GUIDES
The current COP3 permits an appropriate assessor, including a medical practitioner or social care professional. The assessor must explain relevant qualifications, experience and freedom from conflict.
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.
The current COP3 permits an appropriate assessor, including a medical practitioner or social care professional. The assessor must explain relevant qualifications, experience and freedom from conflict. The sections below explain the evidence, practical steps and limits of the assessment or process.
The current COP3 requires an appropriate assessor for Part B and gives medical practitioners and social care professionals as examples. It asks about professional relationship, qualifications, training, practical experience and freedom from conflict. It does not list the six professions in this guide as an exhaustive legal eligibility test. Match competence to each actual decision and the person’s support needs, and use the current form and statement of truth.
Part A is completed by the applicant; Part B contains the assessor’s own opinion. The assessor should explain the professional relationship, qualifications, training and practical experience relevant to this assessment, and confirm freedom from conflict. Follow the current COP3 rather than treating any job title or course certificate as automatic authority to complete it.
Medical and social care professionals can be appropriate, depending on the person, question and expertise. Check the practitioner’s actual capacity experience, communication approach, ability to review relevant records and any need for additional medical or legal input. No profession is inherently superior, and a specialist social-worker title does not itself establish stronger evidence than a clinician’s opinion.
The form can be completed by a professional already involved in the person's care, such as a GP or treating clinician, or by an independent assessor instructed for the purpose. Prior knowledge brings context, but it is not required, and an independent assessor who visits the person, reviews the records and conducts a structured decision-specific assessment satisfies the court's requirements. Where family dynamics are strained or the application may be contested, independence is often a positive advantage.
Ask the GP or current care professional whether they can provide the required assessment and their likely timetable. If they cannot, another appropriate professional may be instructed. Clarify records, access, support, fee and form completion; do not assume an independent route is always faster or that a GP’s evidence is merely administrative.
Suitability is case-specific. An application concerning complex property and financial affairs calls for an assessor comfortable with financial capacity at that level of complexity. A person with a learning disability, dementia or communication needs calls for an assessor skilled in adapting the assessment, taking practicable steps and evidencing them. Where litigation or family conflict is foreseeable, the assessor should be capable of producing evidence that will withstand scrutiny, because the COP3 may be the document everything later turns upon.
The COP3 asks the assessor to confirm that the opinion is free from conflict. Check relevant connections, professional role and any interest in the outcome. Prior involvement in care is not automatically disqualifying, but an unresolved personal or financial conflict should be addressed before instruction. The assessor must give their own objective evidence and explain relevant limitations.
Before instructing, it is reasonable to ask about professional registration, experience of COP3 and Court of Protection work specifically, whether the assessment will be conducted in person, what records the assessor wishes to see, the timescale to a completed form and what happens if the court raises questions afterwards. An assessor who welcomes those questions and answers them plainly is usually the right kind of assessor, whilst reluctance to discuss method or availability for follow-up is a warning sign.
Whoever completes it, the finished COP3 should identify the specific decisions assessed, the relevant information for each, the practicable steps taken to support the person, the functional analysis against understanding, retaining, using or weighing and communicating, the impairment identified and the causative link between that impairment and the inability found. A form that demonstrates this reasoning supports the application regardless of the assessor's profession; a form that does not will struggle regardless of the letters after the signature.
The COP3 can be completed by a range of registered professionals, and the court's real concern is the quality of the assessment rather than the assessor's title. Choose a practitioner with genuine Mental Capacity Act expertise, suited to the person's circumstances and independent of the outcome, and confirm before instructing that the assessment will be conducted and evidenced properly, because the form is only ever as strong as the assessment behind it.
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.
Whoever completes Part B should have access to the COP1, the relevant medical and care records and clear instructions identifying the decisions to be assessed. An assessor working without the underlying records, or without knowing precisely which decisions the application concerns, produces exactly the kind of general-purpose COP3 the court questions.
Specialist input may help with unresolved fluctuation, complex communication, diagnostic uncertainty or conflicting evidence. Explain the uncertainty and ask what additional input is necessary. A professional’s relevant expertise and a review process may improve reasoning, but cannot guarantee that the court will accept the opinion or ask no further questions.
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.