Liberty Protection Safeguards proposed changes and the forthcoming consultation

Although implementation has been delayed, reform of deprivation of liberty law remains firmly on the agenda.

A further consultation on LPS regulations and the Code of Practice is expected, which will be a defining moment for professionals, providers and advocacy organisations. Much of how LPS will operate in practice will be determined through this guidance, making it essential to understand what may change and what it means for people’s rights.

Why LPS was introduced

The existing DoLS framework has faced longstanding criticism due to its limitations and inefficiencies. Key concerns include:

• Being overly bureaucratic
• Significant backlogs and under resourcing
• Applicability limited to hospitals and care homes
• Exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds
• Reliance on the Court of Protection for community cases

Following the landmark Cheshire West judgment, the number of individuals considered to be deprived of their liberty increased dramatically. Local authorities struggled to keep up with demand, resulting in widespread delays and many individuals being left without timely authorisation.

LPS was designed to create a more streamlined, flexible and proportionate system that better reflects modern care arrangements.

What LPS proposes to change

While core Article 5 protections remain, LPS introduces several important structural changes.

Wider scope

LPS will apply to:

• People aged 16 and over
• All care settings including supported living and domestic environments

This removes the need for separate Court of Protection applications in many community cases while also extending safeguards to younger people for the first time. However, this broader scope is likely to increase the number of cases significantly.

A different authorisation structure

Under DoLS, multiple assessments were required. LPS simplifies this into three key assessments:

• Capacity
• Medical evidence of mental disorder
• Necessary and proportionate arrangements

The responsible body will arrange these assessments and they may be completed by professionals already involved in the person’s care.

In cases where the person is objecting, an Approved Mental Capacity Professional (AMCP) will be required to carry out a pre-authorisation review.

Changes to representation

Under DoLS, every individual had a Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR). Under LPS:

• An Appropriate Person should be appointed where possible
• If no suitable person is available, an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) must be instructed

Further detail on how advocacy will operate is expected through the upcoming consultation on the Code of Practice.

Renewals and reviews

LPS allows authorisations to last longer than under DoLS, with renewal periods potentially extending up to three years after the first renewal.

While this reduces administrative burden, it also raises questions around how frequently restrictions will be reviewed and scrutinised.

The importance of the forthcoming consultation

The real detail of LPS will be shaped not just by legislation but by:

• Regulations
• The revised Code of Practice
• Implementation guidance

The consultation is expected to address key operational issues such as:

• How objections are defined and identified
• The role and independence of AMCPs
• When IMCAs must be instructed
• How families are consulted
• The interface with the Mental Health Act
• Transition from DoLS to LPS

For advocacy organisations and providers, this consultation represents a critical opportunity to influence how safeguards are applied in practice.

Key areas of concern and debate

Will LPS strengthen or dilute safeguards

While some welcome a more streamlined system, concerns remain that:

• Reliance on existing care professionals may reduce independence
• Longer authorisation periods could limit oversight
• AMCP involvement may be applied too narrowly

The consultation will play a vital role in determining whether safeguards are strengthened or weakened.

Community settings and legal risk

Extending LPS to supported living and domestic settings is a positive step but increases responsibility for providers and responsible bodies.

Clear guidance will be needed on:

• Identifying deprivation of liberty in community settings
• Managing fluctuating objections
• Distinguishing restriction from deprivation
• Ensuring meaningful consultation

Without clarity, there is a risk of inconsistent application across different areas.

Advocacy and representation

Independent advocacy remains central to protecting Article 5 rights. However, the level of advocacy involvement will depend heavily on how objections are defined.

If objections are interpreted narrowly, some individuals may not receive independent representation unless advocacy services remain proactive and vigilant.

What this means for providers and commissioners

Preparation should begin now rather than waiting for full implementation. Key steps include:

• Reviewing how deprivation of liberty is identified in community settings
• Auditing current consultation processes
• Strengthening documentation of necessary and proportionate decisions
• Training staff on recognising objections and understanding rights
• Engaging with the consultation process

Early preparation helps reduce legal risk and ensures stronger, more defensible decision making.

What this means for advocacy services

LPS is expected to:

• Increase the number of authorisations
• Expand community-based cases
• Introduce more complex objection scenarios
• Require stronger legal knowledge
• Increase scrutiny around independence and challenge

Advocacy organisations that are legally confident, rights focused and prepared for implementation will be best placed to respond to growing demand.

A moment of opportunity

The forthcoming consultation is more than a procedural step. It is an opportunity to shape how liberty is protected for some of the most vulnerable people in society.

For professionals, providers and advocacy organisations, engagement at this stage is essential. The effectiveness of LPS will ultimately depend on how well it protects rights in practice rather than simply restructuring existing processes.

Uphold Advocacy will continue to monitor developments, contribute to sector discussions and champion approaches that prioritise liberty, independence and the protection of rights.

Keep checking back for more insights and updates.