Professional deputy
You are a professional deputy responsible for deciding how a dispute affecting your client should be addressed. Mediation is one of the routes available to you. Whether it is the right one depends on the nature of the dispute, the position of the other party, and whether the issues in question are ones a mediated process can actually resolve.
The decision to pursue mediation — or to conclude that it is not appropriate — is itself part of the professional judgment you are required to exercise. It is not a default step before litigation, nor is it something to be avoided because litigation feels more decisive. Like any other step, it requires a clear rationale.
We help deputies assess that question carefully, and — where mediation is the right route — conduct it with the framework knowledge that makes the process reliable.
When mediation is appropriate
Where the dispute is with a local authority or NHS body that will remain responsible for your client's care or funding regardless of outcome, how the matter is resolved matters as much as what is resolved. A relationship that has been through litigation is rarely improved by it. Where the substantive issues are ones that can be worked through with proper legal framing, mediation often produces a more durable outcome — and one that the parties have actively shaped rather than had imposed on them.
Where the disagreement turns on how particular facts are characterised — the adequacy of a care package, the weight given to your client's expressed wishes, the basis on which a funding decision was made — rather than on a contested point of law, mediation can provide a structured way of working through those facts with the relevant parties in the room. Courts are increasingly directing parties toward mediation in exactly these kinds of disputes, and some statutory bodies are more willing to engage in that context than in open correspondence.
Where the dispute involves differing views about what is in your client's best interests — whether between you and a statutory body, or within a family — the disagreement often reflects genuine uncertainty rather than bad faith. Mediation that is properly grounded in the Mental Capacity Act framework can help locate the real disagreement precisely and, in many cases, resolve it without proceedings. The key is that the mediator understands what the MCA permits and requires, so that any resolution is one the parties actually have authority to honour.
When mediation is not appropriate
Where the dispute turns on a question of law — how a statutory duty is properly interpreted, whether a decision-maker had legal authority to act as they did, what the Mental Capacity Act requires in a given set of circumstances — mediation will not resolve it. Parties cannot agree their way to a different legal answer, and a mediated outcome that proceeds on the basis of a misunderstanding about the legal position will not hold. These questions require a legal opinion or, where necessary, judicial determination.
Local authorities and NHS bodies can only agree to what they have legal authority to agree to. Where a party's position — or the resolution being sought — falls outside what they are permitted to offer, mediation cannot bridge that gap. Proceeding in those circumstances adds cost and delay without advancing your client's position. Identifying that constraint before the process begins is part of what makes the assessment stage genuinely useful.
Some disputes — about deprivation of liberty, serious medical treatment, or the exercise of parental responsibility in relation to a person lacking capacity — require judicial determination regardless of whether the parties are in agreement. In others, the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to a point where a structured process is unlikely to produce anything workable. In both cases, the right step is to proceed toward formal proceedings with a clear record of the position rather than to delay that process through a mediation that is unlikely to assist.
What we bring
The practitioners at Dawson House who conduct these mediations come to them already fluent in the Mental Capacity Act in practice — best interests assessments, Court of Protection processes, the statutory duties of local authorities and NHS bodies, and the points at which a disagreement requires judicial determination rather than mediated resolution. That knowledge is not acquired during the mediation. It is present from the outset, and it is what allows the process to stay grounded in what is legally achievable.
Local authorities and NHS bodies operate within internal authorisation structures that constrain what their representatives can agree to in a mediation session. A representative may engage in good faith but still require further approval before any outcome can be confirmed. Understanding that constraint — knowing what is within the room and what needs to go elsewhere before it can be agreed — shapes how the process is structured and what realistic outcomes look like going into it.
Where mediation produces a resolution, we ensure it is expressed in terms that are legally coherent, that each party has authority to honour, and that can be implemented in practice. An agreement that unravels on contact with institutional reality is not a resolution — and for a professional deputy, it creates additional complexity without advancing your client's position. The test for any mediated outcome is not whether it felt acceptable in the room, but whether it will survive outside it.
What the process looks like
The first step is a focused conversation about the dispute: its nature, the parties involved, the regulatory context, and whether the issues are ones mediation can address. This assessment is not a formality. In some cases it will confirm that mediation is the right route. In others it will identify that the dispute needs to go in a different direction — and we will say so clearly, with a view on what that direction should be.
Where mediation is appropriate, we manage the approach to the other party: framing the proposal, agreeing the scope and structure of the process, and ensuring that both sides understand what the mediation is intended to achieve and what it is not. How a mediation is proposed affects whether it proceeds, and how it proceeds affects whether it is productive.
We conduct the mediation with a clear understanding of the professional context in which you are operating. The process is structured to support clear, reasoned decision-making — not to create additional uncertainty or administrative burden. Discussions stay anchored to what is legally achievable. Where the parties reach positions that cannot be sustained in practice, we say so before they are agreed.
Where mediation produces a resolution, we ensure it is properly documented and reflects the legal position accurately. Where it does not — whether because the parties could not reach agreement or because the process clarified that judicial determination is required — the work done does not fall away. It becomes part of the record of the matter, and it informs the approach to what comes next.
Evidential value
For a professional deputy, the value of mediation is not only in what it may resolve. It lies also in what it demonstrates: that alternative approaches were identified, considered, and where appropriate pursued before formal proceedings were commenced. Courts and the Office of the Public Guardian are more likely to accept that a deputy acted appropriately where that decision-making is traceable — where there is a clear record of what was considered, why, and on what basis the approach taken was judged to be proportionate.
Where mediation is the right step, a well-conducted process provides exactly that record. Where it is not, a clear and documented assessment of why it was not appropriate provides the same. Either way, the process of thinking carefully about whether mediation is suitable — rather than defaulting to litigation or avoiding it without consideration — is itself part of defensible decision-making.
The Office of the Public Guardian expects deputies to be able to account for the steps taken in managing their client's affairs, including decisions made in the context of disputes. Advisory input and a properly conducted or properly declined mediation, documented clearly, strengthen that account. They demonstrate that decisions were made on an informed basis, that alternatives were weighed, and that the approach taken was consistent with the deputy's obligations to act in the client's best interests and take proportionate steps.
What an initial instruction looks like
The first step is typically a focused assessment of the dispute. That assessment has three purposes: to establish whether mediation is appropriate at all, to identify what the available routes are, and to set out what each would involve in practice.
Not every dispute is suited to mediation, and proceeding without that judgment having been made carefully wastes time and can make the matter more difficult. The assessment looks at the nature of the disagreement, the position of the other party, whether the issues are ones a mediated process can address, and whether the timing is right. In some cases the answer is clearly yes. In others it is clearly no. In others the picture is more nuanced — and understanding that nuance is what the assessment is for.
Mediation sits alongside other options: advisory representations, pre-action correspondence, formal complaint, and — where necessary — legal proceedings. The assessment sets out which of those routes is available in the specific circumstances of the matter, and how they relate to each other. Some can run in parallel. Some foreclose others if pursued first. A clear map of the options is the basis on which a proportionate decision can be made.
Knowing that mediation is available is not the same as knowing what it would require of you, what it is likely to achieve, and what it would cost in time and resource relative to the alternatives. The assessment addresses each of those questions directly — so that the decision whether to proceed is made on an accurate understanding of what proceeding means, not an abstract one.
If you decide to instruct us following that assessment, the scope of the work is agreed clearly before it begins. We do not structure our work as open-ended engagements. Each piece has a defined purpose, and further steps are agreed as they become relevant.
Send us a brief outline of the dispute. The first conversation is an assessment of the situation and the available routes — nothing more is required of you at that stage.
Get in touch →