The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS)

This section reviews the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS) and discusses the key reforms applicable within the system. It explores the main objectives of the safeguard and the process that care homes must adhere to if they believe it is in a person's best interest to deprive them of their liberty. The DOLS has faced criticisms and there have been attempts to differentiate between DOLS and Mental Health Act detentions.

1
LAW AND THE VULNERABLE PERSON
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

2
Task 1: The deprivation of Liberty safeguard (DOLS)
The deprivation of Liberty safeguard (DOLS) can be described as the rules by which
people with mental problems derive from once they are deprived of liberty, mostly in care
homes of other healthcare institutions. However, the current DOLS are still not considered as
an accomplishment, and the law institutions have the obligation to review the legal
frameworks within this system. This section is intended to review the DOLS and discuss the
key reforms are applicable within the system. The Deprivation of Liberty safeguards is a
fundamental part of the mental capacity Act 2005.1The main objective of the safeguard is to
ensure that people in various healthcare institutions and care homes are treated in the most
appropriate manner that does not interfere with their freedom. Moreover, the safeguard sets
out the process that care home must adhere to if they believe that it is in person’s best interest
to deprive a person's liberty, in order to give a care plan. Therefore, it is the obligation of the
social care organisations to arrange a proper assessment to make sure the deprivation of
liberty of in person’s best interest.
In 2005 , the European Court of Human rights determined a case between HL v the
United Kingdom and decided that a man who didn’t have capability of determining whether
it was right to be admitted to clinic or as an casual patient to a mental hospital has been
deprived of his liberty in desecration of Article 5 of the EU conventions for the safeguard of
Human rights .The regulatory system in the English and Wales was considered to be
insufficient to meet the requisite standards of that Article to validate such determinations ,
and the UK was thus found in breach of conventional responsibilities.2
1 Further information can be found in Richard Jones, Mental Capacity Act Manual (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell
2012) pt 2 and Phil Fennell, ‘Deprivation of liberty: Part II’ (2007) 13(1) ECA 18.
2 See: HL v. United Kingdom (2005) 40 EHRR 437.

3
As a rejoinder, the government came up with the DOLS to control the dispossession
of right of adults that might lack the mental capacity in care homes or hospitals among other
relevant settings. Even though these were adjustments to the mental capacity Act 2005
(MCA), they were implemented as statute of the Mental Health Act 2007.3 However, the
broader framework of this amendment are not complex. Adults without the mental capacity
could only be dispossessed of liberty in pursuant of care. Moreover, adults lacking the
capacity and provided accommodations in care institutions could be deprived of their
freedom pursuant to an administrative system such as doctors or other social workers.4
However, they would need to provide certification that the individual was truly deprived of
their liberty because he did not have the capacity and that detention at the best interest of the
individual.5
The DOLS has faced multiple criticisms. While the previous paragraphs provide the
main objectives of the DOLS, the drafting usually borders on the unconceivable, even to legal
experts with the knowledge of interpreting statutory frameworks. Carpenter et al., argues that
the DOLS have made very little impact in practice For instance in 2012, it is only 1670
people that were subject to the regime; 1423 were in care facilities and 247were in other
healthcare institutions. A report by that MCA post-amendment examination committee
suggested that they be substituted completely with an improved system.6
Multiple attempts have been in an effort to differentiate between Deprivation of
Liberty Safeguards and Mental health Act detentions for individuals admitted to psychiatric
facilities. For instance, DOLS could not be used in detaining an individual with the objective
3 Department of Health. Mental Health Act. TSO (The Stationery Office), 2007.
4 For details, see Kirsty Keywood, ‘Detaining mentally disordered patients lacking capacity: Thearbitrariness of
informal admission and the common law doctrine of necessity’ (2005) 13 Med L Rev108.
5 Raymont, V, Bingley, W, Buchanan, A, David, A, Hayward, P, Wessely, S, et al. Prevalance of mental incapacity
in medical in-patients and associated risk factors: cross sectional study. Lancet 2004; 364: 1421–7
6 Carpenter J, Langan J, Patsios D, Jepson M. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: What determines the
judgements of Best Interests Assessors? A factorial survey. Journal of Social Work. 2014 Nov;14(6):576-93.

4
of giving them treatment that they had already declined. An individual and most importantly
and family member are to be identified to take care of things and a Self-governing mental
capacity advocate should to be accessible to help the individual lacking mental capability
and the RPR.7
The issue of hl and article 5
What precisely do we want? That is a fundamental question that appears to have been
inadequately elaborated in the preliminary consultations about the application of DOLS. Most
of the initial consultations and amendments primarily focused on creating a response to Hl, in
an effort to provide a detailed legal framework.8 Lennard indicates that Care providers,
insofar consider DOLS as a technical legal issue, with technical solutions and not something
that can help patients in any constructive manner. 9However, such legal discussions do not
address the specifics of whether one can be denied of his or her freedom if he is asleep
through the entire supposed deprivation or whether it occurs during close accommodation of
an individual with a lack of mental capacity.10
Care providers might be required to consider the application of the Mental Health Act
2007 (MHA) but this might not be immediately possible in emergency situations. Repeated
use of aggressiveness in an emergency situation is likely to lead of deprivation of liberty.
Even though the use of MHA is considered as an option, some situations in practice might
not be obvious as they appear in theory.11 This is a situation that is often true for general
7 See also, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Which legal basis for family law? The way
forward,European Parliament: Brussels, 2012, p. 9
8 Hutchinson J, Rolfe H, Moore N, Bysshe S, Bentley K. All things being equal?: equality and diversity in Careers
education, information, advice and guidance. Equality and Human Rights Commission; 2011.
9 Lennard C. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)–where do we go from here?. The Journal of Adult
Protection. 2015 Feb 9;17(1):41-50.
10 L (House of Lords) (n 5) 481 (Lord Goff).
11 Bartlett P. Reforming the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS): what is it exactly that we want?. European
Journal of Current Legal Issues. 2014 Dec 9;20(3).

5
hospital consultants who try to work at the best interest of their patients. They try so much to
ensure that they do not leave care homes before showing any recovery.
If the MHA is applied in an effort to manage patients who lack mental capacity, then
it is the obligation of the care consultant to subsume the role of a medical officer to ensure
things move smoothly. Therefore, care providers need to be aware of the issues and engage in
dialogue with other mental experts in an effort to draw up the necessary guidelines for
managing patients with mental issues. It might be of great help to consider educational
guidelines concerning the applicability of the DOLS. Pawson and Mullins indicate that
without establishing a much more constructive shared understanding among the key
participants, it is challenging to see how a proposed system will provide the obligatory
guidelines that ought to make it effective.12
To focus on Article 5 and HL in defining the way forward would be challenging on its
own terms. Therefore, DOLS can be used together with article 5 to properly engage with the
rights of people with mental problems. Moreover, some recent litigations on Article 3 and 8
of the DOLS suggest that the Strasbourg jurisprudence is a better interventionist on matters
concerning the provision of medical care without consensus. However, it is still not very clear
on the impact of Jurisprudence on people with deficient mental capacity, but it is very likely
that Strasbourg will be further reviewing these issues in the near future.13 Moreover, we are
seeing the government taking more interest in the conditions of care. Article 8 has long been
a matter concerning the rights to facts and the rights to associate liberally with the ones
outside the care facilities14. It is no longer possible that the ECHR issues are detention. As
12 Pawson H, Mullins D. After council housing: Britain's new social landlords. Macmillan International Higher
Education; 2010 Jun 3.
13 HL (n 6) [90].
14 Department of Health, ‘“Bournewood” consultation: The approach to be taken in response to the judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights in the “Bournewood” case’ (23 March 2005).

6
additional issues develop outside article 5, the English jurisprudence clearly provides that the
DOLS systems, alone cannot adequately respond.15
Perhaps problematic issues could partially be evaded if the existing system of DOLS
was not applied expensively and mindfulness of it stayed low. Irrespective of whether a
system is complex, its introduction may be an opening to create more awareness and advance
its understanding. However, all that has changed since the 2014 Supreme Court ruling which
meant that the levels of mindfulness will be significantly improved among care homes and
hospitals.16But that all changed in 2014 when the Supreme Court made their ruling. The
ruling has demonstrated that levels of awareness will have improved significantly among care
home and. The ruling might has produced a series of assessments and new proposals that
quite possibly led to a loss of quality that the DOLS meant to imply.17
Capacity-based system?
A majority of law commissions expect the new procedures to remain under the MCA.
The main advantage of a capacity based system is its coherence with its administrative
capacity. While the MCA contains a much better set of principles, this new approach would
include a requirement that any intervention by care providers should be less
restrictive .Moreover, it provides that a person should not be viewed as unable of making a
decision simply on the basis that his or her decisions are not “right.”
It further contains a nuance best interest test, which is applied appropriately, it would
allow the significant weight to be placed on the wished of a patient as well as their beliefs. It
already covers all the key restraints and its jurisprudence among other matters such as access
15 Department of Health House of Lords, House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights. Legislative
Scrutiny: Mental Health Bill Fourth Report of Session 2006–2007 (HL paper 40 HC 288). TSO (The Stationery
Office), 2007.
16 HL (n 6) [91]. (emphasis added).
17 Ministry of Justice, Deprivation of liberty safeguards: Code of Practice to supplement the main Mental
Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (TSO 2008).

7
to family and the proper environments of care. Such a measure would trigger the use of
specific safeguards in a new post-DOLS system. In consideration of the House of Lords
Committee, The DOLS contains an ethos of empowering patients and therefore, it would be
advantageous to reinvent the system using a capacity based system.
Weereratne et al., indicates that, for a system is to operate effectively and as
anticipated, it requires to be determined whether those implementing are possibly
experienced in the legal world or not.18For instance, The MCA, before the introduction of the
DOLS, was largely considered as a clearly written section of the law that all individuals other
than legal experts could easily comprehend. However after the introduction of DOLS, the
MCA showed multiple errors. There would, therefore, be a rationality connecting the new
frameworks to simplify things, since complexity of the existing models is often possible to
raise mistakes and further hesitancy to apply the system.
Risk’ as a pervasive Issue
The tendency of conflating the assessment of capacity with the patient outcomes on
decisions, labelled by McKee and Phillips as the 'concertina effect' appears to be pervasive.
In most cases, individuals who often concur with the care providing specialists seem to be
considered as having a capacity.19 Peroni and Timmer‘s study found that 67 % of the 71
surveyed staff agreed that, when assessing capacity, the outcomes of a patient’s decisions
ought to be considered. Risk concerns appear to be of huge significance.20 In Cases involving
susceptible individuals, there is a risk that most of the involved professionals including
judges in the court of safeguarding might feel drawn towards the result that may be more
18 Weereratne, A, Hatfield, S, Burnham, U, Gerry, A. The Relationship between the MCA 2005 and the MHA
1983. Butterworths New Law Guide. Mental Capacity Act 2005. Personal Welfare Decisions. LexisNexis, 2008.
19 McKee K, Phillips D. Social housing and homelessness policies: Reconciling social justice and social mix. Social
Justice and Social Policy in Scotland. 2012 Apr 25:227-42.
20 Peroni, L., & Timmer, A. (2013). Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human
Rights Convention law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(4), 1056-1085.

8
defensive of the adult. Therefore, in some circumstance, such approaches do to assess that
capacity of a patient that is separate and unprejudiced.
Owen et al., claims that the impact of the end result of patient’s judgements is
inherent to the process used in the assessment process. He further argues that the process of
determining capacity is a normative judgement conducted by the assessor, and thus its
rationality IS inevitably interconnected to the determination of capacity. The pervasiveness of
the concertina effect provides these arguments with some credibility. However, it equally
tests the idea that the use of mental capability as a concept, safeguards independent decision
making.21
The existing DOLS system requires extensive review from experts for the application
of each DOLS. This is perhaps true regarding the entire system, not just therapeutic evidence:
most reforms ought to focus on past cases that gave rise to matters of contention particularly
on its reasonableness and resource management. While some of the approaches of the system
might appear necessary, it still has multiple problems. Unless the arrangement is based on a
simple framework, there is a huge risk of making errors in its use. In addition, the selection
process is in itself a directorial process that requires staffing and also has an economic
budget. The more criteria are complicated, the greater the time needed to administers and the
higher the economic cost of its application.22
Lastly, if a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is to be operational, we ought to be
clear as to what it is anticipated to accomplish. For the arguments provided in this part, the
issue should not be considered as a technical rectification to a technical legal issue.
Reasonably, the question that needs to be asked is what challenges necessitate the provision
21 Owen, G, Richardson, G, David, A, Szmukler, G, Hayward, P, Hotopf, M. Mental capacity to make decisions on
treatment in people admitted to psychiatric hospitals: cross sectional study. BMJ 2008; 337: 448.
22 Shah A, Pennington M, Heginbotham C, Donaldson C. Deprivation of liberty safeguards in England:
implementation costs. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;199(3):232-8.

9
of safeguards and the most appropriate process that will essentially engage with those issues
to improve things for patients in their daily lives. That would be the only way that the system
would offer the required engagement with patients. Establishing such a system requires a lot
of time and considerable consultation.
Task 2: Social Landlords & Right & Responsibilities
Private renting has had its share of a bad reputation in the UK. Yet it has played a
fundamental role through the entire housing history until the early 20th century, where
housing rose to up to 90 % of the entire UK population. In Germany today, private housing
accounts for about 60%. In this part, we present the rights and responsibilities of social
landlords. Moreover, we shall discuss what both public and private bodies are doing in
improving the quality of private renting.
Most importantly social landlords ought to maintain rental properties in accordance
with the code governing local bodies and maintain fundamental services to tenant such as
heating services m plumbing among others.23 This is commonly known as the warranty of
habitability and all its general requirements are detailed in a lease contract .If such
responsibilities are not specifically cited in a lease contract, then the warranty of habitability
is implied. This means that the tenant is legally entitled to a safe place even if it is not
mentioned in a contract. The definition of the “habitable” on this matter is a subject to the
interpretation by legal experts. Some local laws often allow tenants to withhold payment of
rent if a place is not habitable.
It is the judge who determines whether a social landlord owes a duty to the tenant, and
case law has recognised that such kind of relationships often results in a duty to others. The
important decision by the House of Lords in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] led to
23 Department of Health. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Code of Practice to Supplement the Main Mental
Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. TSO (The Stationery Office), 2008

10
the establishment of what is known as the “neighbour principal test.” This framework
requires to always take care of things in an effort to avoid loss and injury to other people who
might be affected by the actions of the landlord .The key question to be asked by many is
whether there are reasonable aspects that others might be injured or suffer loss as a result of
the actions taken by the landlord? If so duty is owed and the breach of such duties can cause
injury or loss, resulting in liability in tort.
In addition to the rights and duties as stipulated in the RTA, Public and social
landlords are supposed to comply with section 38 of the charter of human rights and
responsibilities Act 2006 when making eviction decisions. This section allows them to
“always operate in a manner that is in accordance with human rights and when creating such
decisions, they provide proper considerations to the relevant charter rights.” The charter gives
fundamental frameworks for creating challenging choices. It supports consideration of the
tenant on their individual situations, as well as their families and their risk of homelessness.
However, they should also allow these concerns to be balanced against other competing
duties of social landlords. This would encourage proper consideration of other alternatives to
eviction.
Before a decision by the court of appeal in the case of Administrator of Housing v
Saudi [2011], committee members of the VCAT were determining whether social landlords
have adhered to section 38 of the Charter when deciding on an application for possession.
The members of the VCAT were harmonizing things between human rights concerns and the
competing responsibilities of a social landlords while deciding on whether to make an
eviction directive. The provisions of accountability, in this case, offered a convincing reason
for social landlords to think through the circumstances of a client and to review other
practical options to eviction. However, in Sudi’s case, it was held that it is not the obligation
of VCAT to consider the compliance of a landlord with the obligations highlighted under

11
section 38 of the Charter in conducting an eviction. However, any eviction matter must be
considered by the Supreme Court.24
Relevant Reforms
To overcome any challenges towards constructive considerations of human rights
while landlords are making decisions , Homeless law proposes legislative amendments
with provide VCAT with the jurisdiction to consider complying with the charter during the
process of eviction brought by social landlords . VCAT seems to be more accessible
system for both landlords and tenants and has the ability to consider the compatibility
and applicability of human rights and how they can play a fundamental role in ensuring
that evictions of susceptible tenants into being homeless only happens as a last resort. For
the social housing tenants, such legislative amendments would be a genuine protection
against preventable eviction.25
The complex interaction between the existing housing policies under section 38 of the
charter and the changes in the regulation of welfares make this time in the UK as a great point
for analysis and recommending better reforms. It is important to note that, the charter
provided a broad perspective of the current social housing in the UK also issues accessing
social housing. The shift should now move towards a discussion about the challenges faced
by social landlords and ways in which allocation policies exclude certain people. Frimston et
al., argues that the behavior of the tenants and the tenants –to-be should be regulated in social
housing. Moreover, they should be empowered liberated. This includes a critical review of
the modern day concerns in an effort to activate people to work and behave in the appropriate
manner.26 This could only be achieved through a “Choice-based” letting systems would allow
24 HL (n 6) [90].
25 See: Bartels L. Police interviews with vulnerable adult suspects.
26 R. Frimston et al, The International Protection of Adults, Oxford: OUP 2015.

12
tenants to bid for the accommodation of their choice. However, a point system judge needs to
frequently determine those that can secure social housing.
According to the Localism Act 2011(section 145), local authorities have a better
opportunity to have greater control over who joins social housing. Such frameworks would
reduce false expectations for those who might not be conversant with the rights and
responsibilities of social landlords. Frimston et al further points out that there is a potential
for the implementation of the choice-based letting system that would create a sustainable
community while at the same time understand that positive impacts have to be developed
gradually.27That being said. There can be regulations to the responsibilities of social
landlords, but also shape various neighbourhoods through social housing and allocation
processes.
Models of disability
In the 21st century, even with the significant efforts implemented by the United
Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with disabilities (UNCRPD), the contemporary
built environment still does not meet the requirements of neighbourhood ease of access for
the people with disabilities. Rights of people with disabilities are enshrined in the UK
legislation. However, a majority of social landlords have continued to practice a hidden
discourse built on hypothetical foundations little understood by built environment experts.28
Moreover, social landlords, as build environment experts have a little consideration of either
the variety of human conditions or the necessity of accessibility for persons with disabilities.
In the UK, the operationalisation of accessibility rights and responsibilities has not been
insightful about the lived experiences of people living with disabilities. Practically, little is
27 R. Frimston et al, The International Protection of Adults, Oxford: OUP 2015.
28 UNCRPD is made up of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commissions from
other UK countries. In Scotland, this is the Scottish Human Rights Commission.

13
known concerning the degree of build environment accessibility especially neighbourhood
inaccessibility.
In early 1960, Nirje, a Swedish social theorist developed a principle of normalisation
strongly supporting the deinstitutionalization of social housing. In his perspective, this would
help in recognising the diversity of human conditions and the belief about people living with
disabilities, including accessibility to the built environment. Nirje’s work epitomizes part of
the developing ideas concerning social integration for persons living with disabilities within
our communities. Following on this continuum, Nirje’s interest can be used on reform
strategies as an effort to develop a new model; a relational model of disability.29
It is important to note that significant social rights of the 1960s emphasised on
multiple human rights issues that resulted in examining of the disparities of authority and
rights of all status quo. However, this ended up playing out differently in the UK. As a result,
the UK has developed a new way of thinking developed through a social relational theory
indicating that the marginalisation of persons with disabilities was as a result of materialist
setting of the Industrial era, making them economically unrealistic. A new way of thinking
also extends to the built form.30
Peroni, & Timmer, indicates that the postmodernist designs should be encouraged,
and the new models need to manifest more than just a facade form and decoration. He further
states that more attention should be paid to postmodernism , emphasising on the fundamental
concerns of diversity and segregation .However, throughout the modern times in the UK in
terms of user-friendliness for people with disability , building layouts and designs remain
largely unscathed by a majority of social landlords , thereby making them as inaccessible as
29 Shier ML, Jones ME, Graham JR. Social communities and homelessness: A broader concept analysis of social
relationships and homelessness. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. 2011 Jul 20;21(5):455-
74.
30 See also DG for Internal Policies “The Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection
of Adults”, p. 15

14
ever. The social model of disability, is recognising the modern build environment is in itself a
disabling element and thus making it a great a great concept in the modern built environment
practice. However, a majority of social Landlords in the UK are still not aware of such
concerns. Such a lack of awareness can be partially elaborated from a regulatory point of
view.31
Even though various state-based building regulations might contain some provisions
for disabling access, Disability Discrimination Act 2010 has not been fully adopted. The
specific significance of the social model to an all-inclusive built environment practice is its
stress on the way the environments, together with the built environment creates disability .It
is important to note that, disability is not an independent condition.32 Its nature and
understanding is directly connected to a built environment and other major. Most of the
recent models emphasise in the diversity of human experience.
The UNCRPD particularly draws its attention to a wide range of concepts within a
built environment. The notion of community and inclusion emphasizes on balanced
frameworks are still not adopted by a majority of social landlords. Such concepts as strongly
embedded in the UNCRPD and those appropriate ways in which people are supposed to
support and relate with their environment .Consequently , Human rights model of disability ,
through UNCRPD perspective possibly provides a strong reform framework and the breadth
for accessibility considerations by social landlords.33
Globally, a good built environment accessibility policy frameworks already exist.
Some of the major examples include the UNCRPD, the national disability discrimination
31 Civil Code Section 2079.10a, Penal Code Section 290.46. The required language differs depending on the
date of the lease or rental agreement. See Appendix 5.
32 Hill D. I. The Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults. International & Comparative Law
Quarterly. 2009 Apr;58(2):469-76..
33 Civil Code Section 1632(b). The purpose of this law is to ensure that the Spanish-, Chinese-, Tagalog-,
Vietnamese-, or Korean-speakingperson has a genuine opportunity to read the written translation of the
proposed agreement that has been negotiated primarily in one of these languages, and to consult with others,
before signing the agreement.

15
Acts and the new requirements for building code accessibility.34 In attempting to realize
accessibility of the built environment, the modern policies do not provide all the answers to
the questions posed by social landlords in pursuit of the responsibilities. However, building
practitioners often take it for granted the needs for balanced systems and accessibility
legislation. Areas of great concern are in housing and public environments .Such areas make
up a spatial content for neighbourhoods, and in the UK, these parts of the built environment
have the least direct legislation. The existing classifying aspects of built environment
accessibility rights might lead to risking the development of positive reforms flowing from
UNCRPD
34 Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs, The Hague Convention of 13th January on the
international protection of adults, PE 462.496, 2012, p. 5

16
Bibliography
Peroni, L., & Timmer, A. (2013). Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in
European Human Rights Convention law. International Journal of Constitutional
Law, 11(4), 1056-1085.
Frimston R, Keene AR, Van Overdijk C, Ward AD, editors. The International Protection of
Adults. Oxford University Press; 2015.
See also, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Which legal basis for family law? The
way forward,European Parliament: Brussels, 2012, p. 9
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June
2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations
Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs, The Hague Convention of
13th January on the international protection of adults, PE 462.496, 2012, p. 5
See also DG for Internal Policies “The Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the
International Protection of Adults”, p. 15
Hill D. I. The Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults. International &
Comparative Law Quarterly. 2009 Apr;58(2):469-76
UNCRPD is made up of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights
Commissions from other UK countries. In Scotland, this is the Scottish Human Rights
Commission.
Hutchinson J, Rolfe H, Moore N, Bysshe S, Bentley K. All things being equal?: equality and
diversity in Careers education, information, advice and guidance. Equality and
Human Rights Commission; 2011.

17
See: Bartels, L., 2011. Police interviews with vulnerable adult suspects..
Pawson H, Mullins D. After council housing: Britain's new social landlords. Macmillan
International Higher Education; 2010 Jun 3.
McKee K, Phillips D. Social housing and homelessness policies: Reconciling social justice
and social mix. Social Justice and Social Policy in Scotland. 2012 Apr 25:227-42.
Shier ML, Jones ME, Graham JR. Social communities and homelessness: A broader concept
analysis of social relationships and homelessness. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment. 2011 Jul 20;21(5):455-74.
Shah A, Pennington M, Heginbotham C, Donaldson C. Deprivation of liberty safeguards in
England: implementation costs. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2011
Sep;199(3):232-8.
Bartlett P. Reforming the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS): what is it exactly that we
want?. European Journal of Current Legal Issues. 2014 Dec 9;20(3).
Lennard C. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)–where do we go from here?. The
Journal of Adult Protection. 2015 Feb 9;17(1):41-50.
Carpenter J, Langan J, Patsios D, Jepson M. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: What
determines the judgements of Best Interests Assessors? A factorial survey. Journal of
Social Work. 2014 Nov;14(6):576-93.
Department of Health. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Code of Practice to Supplement
the Main Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. TSO (The Stationery Office),
2008
Department of Health. Mental Health Act. TSO (The Stationery Office), 2007.

18
Owen, G, Richardson, G, David, A, Szmukler, G, Hayward, P, Hotopf, M. Mental capacity to
make decisions on treatment in people admitted to psychiatric hospitals: cross
sectional study. BMJ 2008; 337: 448.
Raymont, V, Bingley, W, Buchanan, A, David, A, Hayward, P, Wessely, S, et al. Prevalance
of mental incapacity in medical in-patients and associated risk factors: cross sectional
study. Lancet 2004; 364: 1421–7
See: HL v. United Kingdom (2005) 40 EHRR 437.
Weereratne, A, Hatfield, S, Burnham, U, Gerry, A. The Relationship between the MCA 2005
and the MHA 1983. Butterworths New Law Guide. Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Personal Welfare Decisions. LexisNexis, 2008.
Department of Health House of Lords, House of Commons Joint Committee on Human
Rights. Legislative Scrutiny: Mental Health Bill Fourth Report of Session 2006–2007
(HL paper 40 HC 288). TSO (The Stationery Office), 2007.
For details, see Kirsty Keywood, ‘Detaining mentally disordered patients lacking capacity:
Thearbitrariness of informal admission and the common law doctrine of necessity’
(2005) 13 Med L Rev108.
L (House of Lords) (n 5) 481 (Lord Goff).
HL (n 6) [90].
HL (n 6) [90].
HL (n 6) [91]. (emphasis added).

19
Department of Health, ‘“Bournewood” consultation: The approach to be taken in response to
the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the “Bournewood” case’ (23
March 2005).
Ministry of Justice, Deprivation of liberty safeguards: Code of Practice to supplement the
main Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (TSO 2008).
Further information can be found in Richard Jones, Mental Capacity Act Manual (5th edn,
Sweet & Maxwell 2012) pt 2 and Phil Fennell, ‘Deprivation of liberty: Part II’ (2007)
13(1) ECA 18.
See:Civil Code Section 1632(b).
Civil Code Section 2079.10a, Penal Code Section 290.46. The required language differs
depending on the date of the lease or rental agreement.

20