Nottingham City Council v CD: Court of Protection is not a supervisor of last resort

The Court of Protection has brought proceedings concerning the clearance of a hoarded home to a close, holding that its role is to determine the questions before it as expeditiously as possible and then withdraw, rather than act as an ongoing supervisor of a local authority's statutory functions.

In Nottingham City Council v CD [2026] EWCOP 60 (T2), HHJ Rogers, sitting in retirement, refused an application by the Official Solicitor, as CD's litigation friend, for permission to instruct an expert and to adjourn for a wider inquiry into capacity and best interests. The judgement is subject to a transparency order and CD is anonymised.

The local authority applied in August 2024 after CD's landlord began possession proceedings, citing the severely overcrowded state of her flat. In December 2025, HHJ Reece declared that CD lacked capacity to litigate, to make decisions about clearing her property and to decide on care and residence while displaced during the clearance. A best interests order in June 2026 authorised her temporary move to a care home so that the clearance could proceed. The clearance succeeded and CD has returned home. The possession proceedings remain live in the County Court, with the landlord's concerns extending to repairs, access and rent arrears.

Lindsay Johnson, for the local authority, submitted that the proceedings had achieved their purpose and that continuing them would harm CD's wellbeing. The social worker's evidence was that ongoing litigation was causing significant distress and entrenching her mistrust of professionals. The authority's post-clearance plan preferred voluntary support without further court orders, as the least restrictive option.

Susanna Rickard, for the Official Solicitor, argued that the plan was perfunctory and too hands-off, and that a broader investigation into CD's care needs and ability to manage her tenancy was required. She challenged the social worker's assessments that CD had capacity regarding her finances and tenancy, relying on R (TDB) v London Borough of Haringey [2026] EWCA Civ 1184 to argue that only an independent expert assessment would suffice.

The judge rejected those submissions. He held that the reference to "care and support" in the application related to the specific crisis of the hoard and its implications for the possession claim, not to CD's wider functioning. Drawing on A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 35, he emphasised the need to identify "the matter" for decision with precision. The court is not a constant safety net, and its role is not comparable to historic wardship. It is not for the court "to write a blueprint for living".

On TDB, the judge found that the Court of Appeal's decision concerned local authority assessments under the Care Act 2014 and was fact-specific. It did not establish that complex cases require psychiatric or psychological assessment, nor alter established case management practice in the Court of Protection. Applying AMDC v AG & CI [2020] EWCOP 58, he held that a suitably experienced social worker was well equipped to assess capacity here. The strict necessity test for expert evidence was not met.

The judge endorsed the post-clearance plan as being in CD's best interests and declared that all live issues had been resolved. He shared the Official Solicitor's concern about the authority's statement that CD's case would be "closed to social care" if she declined support, describing it as language to be avoided, since the authority's Care Act duties continue. Referring to PK & MK (Article 8 Protections) [2026] EWCOP 52 (T2), he agreed on the importance of a smooth transition, with adequate safeguards, when Court of Protection proceedings end but Care Act responsibilities remain.

Lindsay Johnson (instructed by the local authority) appeared for the applicant. Susanna Rickard (instructed by Simpson Millar LLP) appeared for the respondent, by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor.