NEWS
Before a mental capacity assessment takes place, the person being assessed should understand, as far as possible, what the assessment is about and why it is being carried out.
Before a mental capacity assessment takes place, the person being assessed should understand, as far as possible, what the assessment is about and why it is being carried out.
That may sound straightforward, but in practice it is one of the most important parts of a lawful, fair and reliable assessment. A capacity assessment is not simply a conversation in which an assessor gathers answers. It is a structured process that may affect legal, financial, welfare or court-related decisions. The person should therefore be given a genuine opportunity to understand the purpose of that process before conclusions are drawn.
Explaining the purpose of the assessment is not just a matter of professional courtesy. It supports transparency, respects the person’s autonomy, and helps ensure that any conclusion about capacity is based on the person’s actual decision-making ability, rather than confusion about why they are being asked questions.
Mental capacity is decision-specific. This means the question is not whether a person has capacity in general, but whether they can make a particular decision at the relevant time.
For that reason, the person being assessed needs to know what decision is being considered. For example, an assessment might relate to managing finances, making a will, granting a lasting power of attorney, deciding where to live, consenting to care arrangements, or taking part in legal proceedings.
Those are very different decisions. Each one involves different information, different consequences and different risks. If the person does not understand what decision is being assessed, their answers may not reliably show whether they can understand, retain, use or weigh the relevant information.
In simple terms, the person should not be left guessing why the assessor is there.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council v LS & Anor [2025] EWCOP 10 (T3) illustrates this concern. At paragraph 77, Cobb J questioned an assessment conducted over several sessions without an explicit explanation that capacity was being assessed, observing that this might have affected the results. This was one concern among several about the evidence, rather than a rule that every imperfect explanation automatically invalidates an assessment.
The practical point is clear: if a person is not told what an assessment is actually about, the reliability of the assessment may be called into question. A person’s responses may be affected by anxiety, confusion, mistrust or misunderstanding. They may think the assessor is there for a different reason. They may answer cautiously, defensively or inconsistently because they do not understand the context.
That does not mean every explanation must be lengthy or technical. In many cases, a short and accessible explanation will be more appropriate. What matters is that the assessor makes a proper attempt to explain the purpose in a way the person can understand.
A technical introduction may name the legislation without explaining what the person is being asked to decide.
An accessible explanation should identify the actual decision, the assessor’s role, what the conversation will involve and who will receive the report.
The explanation should be meaningful to the individual and avoid unnecessary legal language while remaining honest about the purpose.
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a person should not be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help them do so have been taken without success.
Explaining the purpose of the assessment sits naturally within that principle. It helps the person understand what is happening, why the decision matters, and what information they are being asked to consider.
This is particularly important where the person has dementia, acquired brain injury, a learning disability, mental illness, delirium, communication difficulties or another condition that may affect how they process information.
A person may struggle with a question not because they lack capacity, but because the question has been put too quickly, too abstractly or without enough context. A good assessment should reduce those barriers wherever possible.
That may involve:
The aim is not to coach the person into a particular answer. It is to give them a fair opportunity to engage with the decision.
Capacity assessments often involve complex information. The assessor may need to explore options, consequences, risks, benefits, legal documents, care arrangements or financial circumstances.
However, the information should be presented in a way the person can realistically understand. An assessment that relies on technical wording may test the person’s ability to understand jargon, rather than their ability to make the actual decision.
Good communication means adapting the explanation to the person, not expecting the person to adapt to the assessor.
For example, where someone is anxious, the assessor may need to begin with reassurance and a clear explanation of their role. Where someone has memory difficulties, the assessor may need to repeat key points and check understanding more than once. Where someone has communication difficulties, the assessor may need to use alternative methods, such as written information, pictures, communication aids, interpreters or support from someone who understands the person’s communication style.
The assessment should focus on whether the person can make the decision with appropriate support, not whether they can manage unsupported in an artificial or unfamiliar setting.
The setting of the assessment can make a significant difference.
A noisy, unfamiliar or pressured environment may increase confusion and reduce the person’s ability to engage. A quieter and more familiar setting may help the person concentrate and respond more clearly.
For some people, the timing of the assessment is also important. A person may be more alert in the morning, more fatigued later in the day, or affected by medication, pain, distress or recent events.
These practical details matter because capacity is assessed at the time the decision needs to be made. If the person’s presentation fluctuates, the assessor should consider whether the timing and setting of the assessment give a fair picture of their decision-making ability.
This does not mean assessments must always take place in perfect conditions. That is rarely possible. But the assessor should think carefully about barriers to engagement and record what steps were taken to reduce them.
Explaining the purpose of the assessment is only the first step. The assessor also needs to consider whether the person has understood that explanation.
This does not have to be done formally or harshly. It can be approached naturally within the conversation.
For example, the assessor might ask the person to explain in their own words what they understand the conversation to be about, with appropriate support.
They might also ask whether the person has questions or wants anything explained differently.
This helps the assessor understand whether the person has grasped the purpose of the conversation. It also gives the person an opportunity to correct any misunderstanding.
The tone matters. Use patience and accessible communication, and record how the approach affected participation. Neither a friendly conversation nor a completed checklist establishes capacity on its own.
A strong capacity report should not simply state that the purpose was explained. It should briefly record how it was explained and how the person responded.
For example, record the explanation actually given, any communication aids or repetitions, and how the person showed their understanding.
Where the person did not understand, record what further support was tried, what remained uncertain and why it was appropriate to proceed, pause or obtain further advice. Difficulty understanding the assessment’s purpose is not, by itself, the answer to the substantive capacity question.
This kind of recording is useful because it shows the assessor has considered transparency, communication and support. It also helps demonstrate that the assessment was not a tick-box exercise.
Artificial intelligence may have a limited supporting role in this area, particularly where professionals need to convert complex information into simpler language.
For example, AI may help draft a plain-language explanation of a decision, summarise options in accessible wording, or produce a short written prompt that can be adapted for the person being assessed.
AI-generated wording requires professional review for accuracy, relevance and the person’s needs. It should not decide capacity or be used to interpret answers in isolation. Any use involving personal information also needs an appropriate lawful basis, confidentiality arrangements and the organisation’s approved information-governance process.
Used carefully, AI may assist communication. Used carelessly, it may introduce errors, oversimplify important information or create a false impression that the person has been properly supported.
The key point remains the same: the assessor is responsible for ensuring the person receives the relevant information in a way that is accessible and meaningful.
Families, solicitors and professionals often focus on the final outcome of a capacity assessment: does the person have capacity or not?
But the process matters just as much as the conclusion.
If the purpose of the assessment has not been explained, or if the explanation has not been adapted to the person’s needs, the assessment may be vulnerable to challenge. It may be unclear whether the person truly could not make the decision, or whether they were not properly supported to understand what was being asked of them.
A robust assessment should show:
This is especially important in court-related assessments, disputed family situations, property and financial matters, and cases where the person’s presentation is borderline or fluctuating.
Explaining the purpose of a mental capacity assessment is a fundamental part of good practice.
It protects the person’s right to participate, supports the Mental Capacity Act principle of taking practicable steps, and improves the reliability of the assessment itself. It also helps ensure that the assessor is testing the person’s decision-making ability, not their ability to work out why unfamiliar questions are being asked.
A clear explanation does not need to be complicated. It should be honest, accessible and tailored to the person. The assessor should then check understanding, adapt communication where needed, and record what was done.
A clear record of the explanation, participation and support helps others assess the quality of the evidence. The report must still address the relevant legal test and its limitations.
Need a decision-specific mental capacity assessment?
Nellie Supports provides independent, decision-specific mental capacity assessments for families, solicitors and professionals across England and Wales.
Tags:
Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice
Published 5 May 2026
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.