Mental Capacity Assessment
Critical Review and Second Opinion on Mental Capacity Assessment Reports
Independent, CPR Part 35 compliant reviews of third-party mental capacity reports for solicitors, litigation teams and Court of Protection matters across England and Wales.
A critical review is an independent analysis of an existing, third-party mental capacity assessment report. Rather than re-assessing the person, it examines whether the report is legally reliable: whether it applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 properly, identifies the specific decision and relevant time, addresses the functional test with evidence, and links its conclusion to a defensible evidential chain. It is a paper-based service used where a report is challenged in litigation.
£2,900 + VAT
Fixed fee, scope confirmed at instruction
Dependent upon application
Turnaround
England and Wales
Nationwide coverage
Paper-based
A review of the report, not a re-assessment
Nellie Supports is England and Wales' largest identified specialist private social work and mental capacity assessment practice, delivered by a permanent full-time team. Services are provided by employed, multidisciplinary professionals, not an ad hoc associate, contractor or referral-panel model. We have completed over 11,000 formal assessments and reports. This service sits alongside our full range of mental capacity assessment services.
When you may need a critical review or second opinion
A critical review is most useful where there is already a mental capacity report, but there is doubt about whether it can safely be relied upon. The issue is often not whether a report exists, but whether the reasoning within it is strong enough for the purpose it now needs to serve.
In practice this service is used most in litigation and professional contexts, where a capacity report is central to the case and its reasoning will be tested. It is instructed where an opposing expert has reached a different conclusion, where a report reaches its conclusion with little reasoning, where the decision being assessed is not clearly identified, where diagnosis appears to have been treated as proof of incapacity, or where the report drifts into best interests rather than capacity. It can also be used to review a local authority or other assessment, though the most common instruction is where the capacity evidence will affect litigation strategy, settlement or a hearing.
What we review in the report
A critical review considers whether the report demonstrates a lawful, properly reasoned and decision-specific application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The focus is on the quality of the report's reasoning and evidence, not the assessor personally. In particular, we test whether the report:
Clearly identifies the specific decision and the relevant time it needed to be made
Applies the statutory principles and the two-stage test correctly
Shows real functional evidence of understanding, retaining, using or weighing and communicating
Links any impairment to the inability through a defensible causative nexus, not diagnosis-led assumption
One of the most common weaknesses in poor reports is over-breadth. If the decision is vague, the relevant information is not clearly identified, or the report drifts into best interests rather than capacity, the conclusion becomes much harder to defend. Our reviews focus on the report's reasoning, methodology and evidential foundation, not personal criticism of the original assessor.
Framework: Mental Capacity Act 2005 ss 1 to 3 and the Code of Practice; CPR Part 35 where the review is prepared as expert evidence for litigation.
For more, read our guide: what is a critical review of a mental capacity assessment.
Our critical review process
Initial enquiry and triage
Contact us and send the report you want reviewed with a short summary of the issue. We identify whether the instruction suits a focused report appraisal, a full critical review, or whether the case may in fact need a fresh enhanced assessment.
Scope, independence and quotation
Once we understand the report and the purpose of the instruction, we confirm the proposed scope, the likely fee, any document limits and the expected turnaround, and carry out any necessary independence and conflict checks.
Review of the report and supporting material
We analyse the report and any supporting documents against the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the decision-specific and time-specific reasoning, the functional evidence, and the overall evidential chain supporting the conclusion.
Preparation of the written review
We prepare a clear written report setting out the strengths, weaknesses, omissions, vulnerabilities and points needing clarification, with a structured schedule of issues or clarification questions where appropriate.
Secure delivery and next steps
The completed review is returned securely, with clear communication about the outcome and any next-step issues, including whether the report can be clarified and relied upon, or whether a fresh assessment is the stronger course.
What happens during the review
A critical review is not a re-assessment of the person. It is an expert review of the report and the evidence already relied upon, and it usually involves the following.
Identifying the exact issue in dispute
Reviewing the report and any supporting documents provided
Checking whether the decision and relevant time are properly defined
Examining the report against the Mental Capacity Act framework
Testing whether the functional evidence is actually there
Considering whether support to decide has been addressed
Reviewing whether the conclusion is linked to a defensible evidential chain
Preparing a written second-opinion report with clear findings and next-step issues
Critical review fees and timescales
£2,900 + VAT
VAT at 20% and travel costs are not included.
An independent, paper-based review of the report and any supporting material provided
Decision-specific legal analysis of the decision, the relevant time and the relevant information
Mental Capacity Act-focused scrutiny of the statutory principles, the two-stage test and the reasoning
An evidence-chain review testing whether the conclusion is actually supported by what is recorded
A clear written output setting out strengths, weaknesses, omissions and points needing clarification
A schedule of issues and clarification questions for the original assessor, where appropriate
Travel charged at £40 per hour
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
A full-time, multidisciplinary team
Nellie Supports is built on an employed, permanent team: registered social workers, a Chartered Psychologist and specialist assessors working together to one standard, with every report peer reviewed by a second qualified professional. Your assessment is never passed to an associate bank or referral panel.
The right professional for the decision
Capacity questions range from care and residence to complex cognition and prognosis. A multidisciplinary team means the discipline is matched to the decision, not to whoever is available.
One consistent standard
The team works together full time, so every assessment follows the same methodology and peer review is built into every report rather than bolted on.
Accountability you can name
Your report is signed by an employed professional who answers for their work, and the practice stands behind it.
Continuity, not hand-offs
The people who take your enquiry, carry out the assessment and review the report all work in one practice, so nothing is lost between stages.
How this works in practice
The situation
In a personal injury claim, the two sides held opposing capacity opinions. Our social worker had assessed the claimant as lacking capacity to manage their financial affairs, which pointed towards a deputyship and carried significant implications for the value of the claim. The opposing expert had concluded that the claimant did have capacity. Our client's legal team instructed a critical review of the opposing report.
The review
The review focused on method and legal application, not on the other professional's standing or experience. It examined the opposing report against the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and found that it had not properly applied the functional test, had not set out the relevant information the claimant needed to understand for the specific decision, and had not engaged with the relevant case law.
The outcome
On the strength of that analysis, the court preferred the assessment that had properly applied the legal test. The case illustrates the core point of a critical review: the reliability of a capacity opinion turns on whether the correct legal method has been followed, not on the seniority or discipline of the assessor.
This is a real case. Identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.
Why solicitors and professionals instruct Nellie Supports for report reviews
Decision-specific, not broad commentary
Our reviews focus on the real issue in the case, not general commentary detached from the decision being assessed.
Weakness demonstrated, not just disagreement
We understand the difference between disagreeing with a conclusion and demonstrating why a report is legally or evidentially weak.
Professionally usable in litigation
Reviews written to be clear, structured and usable in litigation and dispute settings, including a schedule of issues where appropriate.
Focused on the report, not the person
We review the report's reasoning, methodology and evidential foundation, not the personal standing of the original assessor.
Experienced across contested capacity
Extensive experience across contested capacity issues, including local authority evidence, litigation capacity and Court of Protection work.
Honest about the better route
Where the real problem is that a fresh assessment is now needed, we say so, rather than defending a fundamentally weak report.
Common critical review questions
Do you criticise the professional who wrote the original report?
No. Our role is not to attack the original author personally or by reference to their profession or experience. Our focus is on the report itself: whether the methodology is sound, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has been applied properly, the reasoning is decision-specific, and the conclusion is supported by the evidence recorded.
Do you review reports prepared for the opposing party?
Yes. One of the most common reasons for instruction is to review a mental capacity report obtained by the opposing party, considering whether the assessor applied the correct legal test, identified the relevant decision, and supported the conclusion with clear evidence and reasoning.
Is your critical review CPR Part 35 compliant?
Yes, where the instruction is for litigation purposes, our reviews can be prepared in a CPR Part 35 compliant format. If the review is intended for court use, it helps to make that clear at the enquiry stage so the instruction is scoped correctly.
Do you re-assess the person, or is this a paper review only?
Usually, this is a paper-based review of the existing report and any supporting material. If the case in fact requires a fresh assessment instead, we can identify that and advise accordingly.
Can a critical review help decide whether a fresh assessment is needed?
Yes. Sometimes a report has weaknesses but remains usable with clarification. In other cases the problems are more fundamental. A critical review can be a useful first step where you do not yet know whether to challenge the existing report, ask further questions, or move straight to new evidence.
What is the difference between a report appraisal and a full critical review?
The report appraisal is the more focused option, suitable where an initial professional view is needed on the strengths and vulnerabilities of a report. The full critical review is more detailed, and is generally better where the capacity evidence is central to litigation strategy or likely to be challenged.
Critical review and capacity guides
What is a critical review of a mental capacity assessment?
What a critical review examines and provides
How solicitors should challenge a capacity report
Testing a weak or unreliable report
CPR Part 35 and expert evidence in capacity disputes
Expert evidence standards in litigation
What a litigation-ready capacity review should include
The features of a robust review
Independence and conflicts of interest in capacity assessments
Why independence protects the evidence
Other assessment types
Where the better route is fresh evidence rather than a review, we can help with an enhanced assessment, a litigation capacity assessment, or a retrospective opinion on a past decision.
Capacity to litigate assessment
For conducting legal proceedings, including the Certificate as to Capacity to Conduct Proceedings.
Retrospective mental capacity
Court-ready opinion on whether a person had capacity for a past decision, from the records.
Nellie Supports provides independent social work assessment, evidence and advocacy support. We do not provide regulated legal advice, and where a legal remedy is needed we will say so and support your solicitor's work.
Request a critical review
Send us the report you want reviewed and a short summary of the issue, and we will confirm scope, fee and turnaround, and whether a review or a fresh assessment is the stronger course.
Written by Ben Slater, Founder and Managing Director, Nellie Supports. Read our editorial policy.