A lasting power of attorney (or LPA) is a legal document that lets you appoint one or more people known as attorneys, to help you make decisions or to make decisions on your behalf.
There are two types of LPA: one that deals with your health and welfare, and one which deals with your property and financial affairs. You can choose to make one type, or both.
Here are our top 5 reasons to make an LPA:
It allows you to decide who should deal with your affairs if you are unable to, which can prevent disputes arising between loved ones if you lose capacity and are unable to make such decisions for yourself.
You can give instructions and guidance to your attorneys to assist them in carrying out their duties in the role.
There is no limit to the number of people you can appoint which means that you can make provision for who should act for you if your first appointed attorneys are no longer able or willing to act
It is quicker, cheaper and less intrusive to make an LPA while you have capacity than it is for a loved one to make a Deputyship Order on your behalf after you have lost capacity. The court will not intervene in your choice of attorney but may not consider an applicant unsuitable to act as your Deputy.
You can revoke your LPA at any time while you have capacity if you change your mind about your appointed attorneys
Would you like to decide who should be responsible for managing your affairs while you are alive, should you reach a point where you are no longer able to manage them yourself? Contact our Wills & Probate Solicitor, Patrice Lawrence.
The summer holidays are fast approaching, and you may be thinking about booking a holiday abroad (i.e. outside of England and Wales) with your child(ren). This should be an exciting time for all concerned but where parents are separated, the arrangements for travelling abroad can be complicated and it is best to try and get everything sorted well in advance of your departure date.
Where both parents have parental responsibility, written consent is needed
If you and the other parent both have parental responsibility for your child(ren), and there is no child arrangements order in place, then neither of you are permitted to take your child(ren) abroad, without the other parent’s consent. Ideally, consent should be in writing to avoid any future disagreements about what was agreed. Additionally, you may be asked to provide the other parent’s written consent to travel abroad when you leave the jurisdiction (England and Wales), or upon arrival in the other country. If you do take your child(ren) abroad, without the consent of the other parent, this would be classed as child abduction, which is a criminal offence.
What if consent is unreasonably withheld?
If you ask for consent to travel from the other parent, but this is unreasonably withheld, then you may need to make an application to court to take your child(ren) abroad.
You would need to apply for a specific issue order (note: if this application is granted, it is only valid for the specific holiday you wish to take. It cannot be used for any/all future holidays). If you do apply for a specific issue order, the Judge will consider why the other parent is objecting to the child travelling, and whether their objections are justified.
Consent should not be unreasonably withheld, such as due to arguments or hostility between the parents and should only be legitimate concerns about the child(ren), such as that the travelling parent may not return the child(ren) at the end of the holiday, or about the safety of the child(ren) whilst abroad. The court will look for evidence that the child(ren) will be returned, such as return tickets, and consider whether the holiday destination is a safe and appropriate destination for the child(ren). Ultimately, the Judge decides what is in the child(ren)’s best interests and whether the child(ren) would benefit from the holiday.
What if my child(ren) lives with me?
If you have a child arrangements order in place confirming that the child(ren) lives with you, then you can take your child(ren) outside of the jurisdiction (England and Wales), for up to 28 days without the other parent’s consent. Having said this, it is good parenting to inform the other parent of your intention to travel and still obtain their consent as above. It is a good idea to provide the following information to the other parent before travelling, to lessen any concerns they may have:
Your departure and return dates.
Your flight/travel information.
Details of where your child(ren) will be staying for the duration of the trip.
Up to date contact details for you and the child(ren).
If you are a special guardian you can take the child(ren) subject to the special guardianship order for up to three months.
I am worried my child(ren) could be taken abroad and not returned home – what do I do?
If you are concerned that your child(ren) could be taken abroad and not returned home, then you can apply to the court for a prohibited steps order. This is a court order that says the child(ren) must not be taken anywhere outside of the jurisdiction (England and Wales).
If the Judge decides that there is a real risk that the child(ren) would not be returned home, then they can make a prohibited steps order preventing travel abroad. It is much better to have a prohibited steps order in place before the child(ren) travels, rather than have to go to court after the child(ren) has gone abroad, to try to make the other parent return the child(ren) home.
Contact our expert team of family lawyers
Should you need advice on travelling abroad with your child(ren) or have concerns about your children being taken abroad without your consent, we have a large expert team of lawyers who would be happy to assist.
The proceedings concerned a girl, now 12, and twin boys of 9. The parents separated in August 2017 and the father had regular unsupervised contact at that time. This continued until the parents began to disagree about the logistical arrangements for contact.
In early 2018, the daughter refused to see her father but the twins continued to have contact every other weekend overnight, even after the father moved 130 miles away. There were disagreements over the arrangements as the father sought to change the weekends on which he had contact due to not having a car to transport the children to contact on the weekends he was currently scheduled to have the twins. The mother had already booked to work on the weekends that the father had been due to have contact, and was unable to change this without giving a period of notice.
These practical difficulties set the context for an exchange of WhatsApp messages.
The Judgment records:
Whilst the messages demonstrate increasing frustration by the father exemplified by his threats to issue proceedings if the matter was not resolved, it is of note that the mother clearly said: “I have said I will swap weekends within the next couple of months[;] I have never denied access to the children”.
Contact arrangements changed and the father issued a C100 application to regularise contact in December 2019. He did not make a referral for a Mediation Information & Assessment Meeting (MIAM) citing the urgency of Christmas arrangements as a reason for bypassing that requirement. Mother lodged a C1A making some allegations against the father but not objecting to unsupervised contact. The father also submitted a C1A, alongside his C100 application, making allegations of emotional, psychological and financial abuse against the mother.
Cafcass prepared a safeguarding letter which recorded allegations made by Mother in 2018: “rape, financial, physical, mental and controlling behaviours” and suggested that a fact-finding hearing (FFH) beconsidered.
At the First Hearing and Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA), the judge interpreted the safeguarding letter as recommending a FFH and determined that there should be one. The Judge ordered supported contact during the day, once per fortnight, either with an agreed third party or at a contact centre. In fact, the pandemic then struck and stopped direct contact.
On 25 November 2021, a final order was made that the father should have only indirect contact once per month. The children have therefore not seen their father for over two years (save between January and April 2021 at a contact centre).
Findings were made at the FFH; and at the final hearing at which a Cafcass report was considered, a final order was made for monthly indirect contact only.
The Court of Appeal Decision
This was actually the second appeal. A Circuit Judge considered the first appeal and upheld the first instance decision.
The Court of Appeal found that the judge (rather than making that decision at the FHDRA) should have:
(a) identified the issues between the parents as to the children’s welfare, and (b) given the mother time to decide, with the benefit of legal advice, what factual findings she wanted to contend required to be decided by the court, because they were “likely to be relevant to any decision of the court relating to the welfare of the child”.
The Findings?
They found that the finding of rape was unsafe and must be set aside. It was felt that the District Judge had failed to step back and take into account the whole of the evidence before him, and by doing so he placed unjustifiable weight on the issue of whether the mother had had a conversation with the father and elevated that issue into the determinative one, saying that if it were proved, the allegations would themselves be made out.
Father’s challenges were not brought into his analysis, meaning that there could not be said to have been a fair consideration of these important allegations from the father’s perspective.
What is the consequence of the Court of Appeal’s determination?
The consequence of the Court of Appeal’s determination is set out as:
“We have concluded that the findings in relation to the most serious allegations 1-3 are unsafe. As a result of that and the other matters we have identified, the fact-finding judgment and the schedule to the judge’s order dated 25 August 2020 must be set aside. The matter will be remitted to a Circuit Judge for a decision to be made as to whether a fresh fact-finding hearing is required on the basis of the principles set out in Re H-N and this judgment. We reiterate also, as we did at the end of the hearing, that the parties should now consider whether there is room for compromise in the best interests of their children.”
What can we take from the Judgement?
Section 10 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (the CFA 2014) requires that before making a relevant family application, a person must attend afamily mediation information and assessment meeting. A MIAM is defined in section 10(3) of the CFA 2014 as “a meeting held for the purpose of enabling information to be provided about: (a) mediation of disputes of the kinds to which relevant family applications relate, (b) ways in which disputes of those kinds may be resolved otherwise than by the court, and (c) the suitability of mediation, or of any other such way of resolving disputes, for trying to resolve any dispute to which the particular application relates”.
Where an exemption from a MIAM is claimed, rule 3.10(1) provides that the court will, if appropriate when making a decision on allocation, and in any event at the first hearing, inquire into whether the exemption was validly claimed. Under rule 3.10(2) the court will, if it finds that the MIAM exemption was not validly claimed: “(a) direct the applicant, or direct the parties, to attend a MIAM; and (b) if necessary, adjourn the proceedings to enable a MIAM to take place; unless the court considers that in all the circumstances of the case, the MIAM requirement should not apply to the application in question”.
FHDRAs are an opportunity for judicially led dispute resolution. In this case the mother had said on her C1A that she agreed to the father having unsupervised contact.
There needs to be active and careful consideration about whether or not a FFH is necessary and proportionate. As stated above, the Court of Appeal found that the Judge prematurely directed one at the FHDRA without the parties and particularly the mother having had time for legal advice on the key issues and what findings may be pursued.
There are some words of warning to the authors of Section 7 reports following FFHs: ‘There is, in our view, a real danger in reducing bespoke, detailed and subtle findings made by a judge to one or two word headline labels, in place of the original detail. The case analysis uses the labels of rape, bullying, manipulation and physical abuse, each of which emits a neon light in an erroneous and unjustified manner.’ The Cafcass Analysis as well as using short headline labels also went on to say: ‘Given the findings made, [B, C and A] have suffered harm and are at risk of suffering harm due to witnessing domestic abuse against their mother. [the father’s] behaviour as described by [the mother] would have been very frightening for the children …B has suffered physical harm although [the father] does not accept that this was abuse.’ The Judgment points out however that no findings were made in relation to the children suffering harm.
Conclusion
The Judgment ends with these important words:
‘All judges hearing children cases will know that there will almost inevitably be emotional fallout following the separation of adults who have been in a close relationship. Whilst the court will not hesitate to adjudicate upon parental behaviour where this impacts upon the protection or welfare of a child, it is not for the court to hear about, much less to resolve, issues between the parents relating to their time together, unless to do so is likely to be necessary for, and proportionate to, the resolution of a dispute relating to the protection or welfare of a child.’
Mediation Vouchers
It is important to draw your attention to the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme, which is a time-limited scheme designed to encourage parties to consider mediation as a means of resolving their disputes. Eligible parties can, by applying for a voucher during the MIAM process, receive up to £500 towards the costs of mediation by a mediator authorised by the Family Mediation Council.
We can help you navigate the complexities of these cases providing expert advice and much needed support. Please do not hesitate to contact us at A_FamilyReferrals@tvedwards.com, or visit our family page here.
June is the month we celebrate LGBT+ Pride commemorating a riot/protest originally in the United States led by a group of Trans women of colourin 1969 against police brutality.
In the United Kingdom it is particularly important following the passage of‘Section 28’of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned local authorities publishing material on or promoting homosexuality – a law that was only overturned in 2000 (Scotland) and 2003 (England/Wales).
Today, Pride is celebrated to recognise the impact LGBT+ people have made and to recognise the struggles many in the community still face to this day.
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP
High Court decides homeowner was evicted in breach of a breathing space
The High Court has decided that our client Amanda Lees is entitled to return to her home after being evicted in January 2022 in breach of a mental health breathing space.
Ms Lees had lived in her home in West London since 2001. In 2018 Ivan Kaye (Ms Lees’ former neighbour) issued a claim against her and obtained a judgment for damages in January 2019. Subsequently, he obtained a Charging Order against Ms Lees’ home and then an Order for Sale of the property to enforce the judgment debt.
An eviction date was set for 13 January 2022. The day before the eviction Ms Lees was entered into a Mental Health Crisis Moratorium (also known as a mental health breathing space). The purpose of the Moratorium is to give people a “breathing space” from the pressures of their debts. During the period of a Moratorium, creditors are prohibited from taking steps to recover any eligible debt.
In Ms Lees’ case, she notified Mr Kaye’s representatives and the High Court Enforcement Officers who had attended to carry out the eviction on 13 January that she had been placed in a breathing space. Despite informing them of the Moratorium, the eviction was carried out and Ms Lees was excluded from her home.
Ms Lees issued an application at the High Court (as the case had been transferred there for enforcement) for re-entry to her home. After the application was issued but before it had been decided, Mr Kaye purported to sell Ms Lees’ home to Chelsea Dixon (the partner of the owner of the flat above Ms Lees’ home). Ms Lees therefore had to ask the court for a declaration that not only was her eviction “null and void” but that the sale of her home was “null and void” as well.
At a hearing at the High Court on 30 March, Mr Kaye’s representatives argued that the debt they had been trying to enforce was not an eligible debt, because the damages had been awarded for personal injury (which fall outside the protection of breathing spaces). They also argued that debt secured by charging orders also fell outside the protection of breathing spaces. Another argument used was that the breathing space had not been properly registered by the Secretary of State.
On Friday 13 May, HHJ Dight CBE (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) granted Ms Lees’ application and refused all of Mr Kaye’s arguments. He decided that all the enforcement actions taken during the period of Ms Lees’ breathing space were “null and void” – this included her eviction and the sale of her home to Ms Dixon. Ms Lees is now entitled to return to her home, after being excluded for more than four months and having to stay with friends pending the outcome of her application.
This is only the second time that the Court has considered the debt respite scheme which brought in breathing spaces. We understand that a number of creditors have argued and/or are trying to argue that charging orders are exempt from protection under breathing spaces. We hope that this judgment will help clarify the situation and avoid debtors being unnecessarily evicted and/or pursued for such debts when within a breathing space.
If you are facing eviction from your home and would like legal advice, please contact us on 020 3440 8000 or enquiries@tvedwards.com to see if we can assist.
A CRO is a court order issued by a judge that stops a person from re-applying to court. This would be necessary when a person’s application for a court hearing has been refused because it is totally without merit, but they won’t accept the judge’s refusal.
The other party or parties to the proceedings may apply for a CRO.
What are the different types of CROs?
The judge issuing the CRO will decide which order is most appropriate:
Limited Civil Restraint Order (LCRO)
An LCRO may be issued by a judge of any court where a person has made more than one application that is totally without merit. If you are subject to a LCRO and make a further court application without first obtaining the judge’s permission, your application will automatically be dismissed.
Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO)
If you continue to go back to court, the judge may issue an ECRO. An ECRO may be issued by a Court of Appeal judge, a High Court judge, and in some cases, a County Court judge. If you are subject to an ECRO and make a further court application without first obtaining the judge’s permission, your application will automatically be dismissed.
General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO)
In extreme cases where an ECRO would not be sufficient, a judge will grant a GCRO. A GCRO may be issued by a Court of Appeal judge, a High Court judge, and in some cases, a County Court judge. If you ignore a GCRO and continue to go back to court, you will be in ‘contempt of court’ (disobeying or ignoring a court order) and may receive a prison sentence.
In the news:
In recent news, a litigant named Sayed Sangamneheri has been issued with a second ECRO by a High Court judge for continuing to bring meritless claims. As a result, Mr Sangamneheri has been banned from making further applications in the High Court for two years.
After the collapse of his arbitration case in 2015, Mr Sangamneheri first brought a judicial review against the arbitrator. When this was dismissed as meritless, he proceeded to sue the arbitrator and this claim was also struck out as totally without merit. At this stage, a High Court judge issued a first ECRO against Mr Sangamneheri in 2018.
Following this however, Mr Sangamneheri has continued to bring court applications in this matter, including a recent claim for £33.3 quadrillion. As a result, earlier this month a High Court judge struck out the claim for being totally without merit and has imposed a second ECRO on Mr Sangamneheri.
This article sets out the basic principles regarding CROs, which form part of the Civil Procedure Rules. At TV Edwards, our Dispute Resolution solicitors are experts in all aspects of civil procedure and litigation. If you would like to find out more about the services we can offer you, please contact the Dispute Resolution team at TV Edwards Solicitors LLP.
Our expert property solicitors exchange contracts for you within your required timescales and are known to do so within 24 hours of being instructed (by attended exchange, subject to all the paperwork being in order!)
We are aware that selling a property can be stressful, whether you are new to the property market or are an experienced property developer. The sale process can be particularly daunting if you are looking to purchase a property at the same time and your transaction is dependent on a chain. Our expert solicitors are here to assist you to ensure that the process runs smoothly, and that the transaction is completed according to your timescale.
Our property solicitors can work to any time frame which is suitable to you to complete the sale of your property.
We can assist with sales of:
New-build
Leasehold
Freehold
Shared Ownership
Retirement Properties
Sales of properties purchased under the right to buy scheme
It’s important to instruct us
It is important that you instruct us as soon as possible (and ideally before the property goes on the market) to ensure we are prepared to send out a full set of contract papers to the buyer’s solicitors as soon as you have found a buyer.
What if the property is leasehold?
If you instruct us in advance, we obtain the service charge management information pack (which can often delay a sale), obtain the requirement of any landlord for consent (licence to assign) under the lease and arrange for everything to be ready in time. Should you wish to place any deadlines on the buyer to exchange by a certain time frame, this process ensures it will be reasonable do so.
What happens once you instruct us?
Once you instruct us, we promptly carry out all our identification checks, obtain monies on account from you, obtain the title deeds and assist you in completing the relevant property/protocol documents. We then arrange for the contract pack to be prepared.
We contact any lenders with charges on your property to obtain details of the sums outstanding on your mortgage. This ensures there are sufficient monies to pay off the existing loans, so that we can provide the necessary undertaking for payment of those loans to the buyer’s solicitors on completion.
Once you have found a purchaser and your agents have sent us the sales memorandum with details of the buyers and their solicitors, we will make immediate contact with them and issue contracts once they have confirmed instructions.
Why choose TV Edwards?
Our solicitors are experts in their field and have combined experience of providing an outstanding level of personal, friendly, and professional service to all our clients. TV Edwards has proudly served the local community over the last 90 years–and continues to do so!
Our team of specialist property solicitors are equipped to deal with any relevant enquiries raised by the buyer’s solicitors and will keep you updated throughout the sale process to ensure the transaction runs smoothly and efficiently.
Whether you are ready to sell or just need some friendly advice, please call us today to speak to one of our specialist solicitors: 020 3440 8000.
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP
Ordinary residence and after-care services – which local authority is responsible? Developments following: R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC [2021] EWCA Civ 1957
The concept of ordinary residence is key to determining which local authority is responsible for meeting the care and support needs of an individual. A local authority only has a duty to an individual who is ordinarily resident in its area.
The case of R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC brought into question which Council was responsible for after-care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“MHA”) in a situation where the service user has been detained, released, and then detained again under the MHA.
The circumstances of this particular case were that the service user (“JG”) was detained under section 3 MHA in Worcestershire, then discharged by Worcestershire to a care home in Swindon, detained again under section 3 in Swindon, and finally discharged again.
When considering which authority had the responsibility of providing section 117 after-care services to JG, the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) maintained that the responsibility belonged to Worcestershire for the following reasons:
JG was ordinarily resident in Worcestershire;
Alternatively, section 117 specifies that responsibility is determined by where a service user is resident “immediately before being detained” and this is to be construed as meaning “immediately before being first detained”;
Alternatively, the duty of Worcestershire to provide after-care services following JG’s first detention continued throughout her second detention.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Linden decided that Swindon Borough Council was responsible for funding the services, rejecting the DHSC’s above three lines of argument. The significant reason for this ruling was because JG had been living in the Swindon at the time of her second detention.
The government appealed the decision of the High Court and the case was then heard in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ultimately held that Worcestershire’s duty to a service-user continues until it is brought to an end by a decision under section 117(2) MHA that the service-user is no longer in need of aftercare services. In this case, such a decision had not been made regarding JG so Worcestershire’s duty continued throughout the second period of JG’s detention.
Lord Justice Coulson commented that “there could only be one duty at any one time. That duty rested with Worcestershire until it came to an end either on the facts or as a matter of law.” The Court of Appeal also confirmed that JG was ordinarily resident in Swindon immediately before her second detention. Lord Justice Coulson commented that “there is nothing in section 117 that could permit this court to conclude that, absent any decision by Worcestershire under section 117(2), the fact that JG had become ordinarily resident in Swindon immediately prior to the second period of detention somehow gave rise to a competition, and switched the relevant duty from Worcestershire to Swindon.”
The current position is therefore that there can only be one duty under section 117 at any one time. The local authority that is responsible for providing after-care services under section 117 MHA remains responsible unless and until there is a decision that the service user is no longer in need of those after-care services. The responsibility of that local authority continues regardless of a subsequent detention or a placement in the area of a different authority.
Disputes between local authorities as to who has responsibility to provide section 117 after-care will undoubtedly still arise. Such disputes must still be referred to the Secretary of State within four months of the date when the dispute arose, if they cannot be resolved between the authorities.
If you have concerns about a local authority providing you or somebody else with section 117 after-care services and want advice from a solicitor, our community care team at TV Edwards may be able to assist you. Please contact us on 020 3440 8100 or a_communitycarereferrals@tvedwards.com to make an enquiry.
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP
What are Liberty Protection Safeguards (“LPS”) and when will they be implemented?
Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) are intended to replace the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) system.
The LPS were introduced by the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019. DoLS is a system whereby certain authorised bodies can make a decision to deprive someone of their liberty, if that person lacks the capacity to make that decision, and it is decided that it is in their best interests to do so. It will apply in various settings, such as an individual who has a brain injury and needs to be kept in hospital for treatment, or a person with dementia who is placed in a care home that they cannot leave.
The Government felt that the current DoLS system was not working well and has introduced the LPS with the aim of putting the rights and wishes of those people who are detained at the centre of all decision-making on deprivation of liberty.
What changes will be brought by the LPS and how do they differ from DoLS?
In this commentary, we will look at some of the major changes that will be brought by the LPS when it comes into force and how they differ from the current DoLS regime.
Setting
DoLS only apply in care homes and hospitals whereas the new system will be ‘setting neutral’. This means that LPS will not just be restricted to hospitals and care homes – it will apply to any setting. This will include the person’s own home or family home, supported living accommodation and shared lives housing. The LPS focus on the arrangements which confine individuals and amount to a deprivation of their liberty and not the institutions who confine them.
Age
DoLS only apply to those who are aged 18 years old and above. Currently, only the court can authorise the deprivation of liberty for those aged 16-17 who lack capacity to consent to confinement. The LPS will apply to 16 and 17-year-olds, which means the court will not always have to be involved in the young person’s detention.
Authorisation by responsible body
A further major change that is intended to be brought in by the new regime is that whilst under the current DoLS regime care homes and hospitals must ask a local authority if they can deprive a person of their liberty, following implementation of LPS, local authorities and NHS bodies, such as clinical commissioning groups and hospital trusts, will be the ‘responsible bodies’ who will organise assessments and ensure there is sufficient evidence to justify the deprivation of liberty. There will be the potential for delegation of some tasks to care home managers in some cases. The LPS will therefore widen the scope of those bodies and people who can authorise the deprivation of liberty.
Additional scrutiny
As soon as a referral is made to the responsible body to deprive a person of their liberty, the responsible body must then take steps to appoint an ‘Independent Mental Capacity Advocate’ (IMCA) to support the person who is being deprived of their liberty.
It is suggested that if a person would not wish to be cared for under the arrangements, the case must then be considered by an ‘Approved Mental Capacity Professional’.
Additional scrutiny is offered under the LPS by the appointment of an AMCP, particularly in independent hospitals. AMCPs can also consider referrals from the responsible bodies.
However, the Court of Protection will still be involved in assessing whether arrangements are within the individual’s best interests and applications can be made if the person or anyone else wishes to challenge the arrangements authorised by the responsible body.
Conditions
Further, to determine whether an individual can be deprived of their liberty under the new scheme, three assessments will form the basis of the authorisation: a capacity assessment, medical assessment and a “necessary and proportionate” assessment.
Provisions for review and renewal
Under the DoLS regime, an urgent DoLS authorisation lasts for a maximum period of seven days and then it can be renewed for another seven days if required. A standard DoLS authorisation lasts for a maximum period of 12 months and it is not renewable. Upon the expiry of DoLS the supervisory body would need to grant new authorisation to be able to lawfully continue depriving the person of their liberty. Under the new regime however, a person’s first authorisation and renewal can be up to 12 months and renewals can last for up to 36 months.
The responsible body can renew an authorisation if it is satisfied that both of the following apply:
a. the authorisation conditions are still being met b. it is unlikely that there will be any significant change in the person’s condition during the renewal period, which would affect whether the conditions are met
The review process must be completed by individuals, such as the AMCP, on behalf of the Responsible Body.
What’s next?
The LPS were originally intended to come into force in October 2020, but this was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Whilst later the intention was to bring the LPS into practice in April 2022, the Government has since confirmed that the April 2022 target is unlikely. The Government is yet to set a new target date for the implementation.
There remains much still unknown about LPS and the implementation requirements which is undoubtedly not going to be straightforward. However, it is promising that DHSC will be issuing further guidance and a code of practice to enhance knowledge of the details contained within the new regime. At the time of writing, we are pleased to share a recent update; whilst there is still no proposed date for the implementation of LPS, the draft MCA Code of Practice and regulations are now out, and will be open to consultation until 7 July 2022.
