Court of Appeal says capacity must be assessed before a Care Act needs assessment is completed where there is reason to doubt it.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a Care Act capacity assessment must be carried out before a needs assessment is completed where there is reason to doubt an individual’s decision-making capacity. The assessment must be conducted by an appropriately qualified professional.
The ruling came in TDB, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey [2026] EWCA Civ 1184, handed down on 15 September 2026 by Lord Justice Bean, Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice May.
The appeal concerned a 25-year-old man, referred to as T, who has autism, ADHD and other complex needs. His care history included extensive specialist support, difficulties with relationships and social media, and previous concerns about his capacity to make decisions in relation to social media.
A December 2024 Care Act assessment recorded that T lacked capacity in understanding relationships, sexual relationships and boundaries. However, the social worker who carried out the assessment had not conducted a capacity assessment. The assessment recommended positive behaviour support and a referral to psychology through T’s GP.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the statutory presumption of capacity meant no assessment was required. It held that the presumption of capacity is an important principle, but cannot be used as a reason to avoid assessing capacity when there is legitimate doubt.
Lord Justice Baker said capacity can be relevant both to identifying a person’s care and support needs and to determining how they can participate in the assessment. The Care Act requires local authorities to consider matters including the individual’s wishes and feelings, participation in decisions and control over day-to-day life.
The court also rejected an argument that the Care Act’s independent advocacy provisions under section 67 removed the need for a Mental Capacity Act assessment. Section 67 concerns participation in assessments and plans; it does not determine whether a person has capacity to make decisions about aspects of their life.
The court further held that regulation 5 of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 imposes a mandatory obligation on local authorities to ensure assessments are carried out by people with the necessary skills, knowledge and competence. Where the individual’s needs require it, the authority must consult someone with relevant expertise.
Given T’s complex conditions and needs, the Court of Appeal concluded that the local authority should have obtained advice from a psychiatrist or psychologist. It found that the failure to seek psychological input was irrational.
The court therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the Care Act assessment of 13 December 2024. It did not order a fresh Care Act assessment because T’s future care was already being considered in Court of Protection proceedings, leaving that court to determine whether further assessments were required.