Reform of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (‘DOLS’) System

Andrew Spooner
9 April 2018

In 2016/17 local authorities made 217,000 applications to deprive individuals of their liberty compared to 196,000 in 2015/16 (Source: https://digital.nhs.uk/article/7933/Number-of-Deprivation-of-Liberty-Safeguards-applications-up-11-per-cent 01/11/17).

The Law Commission set out in its report on Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty (Source: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/mental-capacity-and-deprivation-of-liberty 13/03/17) that the rise in applications made by local authorities is due to the widening of the definition of who was subject to DOLS in the Supreme Court decision of Cheshire West (Source: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0068_Judgment.pdf).

The Law Commission set out that there needed to be reform on the basis that local authorities were unable to cope with the number of applications they were required to make and that deadlines were routinely missed. The Law Commission recommended that the DOLS system was replaced by Liberty Protection Safeguards (‘LPS’). The Government agreed that the DOLS system needed urgent reform and broadly agrees with the LPS model set out by the Law Commission.

The Law Commission have said that “Our recommended scheme serves the same essential purpose as the DOLS and where possible we have made use of existing mechanisms and procedures… But in designing the LPS we have removed the features of the DOLS that we have identified as being both inherently inefficient and actively detrimental to the interest of people who are deprived of their liberty.”

One key difference is that the proposed LPS system requires the local authority or NHS decision-maker to have assessed the deprivation of liberty as being justified. This assessment then needs to be confirmed by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional (‘AMCP’). This new role is modelled on the Approved Mental Health Professional position contained in mental health legislation. The AMCP assessment is proposed to be required where an individual lacks capacity and is not consenting to the treatment and care.

In addition, the Law Commission proposes that LPS should apply to individuals who are 16 and older. At present a standard authorisation under DOLS can only be granted to someone who is 18 or over; for individuals aged 16 and 17, the deprivation of their liberty can currently only be authorised by order of the Court of Protection.

A further key difference is that LPS will focus on whether the care plan in place amounts to a deprivation of the individual’s liberty, regardless of where they reside or spend their time. LPS could therefore apply to an individual who lives in their own home, whereas DOLS can only apply in a residential or hospital setting. 

The Law Commission sets out that challenging the LPS system should be a Tribunal based system rather than the current model where challenges to DOLS are issued in the Court of Protection under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The new system would seek to reduce the pressure on Courts and refer the routine challenges to an appeal system similar to the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) process.

It is unclear when the new system will be introduced, the Government set out in its response to the Law Commission’s proposal that new legislation would be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

If you have questions about someone who is deprived of their liberty then please contact our Court of Protection department on 020 8492 2290.

Related Articles

GN-Symbol.png
Are Court of Protection proceedings truly public? Following the Re Gardner [2026] ruling, we explore the delicate balance between open justice and protecting the highly sensitive, private information of vulnerable individuals.
Our People - Maria Nicholas
The Supreme Court’s landmark AGNI judgment has fundamentally redefined what constitutes a deprivation of liberty in law. By replacing the Cheshire West ‘acid test’ with a new multi-factorial approach, this ruling changes the landscape of DoLS.
Our People - Owen Sugden
Administering a trust requires unanimous decision-making, sound judgment, and strict adherence to legal duties. But what happens when an appointed trustee loses the mental capacity to fulfil their role?
Our People - Burcin Kartal
In Hillingdon v YD, the Court of Protection upheld CANH for a patient with a prolonged disorder of consciousness, finding that his spiritual convictions and close family testimony carried decisive weight in determining his best interests.
GN-Symbol.png
When someone loses capacity without an LPA, a financial deputyship becomes essential. This guide explains when Court of Protection deputyships are needed, how to apply, typical costs and timelines, and your responsibilities as deputy.
Our People - Chryso Loizides
A clear, practical guide to selling property as a deputy or attorney, covering legal duties, court requirements, and step-by-step advice – essential for anyone managing a sale on behalf of someone who lacks mental capacity.

Send a message

We will only use the information you enter in this form to contact you about your enquiry and will not share it with anyone else. Please read our Privacy Notice.

Please note that we are not accepting any new housing work at this time.

If you know this information, please advise...