.png)
Author and Publication
Author: Nellie Supports Ltd
Publication Date: 15/05/2026
Citation
Mental Capacity Act 2005, c. 9. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents
Copywright
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.
Abstract
This guide explains, paragraph by paragraph, what the Court of Protection is directing deputies and attorneys to file when it requires evidence on whether a person is deprived of their liberty before authorising the sale of their property. It covers the standard authorisation, the narrative account of living arrangements, itemised restrictions, six months of medication and PRN, the person's understanding and response, the applicant's position under AGNI, and how to assemble the bundle within the 28-day window.
Since AGNI [2026] UKSC 16, deputies and attorneys applying to sell the property of a person in residential care have been receiving a direction they did not ask for: file a COP24, within 28 days, stating whether the person is deprived of their liberty and evidencing it under six specific heads. This guide takes the direction paragraph by paragraph, explains what each is asking for and what will not satisfy it, and sets out how to assemble the bundle so the judge can see the direction has been met.
The direction, paragraph by paragraph
The orders seen since July 2026 follow a pattern. The court notes that the person lives in residential care and that it needs further information on whether their living arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty before it can determine the request to sell. It then directs the applicant to file, within 28 days of the order being issued, a COP24 statement covering: (a) whether a standard authorisation is in place, with a copy attached if so; (b) a narrative account of the person's living arrangements, including a description of the setting, an itemised list of restrictions including any physical restraint or CCTV, an account of medication including PRN use over the previous six months, and an account of the person's understanding of and response to the arrangements; and (c) the applicant's position on whether the person is or is not deprived of their liberty within the meaning of AGNI. The same order usually requires a full COP14PA deputy's declaration in the same window.
Paragraph (a): the standard authorisation
This is the easy one, and the one that most often no longer applies. If an authorisation exists, attach it and say when it expires. If none exists, say so and say why: either one was never sought, or the supervisory body has declined to renew since AGNI, or the placement predates any request. Do not treat an expired or absent authorisation as a problem to be explained away. The court expects there to be none. What it wants is the evidence that would previously have sat behind one.
Paragraph (b)(i): describing the setting
Short, factual and observed. The type of home, the person's room and whether it is shared, the communal areas, the garden and whether it is accessible, the front door and whether it is keypad or key controlled, the staffing pattern by day and night. A statement that the home is a registered care home with a good inspection rating is not a description of the person's living arrangements. The judge wants to be able to picture where the person is.
Paragraph (b)(ii): the itemised restrictions
This is where a general statement fails. The order says itemised, and it names physical restraint and CCTV specifically because those are the restrictions most often left out. The list should cover: whether the person can leave the building alone, and what happens if they try; whether they are supervised in communal areas, in their room, at night; whether bed rails, sensor mats, lap belts or any other equipment are used and why; whether there is CCTV or door monitoring, and where; whether visits and outings are arranged for the person or by the person; whether any restriction arises from a decision made about the person or from the person's own physical limitations. Each item should say who imposed it and whether it is recorded in the care plan. The distinction between coercion and the person's own limitations is one AGNI made relevant, and the list should make it visible.
Paragraph (b)(iii): medication and PRN over six months
The court asks about medication because sedation is a form of control. The account should come from the MAR charts, not from memory: every regular medication with a bearing on behaviour, mood or alertness, and every PRN administration over the previous six months, with the date, the recorded reason and who authorised it. A table does this better than prose. Where PRN has not been used, say so and say the charts were checked. Where it has been used often, or for agitation or distress rather than pain, the judge will want to know what that says about how the arrangements are being maintained.
Paragraph (b)(iv): the person's understanding and response
This is the paragraph the judge reads most closely, because valid consent under AGNI turns on the person's de facto understanding and acceptance of their arrangements. It cannot be answered from records. Someone has to sit with the person, at their own pace, and record what they understand about where they are, whether they know they can or cannot leave, how they respond to the door being locked or to being accompanied, what they say about the home they left and whether they want to go back, and how they behave when the subject comes up. The account should quote the person and describe what was observed, separately from what staff and family report. A sentence that the person appears settled and content is the kind of evidence the court has already said is not enough.
Paragraph (c): the applicant's position
The order asks for the applicant's position, which means the deputy or attorney has to state, in their own statement, whether they say the person is or is not deprived of their liberty within the meaning of AGNI. That is a legal conclusion on a two-limb test: whether the objective element is met on the multifactorial assessment, and whether the subjective element is displaced by valid consent. A deputy is not expected to conduct that analysis personally. What they are expected to do is base their position on evidence, and the natural way to do that is to exhibit an independent report that applies the test and reaches a reasoned view, and then adopt it. The statement should say why the applicant takes the position it does, by reference to the exhibit.
Assembling the bundle and meeting the clock
The 28 days run from the issue of the order, not from receipt. Note the issue date on the day the order arrives, and work backwards: the visit, the records request to the care home, the report, the solicitor's drafting time. The COP14PA is due in the same window and needs the deputy's own attention. Exhibit the deprivation of liberty report to the COP24, and where the court has also asked about the person's capacity to sell, exhibit the COP3 separately; they answer different questions and should not be merged. A compliance schedule that maps each paragraph of the order to the page of the bundle where it is answered is the single most useful page in the filing, because it lets the judge see at once that the direction has been met.
Key takeaway
The court is not asking whether the person is happy in the home. It is asking the applicant to take a position on whether the person is deprived of their liberty under the AGNI test and to evidence it against six specific heads. Answer each head in turn, from a visit, the records and the person's own account, base the applicant's position on an exhibited report rather than an assertion, and file with a schedule that shows where every paragraph is met. Done that way, the direction is answered once and the sale proceeds.
Frequently asked questions
How do I know the court has directed this?
It arrives in the order itself, often the order appointing the deputy, and the court does not notify the applicant separately. Read every order for directions on the day it arrives and note the issue date, because the 28 days run from issue.
Can the care home manager's letter meet the direction?
It can be an input to paragraphs (b)(i) to (b)(iii), and the court will expect the care provider's view to have been taken. It does not answer (b)(iv), which needs the person's own account, and it cannot supply the applicant's position under (c), which is a legal conclusion on the AGNI test. A letter is evidence about the setting; it is not the analysis.
Do I file a COP3 on capacity to sell as well?
Yes, where the order directs both, as it often does. Keep them separate. The COP3 answers whether the person has capacity to decide to sell, under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act. The deprivation of liberty report answers whether they are deprived of their liberty under Article 5. One visit can cover both, but each report must stand on its own and each is exhibited separately.
What if 28 days is not enough?
Apply under Rule 13.4 within 21 days, as the order will tell you. In practice it is usually quicker to instruct the assessment promptly than to seek an extension, and an application to extend is itself more persuasive with a booked visit date in it.
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.
Received a direction like this?
Nellie Supports produces an independent Deprivation of Liberty Report applying AGNI, structured to answer each paragraph of the court's direction and written to be exhibited to the deputy's COP24. It is available on its own or bundled with a COP3 on the person's capacity to sell the property and a draft COP24 in the deputy's name. Every report is peer reviewed before delivery. Call 0333 987 5118 or visit the property sale evidence service page.