Defined as the acquisition of and inability to discard items, even though they appear (to others) to have no value, ‘hoarding’ is a recognised mental disorder and one that can have serious consequences for those involved.
Aside from the physical health and safety concerns it raises, housing and healthcare professionals may be forced to make decisions on where an individual should live, issues relating to their tenancy and the care/support they require.
A Court of Protection ruling towards the end of 2022 highlighted the issues associated with hoarding, mental capacity and best interests, after a 92-year-old lady (referred to as ‘AC’), was keen to return to her home on a trial basis, following her removal on behalf of the Local Authority (LA) in 2020.
Although the original order was made in the best interests of AC, the case demonstrated the difficulty of striking the balance between what was preferable and what was necessary.
Background of the case
In 2020, AC was living at home with her son (GC), who also had also been diagnosed with a hoarding disorder in addition to other mental health problems including Asperger’s Syndrome, anxiety and OCD.
In order to clean the house and ensure the safety of both tenants, AC was moved to a care home, with the LA expressing concerns that her care and support needs could not be adequately met in the home environment, given the volume of hoarding.
Later, on 7 December 2021, the LA issued section 16 proceedings (that is, proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which gives the Court power to make decisions on behalf of a person who lacks capacity in respect of their property and affairs) in respect of GC, for an order that he also leave the home so it could be cleaned. In early 2022, section 15 (that is, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005) declarations were made in respect of AC, stating that she lacked the mental capacity to make decisions as to her residence and care/support.
This led to a contested hearing, with the LA holding the position that they did not support a trial at home, instead asking for AC to remain at the care home. Meanwhile, AC’s interests were to return home, initially by way of a trial period – a position that was mirrored by GC.
Decision-making considerations
Given that AC and GC both lacked the capacity to make decisions about their items and belongings, the Court ruled that the family should be supported through the provision of house-clearing and cleaning services.
Both parties also agreed five points of information that would steer the Court’s decision-making in respect of items/belongings. These were:
- 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 you (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).
- Safe access and use; the extent to which you (and other residents in the property) are able or not to safely access and use the living areas.
- 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.
- Safety of building; the extent to which accumulated clutter and inaccessibility could compromise the structural integrity and therefore safety of the building.
- 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 final verdict
Despite the LA’s submissions that a plan of home care was too fragile due to the unpredictability of the situation and the declining state of the home, the Court considered that the LA had understated the significant distress that AC would suffer if she was not allowed to return home.
Ahead of the final hearing, AC was visited by the Judge, where she expressed concern about what had happened to her belongings and the prospect of not being reunited with GC and her cat, Jasper.
Given that GC had agreed with every condition needed to enable AC to live at home on a trial basis, the decision to allow it was made easier. The Judge concluded that whilst a trial at home was not without risk, the risk was manageable and therefore should be permitted.
The ruling sets an interesting legal precedent for future disputes, particularly where the issues of hoarding and mental capacity are concerned.
If you have been impacted by any of the issues discussed, contact our experienced legal team for advice and guidance.
