In a previous blog, we considered the basics of becoming an appointee, providing an overview of the role and initial limitations.
Since then, a guest blog by Alex Cisneros was included in Essex 39’s Compendium Mental Capacity report for December 2025, which dug deeper into the practical process. Cisneros’ report is a very interesting read, and brings to light some of the implied difficulties and concerns.
Key concerns include:
- Limited oversight, i.e. a lack of monitoring or supervision of appointees.
- As a result of there being no oversight, there is a reliance on people raising concerns over an appointee’s potential misconduct. Given just how much lack of understanding there is around the role of an appointee, and its responsibilities, this raises questions around whether the number of concerns raised accurately reflects the appropriate use of appointeeships in practice.
- Limited reference to, or application of, the Mental Capacity Act (2005), reducing safeguards, rights and autonomy.
- This includes no stated obligation to apply the five principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), such as supporting capacity, presuming capacity, or right for a person to make what others might deem an ‘unwise decision’.
- Guidance refers to ‘mental incapacity’ without saying what for or how this might be defined or determined.
- There is no obligation for best interest practices in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
- As such there is no requirement to consider the ‘least restrictive option’ when making use of benefits on behalf of a vulnerable person who may be mentally incapable or severely disabled.
Alex Cisneros goes on to give a clear example of these difficulties in practice with the case of RH v SSWP (DLA) [2018] UKUT 48 (AAC), wherein:
the case concerned a disability-benefit claimant with significant mental illness whose local authority had been appointed as his Appointee. The Upper Tribunal acknowledged that serious concerns had been raised about the fairness and human-rights compliance of the Appointeeship system. The Appointee had been appointed without any formal capacity assessment or procedural safeguards, yet the FTT treated the mere fact of an Appointee being in place as sufficient protection. It saw no need to explore the claimant’s capacity or to consider appointing a litigation friend.
The judgment exposes the structural gap at the heart of the regime: an Appointee may exercise complete control over a person’s benefit income without being subject to the MCA’s duties to support decision-making, apply a best-interests framework or undergo any routine scrutiny.
Alex Cisneros discusses the case of RH v SSWP (DLA) [2018] UKUT 48 (AAC)
How often these forms of issues occur is unknown and undocumented, as no oversite is in place. This highlights a clear need for formal independent investigation into the Appointeeships process and how it works in practice.
As it stands, the present system of appointeeships is arguably not fit for purpose to protect the vulnerable.