Nilufer Ozdemir

Nilufer is a solicitor in the social welfare department. She qualified as a solicitor in 2017. Nilufer advises clients on all aspects of Court of Protection and Community Care matters including but not limited to:

• Deprivation of Liberty and Safeguards (DoLS)
• Welfare disputes concerning persons who lacks capacity
• Uncontested deputyship applications
• Mental capacity and best interests
• Section 117 aftercare Services
• Provisions of the Care Act 2014

Nilufer has experience in advising clients on various aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended in 2007) and the Care Act 2014.

Nilufer is particularly experienced in dealing with Court of Protection welfare cases. In her Court of Protection work, she is regularly instructed by the Official Solicitor, family members and professional advocates. Nilufer has delivered a series of external training webinars for various advocacy organisations.
As an accredited member of the Law Society Mental Capacity (Welfare) Panel, Nilufer has experience acting as an accredited legal representative in welfare matters for persons who lack capacity to conduct the proceedings.
Nilufer can undertake both privately-funded and Legal Aid work.

Nilufer is dedicated to working with vulnerable clients and their families, helping them to achieve their objectives in the most smooth and efficient way possible.

Having trained in a well-regarded Mental Health Law department for a period of just under two years, owing to her interest in Mental Capacity Law, Nilufer’s legal practice gradually shifted to Court of Protection and community care work.

Notable Cases

London Borough of Hackney v SJF & Anor [2019] EWCOP 8 (12 March 2019)

This case concerned the care and residence of SJF, a 56-year-old woman with significant complex physical health problems as well as schizophrenia and a learning disability. Nilufer acted for SJF in these proceedings through SJF’s litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. SJF previously resided in a first-floor council flat with her son, JJF, who was described to have needs in his own right. The health professionals had been unwilling to enter the flat due to hostility and threats of violence from SJF’s son and the case was brought to the court’s attention when the son assaulted his mother and the local authority moved SJF into formal supported living on an urgent basis. Notwithstanding the difficulties, SJF wanted to return to live in her flat, with her JJF.

SJF had very complex physical healthcare requirements such that she he needed 3 insulin injections a day, kidney dialysis 3 times a week, and by the end of the proceedings it was observed that her mobility had deteriorated to such an extent that she could only manage a few steps. SJF was actively participating in the court proceedings, and she attended several hearings accompanied by her formal support workers. SJF contended that she had the capacity to make decisions about the relevant decisions, namely capacity to conduct the proceedings, capacity to make decisions about her residence and care and the capacity to make decisions about her contact with others. SJF’s capacity was formally assessed by an independent psychiatrist who concluded that SJF lacks capacity to make the relevant decisions.

The court considered the discrete issues in this case as to whether SJF’s capacity was impacted by undue influence and coercive behaviour resulting from her son’s actions during the proceedings. SJF believed as a mother that her son’s behaviour would improve. SJF expressed that she was concerned about her son being homeless if the tenancy for her council flat were to be terminated following a permanent decision for SJF to remain in formal care. The court invited the local authority to support JJF with his own needs such as his need for an accommodation and support for anger management.

Nevertheless, the Judge said that the magnetic factor in this matter is SJF’s need for healthcare by professionals. There was no real prospect that her healthcare needs could be met adequately or at all if she lives in her flat with her son. The court therefore decided that it would be in SJF’s best interests to live in a supported living accommodation. This case illustrates the fine balance between making decisions in light of P’s strong and consistent wishes and her best interests.

Panel Memberships

Accredited Member of the Law Society (Mental Capacity) Panel

Associations

Member of the Court of Protection Practitioners Association

Languages

Nilufer is fluent in Turkish.