TDB, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey

Where there is reason to doubt an adult’s capacity to make a decision relevant to a needs assessment, a local authority must obtain a capacity assessment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 before completing the assessment under the Care Act 2014. The presumption of capacity and the duty to provide practicable support do not justify avoiding that assessment.

Capacity may affect both the identification of needs and the support required to meet them. It is not determined by whether the individual has a formal diagnosis of learning disability. A local authority must also comply with the mandatory requirements for competent assessors and, where complex needs require it, obtain relevant specialist advice.

The appellant, a young adult with autism, ADHD, impaired cognitive functioning and complex care needs, challenged a needs assessment completed by the local authority on 13 December 2024 under the Care Act 2014. The assessment recorded that he lacked capacity in relation to relationships and sexual relationships, but the assessor had not conducted a formal capacity assessment.

HH Judge Bird, sitting in the Administrative Court, dismissed the judicial review claim on 1 August 2025. He held that no capacity assessment or additional specialist input was required. The appellant appealed. By the time of the appeal, Court of Protection proceedings had produced further evidence concerning his capacity, but the Court of Appeal determined the issues of general importance raised by the first two grounds.

The central question was whether a local authority may complete a needs assessment without assessing capacity where there is reason to doubt capacity in matters relevant to the person’s care and support needs.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court quashed the needs assessment of 13 December 2024. It allowed the appeal on the capacity and specialist-expertise grounds, but made no fresh-assessment order because the Court of Protection was determining the appellant’s future care.

2. Where there is reason to doubt the capacity of a person being assessed under the Care Act 2014, an appropriately qualified professional must assess capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 before the needs assessment is completed. Capacity is integral to the assessment of well-being, effective participation, the involvement of others, refusal of assessment, and the nature and extent of care required.

3. The statutory guidance reinforced that conclusion. The presumption of capacity in section 1(2) and the requirement to take practicable steps to support decision-making in section 1(3) govern the assessment itself. Neither principle permits an authority to decline to assess capacity where it is in doubt. Section 67 of the Care Act 2014, concerning support for participation in assessments and plans, does not displace the obligation to assess capacity in respect of decisions relevant to care needs.

4. There was clear evidence raising doubt about the appellant’s capacity concerning relationships, contact, and internet and social-media use. The authority knew of his earlier capacity assessment, his diagnoses and history, and the placement provider’s express report that he lacked capacity concerning relationships and boundaries. Without a capacity assessment, the authority could not lawfully determine whether advice and positive behaviour support were an adequate response to those needs.

5. Capacity does not depend upon classification as having a learning disability. The relevant question is whether an inability to decide is because of an impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.

6. Regulation 5 of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 imposed mandatory, rather than aspirational, obligations. Given the appellant’s complex diagnoses and needs, the authority ought to have obtained advice from a psychiatrist or psychologist. The judge’s contrary conclusion did not engage with the specific evidence and was unsustainable; the failure was irrational.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the needs assessment: [2026] EWCA Civ 1184 .
• High Court, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: HH Judge Bird dismissed the judicial review claim on 1 August 2025. No neutral citation was stated in the judgment.