AC and GC (Capacity: Hoarding: Best Interests)

Summary

In AC and GC, HHJ Clayton was concerned with two individuals: AC, 92, and her son, GC. The court considered whether they lacked capacity to make decisions about their items and belongings. 

An application had been made for an order that AC should be moved from her home where she was living with GC to a respite placement so that the property could be cleaned and made safe after a long period of ‘hoarding.’ The local authority then issued proceedings in relation to GC, seeking an order requiring him to leave the home as well to allow for it to be cleaned.

The issues for consideration, at this hearing, were:

(1)    whether GC had capacity to:

a.    Manage his own property and affairs;

b.    Manage AC’s property and affairs;

c.    Make decisions regarding his items and belongings;

d.    Make decisions regarding AC’s items and belongings;

(2)    whether AC should return home for a trial period, receiving a package of care;

(3)    whether to appoint a deputy for AC’s property and affairs.

The parties had reached a consensus (inter alia) that GC lacked capacity to make decisions regarding his own items and belongings, based upon the expert evidence of Professor Salkovskis; and the court accepted that analysis. 

The following information was identified as relevant to the decision in respect of one’s items and belongings [para 14]:

 

(1)    Volume of belongings and impact on use of rooms: the relative volume of belongings in relation to the degree to which they impair the usual function of the important rooms in the property for the individual concerned (and other residents in the property) (e.g. whether the bedroom is available for sleeping, the kitchen for the preparation of food etc). Rooms used for storage (box rooms) would not be relevant, although may be relevant to issues of (3) and (4).

 

(2)    Safe access and use: the extent to which the individual concerned (and other residents in the property) are able or not to safely access and use the living areas.

 

(3)     Creation of hazards: the extent to which the accumulated belongings create actual or potential hazards in terms of the health and safety of those resident in the property. This would include the impact of the accumulated belongings on the functioning, maintenance and safety of utilities (heating, lighting, water, washing facilities for both residents and their clothing). In terms of direct hazards this would include key areas of hygiene (toilets, food storage and preparation), the potential for or actual vermin infestation and risk of fire to the extent that the accumulated possessions would provide fuel for an outbreak of fire, and that escape and rescue routes were inaccessible or hazardous through accumulated clutter.

 

(4)    Safety of building: the extent to which accumulated clutter and inaccessibility could compromise the structural integrity and therefore safety of the building.

 

(5)    Removal/disposal of hazardous levels of belongings: that safe and effective removal and/or disposal of hazardous levels of accumulated possessions is possible and desirable on the basis of a “normal” evaluation of utility.

The court determined that it was in AC and GC’s best interest to enable the family to be supported to have house-clearing and cleaning services enter the property to clean it and make it safe to occupy.

The issue in dispute was whether it was in AC’s best interests for a trial to take place at home. One of the principal issues was the risk that GC would continue to hoard (and relatedly (i) the impact of his mental health if items were taken away and (ii) the care package at home would breakdown because of the conditions in the house).  Professor Salkovskis therefore provided further evidence to the court in respect of the interactions between GC’s obsessive compulsive disorder and hoarding disorder. 

The Local Authority’s view was that the risk of placement breakdown was too great and that AC should therefore remain in the care home. The Official Solicitor, on AC’s behalf, supported a trial at home with a number of conditions on to GC (given he had litigation capacity). 

Whilst acknowledging that a trial at home was not without risk, HHJ Clayton was ultimately not satisfied that a final placement at the care home would be an appropriate and justifiable interference with AC’s article 8 rights. 

Comment

The judge observed that, particularly in light of A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52, no declaration was ultimately required in respect of GC managing his own property and affairs, because there was no need for any deputyship order in respect of his own finances and he had disclaimed his lasting power of attorney for AC. The Supreme Court in JB had emphasised the importance of (1) identifying the precise matter upon which the person’s decision is required; and (2) identifying the information relevant to the decision.