The Court of Protection does not record how many mental capacity assessments are ordered by the court or how many assessments find that a person lacks capacity.

The Court of Protection publishes statistics on applications and orders made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. These statistics are available in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2026 - GOV.UK. Orders published within these statistics cover a range of case types and are not limited to cases where a finding of lack of capacity has been made.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service has invested in more judicial sitting days, alongside system and process improvements such as online application forms to improve the processing time for applications.

The Ministry of Justice publishes regular data on Court of Protection timeliness in the quarterly family court statistics bulletin: Family Court Statistics Quarterly - GOV.UK.

The current published Court of Protection statistics available on application disposal times (application received to order made timeliness), application volumes and order volumes are all on the Court of Protection tables, now separated out from the Family Court tables: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2025.

In the last calendar year Jan-Dec 2025, for Property and Affairs Deputyship applications, the average mean time from receipt to final order is 23.9 weeks with the median time 15.6 weeks.

Family members who believe there has been maladministration in the handling of a deputyship case have several avenues of redress.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is responsible for supervising deputies and will investigate concerns raised about a deputy’s conduct or the way they are carrying out their duties. These investigations are undertaken to ensure that the deputy is acting in the best interests of the person lacking capacity and fulfilling their responsibilities in line with the authority set out in their court order.

Separately, the OPG’s internal complaints process allows individuals to challenge the OPG’s own administrative handling of a case. Once internal processes are complete, if a customer remains unhappy, concerns may be referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via a Member of Parliament.

Where an issue relates to a judicial decision, such as the making or discharging of a deputyship order, this must be addressed through the Court of Protection. Complaints about the professional standards of a deputy may also be taken to the relevant regulatory body.

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.

The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.

If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.

The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.

If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions to be made in the best interests of the person, who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. The Government has no plans to review the use of transparency orders in the Court of Protection.

A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing Court of Protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

The use of transparency orders is a matter for the judiciary. If the recipient believes an order is unfair, too restrictive, or no longer needed, they can apply to the court to vary it.

HMCTS is working to increase overall system capacity to reduce processing times. Measures taken include a targeted action plan to allocate additional administrative resources in response to higher demand, as well as training and upskilling new staff. Additional judicial sitting days have been added to support performance improvement. HMCTS is also working on improvements to the new case management system, to help reduce overall end-to-end processing times.

It is not possible to provide the information requested as this data is not held by the Ministry of Justice. This is because a lack of mental capacity cannot be inferred simply from a person’s disability or condition. Capacity is decision-specific and timebound.

Many disabled young adults are able to manage their own finances, including accessing their matured Child Trust Fund (CTF), with appropriate support where needed. An application to the Court of Protection to access a CTF is only required where the account holder lacks mental capacity to make decisions about their property and affairs and does not have an existing court order or court appointed deputy in place. A deputy may be appointed to manage a range of assets, including any CTF, or the court can make a one-off order for CTF access.

The Government recognises that the transition to adulthood can be a challenging time for young disabled people and their families. To support them, guidance has been published on GOV.UK in the form of a toolkit, “Making financial decisions for young people who lack capacity”, which raises awareness on the arrangements that they need to have in place.

HMCTS is working to increase overall system capacity to decrease processing times across all types of applications. Measures taken include a targeted action plan to allocate additional administrative resources in response to higher demand, as well as training and upskilling new staff. Additional judicial sitting days have been added to support performance improvement. HMCTS is also working on improvements to the new case management system, to help reduce overall end-to-end processing times.

Guidance on the court process is publicly available on GOV.UK. In addition, online application forms which assist users with ‘in application’ guidance and prompts are also available for some types of applications.

There are currently no fee exemptions in the courts and tribunals system based on student status. The Help with Fees scheme is available to ensure that court users who may be unable to afford a court fee are not denied access to justice. Full time students may be eligible for full or partial remission of fees in the Court of Protection if they have low savings and are in receipt of qualifying benefits, or are on a low income. Student loans are excluded from the calculation when determining eligibility for fee remission.

The latest published Court of Protection (COP) statistics on application and order volumes by type, are all available in the Family Court Statistics 2025 published quarterly in tables 20 and 21.

Volumes of applications and orders relating to wills (applications to execute wills) are grouped together currently with applications for gifts and orders for settlement due to the low volumes and their paths through the court being similar with Official Solicitor involvement.

HMCTS is working to increase overall system capacity to decrease processing times across all types of applications. Measures taken include a targeted action plan to allocate additional administrative resources in response to higher demand, as well as training and upskilling new staff. Additional judicial sitting days have been added to support performance improvement. HMCTS has also adopted new digital systems, including an updated case management system, to help reduce overall end-to-end processing times.

No such assessment has been undertaken. In many cases, no fee is payable for a court order to access a Child Trust Fund where this is the sole asset.

Where a young adult lacks mental capacity, including due to a disability, legal authority is required to make decisions on their behalf about financial assets or property. This requirement applies to all assets, including Child Trust Funds, and is vital in ensuring that vulnerable people are safeguarded and protected. Guidance on completing the court form when access to a Child Trust Fund is required can be found at How to apply to make property and finance decisions on someone’s behalf (including Child Trust Funds) - GOV.UK.

In February 2023, the Court of Protection introduced an online process to simplify the making of property and affairs applications. This has reduced errors and omissions and reduced administration handling times.

We are considering options for further improving access to matured Child Trust Funds while balancing the need to maintain safeguards which protect the best interests of individuals that lack capacity.

No such assessment has been undertaken. In many cases, no fee is payable for a court order to access a Child Trust Fund where this is the sole asset.

Where a young adult lacks mental capacity, including due to a disability, legal authority is required to make decisions on their behalf about financial assets or property. This requirement applies to all assets, including Child Trust Funds, and is vital in ensuring that vulnerable people are safeguarded and protected. Guidance on completing the court form when access to a Child Trust Fund is required can be found at How to apply to make property and finance decisions on someone’s behalf (including Child Trust Funds) - GOV.UK.

In February 2023, the Court of Protection introduced an online process to simplify the making of property and affairs applications. This has reduced errors and omissions and reduced administration handling times.

We are considering options for further improving access to matured Child Trust Funds while balancing the need to maintain safeguards which protect the best interests of individuals that lack capacity.