because it is where objections surface. A relative who disputes that capacity is lacking, or who opposes the choice of deputy, can make that known to the court, and the quality of the capacity evidence then comes under real scrutiny for the first time.
How the court considers the capacity evidence
Most straightforward, unopposed applications are decided on the papers without a hearing. The judge reads the COP3 alongside the application and any objections, and the central question is whether the assessment evidences the statutory test for the specific decisions in issue: the relevant information, the functional analysis and the causative link to an impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. A COP3 that asserts a conclusion without showing this reasoning is the most common trigger for further directions.
When the court asks for more
Where the evidence is incomplete, stale or internally inconsistent, the court can direct further evidence, ask the assessor written questions or require a fresh assessment. Each round adds weeks or months to an application that families usually need resolved quickly, and it is the main practical reason to invest in a thorough assessment at the outset. In this instance, prevention is considerably cheaper than cure.
The order and what the deputy can then do
Where the court is satisfied, it makes the orders sought, most commonly appointing a property and affairs deputy, and the order defines the scope of the deputy's authority. A property and affairs deputy will usually need to obtain a security bond before acting, and the deputy's powers are those the order confers, no more. Decisions beyond the order, such as substantial gifts or the sale of jointly owned property, may require a further application, which is another point at which capacity evidence can be needed again.
If the person objects or capacity is disputed
Where the person objects to the application or the evidence is challenged, the court may list a hearing, join the person as a party and direct further expert evidence. The original COP3 is then examined closely: whether the right decisions were assessed, whether practicable steps were evidenced and whether the causative nexus was made out. Assessments completed carefully at the start tend to survive this scrutiny; assessments completed as a form-filling exercise tend not to.
Ongoing duties and supervision after the order
A deputyship is supervised, not final. Deputies report to the Office of the Public Guardian, account for the decisions they make and must go on applying the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including the principle that the person should be supported to make the decisions they can. A deputyship order does not extinguish the person's capacity for decisions outside its scope or for decisions they remain able to make, and deputies should be alert to what the person can still decide for themselves.
When capacity should be looked at again
Capacity is time-specific, and circumstances change. Where the person's condition improves, where a new decision arises that the order does not cover, such as selling a property, making a statutory will or a substantial gift, or where the person seeks to discharge the deputyship, a fresh decision-specific assessment is usually needed. Deputies and attorneys should treat reassessment as part of good practice rather than as a challenge to the original order.
Key takeaway
After a COP3 is filed the evidence does the work: notification brings any dispute into the open, the court tests the assessment against the statutory test and the resulting order defines exactly what the deputy may do. A thorough, decision-specific assessment at the outset is the single best way of ensuring the application proceeds without directions, delay or a second round of evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Does a diagnosis automatically mean someone lacks capacity?
No. A diagnosis may explain why capacity is in doubt, but it does not answer the legal question. The assessment must still consider the specific decision, the relevant information, the support provided and whether the person can understand, retain, use or weigh that information and communicate a decision.
What evidence is useful for COP3 Mental Capacity Assessment?
The COP3 does not travel alone. It is usually filed with the COP1 application, supporting witness statements and details of the orders sought. The assessor should retain their notes, the records reviewed and the reasoning behind each conclusion, because the court or the Office of the Public Guardian can raise questions after filing, and a well-documented file makes those questions quick to answer.
When is a formal assessment for COP3 Mental Capacity Assessment useful?
If the court questions the COP3, or the person's circumstances change before the application is decided, a further or updated assessment may be needed. Acting promptly matters, because a stale or doubted COP3 is one of the most common causes of delay in Court of Protection applications.
Related mental capacity assessment pages
These internal links help readers move from this guide to the most relevant Nellie Supports service page, assessment option or legal framework page.
Questions about a completed COP3?
Nellie Supports prepares COP3 assessments across England and Wales and remains available to answer court and Office of the Public Guardian questions after filing, with every report peer reviewed before delivery. Call 0333 987 5118 or visit the COP3 assessment service page.