PERPETRATORS AND ABUSERS POLICY CRITIQUE

Policy Critique: Form OPG130 and the Risk of Procedural Injustice in the Safeguarding Process

Executive Summary

Form OPG130, issued by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), is intended as a tool to report concerns about the conduct of an attorney or deputy acting under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) or Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). While the objective of safeguarding vulnerable donors is legitimate and necessary, the design and operational use of this form raise significant concerns about procedural fairness, the presumption of innocence, and the potential for reputational and legal harm to individuals accused of abuse without evidence.

This critique highlights key flaws in the current policy underpinning Form OPG130, particularly the use of pre-determined abuse categories and the ease with which an individual may be named as a perpetrator without recourse to immediate defence or redress. The form’s structure and implementation risk facilitating unsubstantiated allegations, undermining natural justice, and ultimately diminishing trust in the safeguarding framework.

Overview of Form OPG130

Form OPG130 allows any person to report concerns about a donor’s welfare or decision-making arrangements. The form includes:

• A list of pre-defined abuse categories (e.g., financial, physical, emotional)
• Fields for describing incidents or concerns
• A section to name the person(s) alleged to be responsible

The OPG uses this information to determine whether further investigation or referral is warranted. However, the form’s design and handling processes merit critical examination.

Pre-Determined Abuse Categories: Oversimplification and Presumption

The form presents a tick-box list of abuse types without requiring the complainant to demonstrate a credible threshold of evidence. These categories—while reflective of genuine safeguarding concerns—are problematic in policy terms due to:

• Subjectivity: Terms like “emotional abuse” or “neglect” lack clear, uniform definitions in lay usage and may be applied inconsistently.
• Ease of allegation: The form allows serious allegations to be made without scrutiny, inadvertently lowering the bar for potentially harmful or false claims.
• Implied validation: By embedding abuse categories in the form’s structure, the OPG may be seen to lend credence to claims at the point of receipt, regardless of merit.

From a policy design standpoint, this introduces a presumption that once an allegation is made, it holds sufficient weight to prompt intervention—even absent corroborating evidence.

Identification of ‘Perpetrator’: Accusation Without Defence

The form explicitly invites the complainant to name an individual they believe to be responsible for the alleged abuse. Critically:

• No evidentiary threshold is required at the time of submission.
• The accused is not notified at this early stage and therefore lacks the opportunity to respond in real time.
• The allegation is effectively recorded in an official safeguarding process, potentially triggering investigations and reputational consequences.

This policy design runs counter to fundamental principles of fairness and accountability. It lacks procedural balance and undermines the presumption of innocence, creating a high risk of injustice to those accused.

Absence of Safeguards Against Malicious or Misguided Reporting

There is currently no clear mechanism within Form OPG130 to:

• Vet the credibility or motivation of the complainant at the initial reporting stage;
• Require declarations of truthfulness under penalty of law;
• Penalise false or malicious reports.

This gap in policy fails to protect individuals from being targeted as part of family disputes, inheritance conflicts, or personal grievances unrelated to actual abuse. The absence of meaningful safeguards creates a significant risk of misuse.

Disproportionate Consequences and Asymmetric Rights

The policy framework surrounding Form OPG130 allows potentially severe consequences to flow from unsubstantiated allegations:

• Suspension of powers of attorney
• Disruption of care arrangements
• Reputational and emotional harm
• Referrals to safeguarding boards or police

In contrast, the accused has no structured pathway to rebut or contextualise the allegation at the outset. The process is asymmetrical, offering protections to the complainant but none to the accused. This undermines legal norms such as:

• Audi alteram partem – the right to be heard
• Equality of arms in quasi-judicial processes
• Proportionality of state intervention

From a public policy perspective, this imbalance erodes trust in safeguarding systems and may deter capable attorneys from continuing in their roles.

Policy Recommendations

To ensure that safeguarding mechanisms remain fair, effective, and accountable, the following reforms to Form OPG130 and its associated procedures are recommended:

Evidentiary Threshold

Require complainants to provide specific supporting information and, where possible, documentary evidence to substantiate allegations.

Declaratory Statement

Include a formal declaration that allegations are true to the best of the complainant’s knowledge, with a warning about the legal consequences of false reporting.

Initial Credibility Screening

Introduce a triage mechanism within the OPG to assess the plausibility and seriousness of allegations before any formal investigative steps are taken.

Right of Reply

Establish a structured process for notifying accused individuals and offering a prompt opportunity to respond before further action is initiated, except in urgent risk cases.

Transparency and Record-Keeping

Ensure that accused individuals are informed of any allegations retained in official records and have access to a clear process for rectification or removal of unfounded accusations.

Guidance and Training

Provide clear public guidance on what constitutes different types of abuse and the threshold for reporting, to reduce misunderstanding and inappropriate referrals.

Form OPG130, as currently implemented, lacks adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and fails to uphold key principles of natural justice. While protecting vulnerable individuals is a core function of the Office of the Public Guardian, this must not come at the expense of procedural fairness or the rights of those accused.

A rebalancing of the policy framework is urgently required to preserve the integrity of the safeguarding process, protect all parties involved, and ensure public confidence in the operation of powers of attorney.

Critical Analysis of Form OPG130: Concerns About a Donor (LPA/EPA) – Focus on Pre-Determined Abuse Categories and Injustice Toward the Accused

Introduction

Form OPG130, issued by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) in the United Kingdom, is designed to allow concerned individuals to report suspicions of abuse regarding a donor under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) or an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). While the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals is a crucial function of the OPG, the design and structure of OPG130—particularly the use of pre-determined abuse categories and the approach to identifying alleged perpetrators—raises significant concerns about procedural fairness, natural justice, and the rights of the accused.

Pre-Determined Categories: Presumption of Guilt

The form lists predefined categories of abuse such as:

• Financial abuse
• Physical abuse
• Emotional or psychological abuse
• Neglect
• Sexual abuse

These categories, while reflecting real and serious types of harm, may lead to unintended consequences when placed on a reporting form without context or an evidentiary requirement. The issue lies not in their inclusion per se, but in how they are presented:

• Tick-box simplicity: The form allows allegations to be made simply by ticking boxes. There is often no requirement for substantial evidence, corroboration, or detailed narrative beyond what the reporter chooses to provide.
• Ambiguity and subjectivity: Terms like “emotional abuse” or “neglect” can be highly subjective and open to interpretation. In family or care contexts, particularly those involving complex dynamics or disagreements over care decisions, such labels can be misused or misunderstood.

By structuring the form this way, the OPG risks encouraging speculative or malicious allegations under the guise of safeguarding, with little scrutiny at the reporting stage.

Identification of the ‘Perpetrator’ Without Evidence

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the form is the section that invites the reporter to name the “person responsible for the abuse”—effectively labelling an individual as a perpetrator before any investigation has taken place.

• No burden of proof: The form does not ask the reporter to present evidence beyond their own account. There is no legal threshold to meet before someone’s name is recorded as a suspected abuser.
• Impact on the accused: Once named, a person can be subjected to investigations, reputational damage, and distress—all before they are even notified of the allegation, let alone given a chance to respond.
• No right to immediate response: The accused does not have automatic recourse to challenge the allegation at the point of submission. The OPG may begin inquiries or refer matters to social services or police without the accused having the opportunity to correct inaccuracies or defend themselves.

This dynamic can result in serious miscarriages of justice, particularly where allegations are made maliciously, based on misunderstandings, or as a result of personal disputes.

Injustice and the Erosion of Natural Justice

At the heart of the criticism is a fundamental lack of procedural fairness—commonly referred to as natural justice. The principles of natural justice include:

• The right to a fair hearing
• The right to be informed of allegations
• The right to respond to and challenge those allegations
• The right to an impartial investigation

Form OPG130, in its current structure, undermines these principles:

• No balancing mechanism: There is no equivalent form or process for an accused person to formally respond at the same stage. The investigative process may not include or prioritize the perspective of the accused until later—if at all.
• Risk of disproportionate responses: The mere presence of an allegation may trigger significant interventions, such as suspension of powers or referral to authorities, regardless of whether the claims are substantiated.
• No penalties for false allegations: There appears to be no clear warning on the form about the consequences of making false or malicious accusations, which would serve as a deterrent to misuse.

Potential for Abuse of the Safeguarding Process

Ironically, a form intended to prevent abuse may itself be vulnerable to being used abusively. Disputes over finances, inheritance, family dynamics, or care decisions may prompt individuals to use the form as a weapon—especially when there is no immediate scrutiny of their motives or evidence.

This creates a paradoxical situation:

• The vulnerable party may become more vulnerable: Disruption caused by false allegations can destabilize care arrangements or damage trust between the donor and attorney.
• The accused may suffer irreversible harm: Reputational damage and emotional distress can occur even if the allegations are ultimately dismissed.

While the safeguarding of donors under LPAs and EPAs is undeniably important, Form OPG130 in its current form presents serious concerns about fairness and justice. The use of pre-determined categories of abuse and the ease with which an individual can be labelled a perpetrator without evidence or recourse undermines the principles of due process and opens the door to misuse.

To align better with principles of justice and the rights of all parties involved, the OPG should consider reforms such as:

• Introducing a requirement for supporting evidence
• Ensuring allegations are screened for credibility before action
• Providing an immediate and equal opportunity for the accused to respond
• Including clear warnings about the consequences of false reporting

Safeguarding systems must protect the vulnerable, but they must also guard against the abuse of the process itself. Without a balance, the very tools designed to uphold justice may become instruments of injustice.

Here is some very important case law:

If anyone is being threatened with an annulment of  Lasting Power of Attorney by local authority social services the case where the CoP refused such an application is as follows:

Re C (Attorney) [2018] EWCOP 42

• The applicant must show that the patient lacked capacity at the time the power was granted.
• The applicant must show with sufficient evidence that the holder of the power is using undue influence.

In the above case they failed.

YET ANOTHER INVESTIGATION BY THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN OFFICE COMMENCED 6 NOVEMBER 2024

On the 6th November 2024 I was contacted by the Public Guardian Office who had received serious allegations against myself and another Attorney that we were mismanaging the POA and I am assuming an OPG130 form had been submitted. This is the second time we have been under investigation but this time for everything including finances, whereas before it was just health and welfare.

Elizabeth was taken away in September 2021 in an ambulance when I had tried to get continuation of “medication” in the community and to this day she remains held on a ward. All sorts of allegations were levied that I had tried to stop treatment etc. For a good part of at least three years of hell, Elizabeth has been held like a restricted prisoner and my visits/phone calls very much restricted. The first Public Guardian Office investigation took place in 2022 and concluded in our favour. An investigation normally takes 14 weeks but in the current investigation so far no response. This impacts upon your life, your health and wellbeing and when done secretly behind your back in this way I have no doubt the advantage would go to the social services whoever is involved to give them full control of everything needed to finance a proposed care home and this is what has been going on since our move when the family have provided a bungalow to bring her close to everyone as per her wishes.

For anyone else up against this kind of malicious process that I can only describe as “bullying” and “intimidation” I would advise taking a close look at this OPG 130 form social services may use to report an Attorney in cases where they want to take control of everything. For some cases this may be justified however in others, it is simply used for the purposes of control and placing a vulnerable person into yet more restrictive care with false promises of “freedom” against their wishes. If found to have no capacity it is easy for this to happen however in other cases there might be “fluctuating capacity”. This I have no doubt is done when normal procedures cannot be applied. This would authorise full control of everything, family savings, Trust Funds, family property to be spent on a care home. The Public Guardian Office then has the duty to investigate based on those allegations made against you by so called “professionals” you have never even met. So the form itself is very simple on the second page capacity is mentioned. That has to be determined in a Public Guardian CoP case. Since the day we moved, the team have tried to allege Elizabeth has NO CAPACITY – her medication at one point was raised to double at the time of the 2022 assessment. Even in light of this, Elizabeth still maintained capacity. I believe the Public Guardian Office have sent an assessor to carry out the capacity assessment so Elizabeth has advised us. She said a man carrying out the assessment asked her where she wanted to live and she said “home”. Today during my heavily supervised 2-1 restricted visit, Elizabeth again showed her capacity to the full and great memory of the former area in front of the young supervisors. I have no idea of the outcome of this latest 9th capacity assessment. The most disturbing thing is on Page 3: “Date alleged abuse happened” and “names of alleged perpetrators”, Local Authority name and address and allocated social worker details.

All of this has been going on behind our backs instead of a section 42 meeting which I have asked for many times before to discuss MY CONCERNS. Elizabeth is now in a rehab unit where she moved from Castle Ward stating “anything is better than this place“. Prior to that Elizabeth was unsure because it appeared to be the same restrictive “care”. It has become clear that the safeguarding is solely against me but what is bad is that no-one will give you a reason and one that complies with the MHA Code of Conduct which is 11:14-16 and I do not come into any of the categories listed.

After all this time there is still no response from the Public Guardian Office and I have written to them tonight because I have decided I would like the entire investigation to be completely open and transparent. I thought that was the whole idea of safeguarding. The more open and transparent the better as you should have the right to reply BEFORE any such investigations take place that affect your whole life as in my case.

I then contacted the Public Guardian Office to ask the following questions and raise the following points but when I asked who was the social services team behind this I was told it was confidential and could not be disclosed just like an MDT where everyone backs one another but there is not room for 30 signatures on this form – there is one room for ONE SOCIAL WORKER to sign.

Why not disclose who is behind matters and what the concerns are and why should it be confidential when it is all about me in that case, that is assuming such form was even properly submitted to the CoP but here is what to do if any other parents and carers are affected:

A person who is referred to as a “perpetrator” or “abuser” on a form such as the OPG130 (which is typically used in the context of applications for a deputyship order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005) would generally have the legal right to challenge such a definition, particularly if it is inaccurate, defamatory, or unjust. Below is an explanation of the legal right to challenge such a definition, along with the relevant legal authorities.

Right to Challenge the Definition

1. Right to Fairness and Accuracy (Article 6 ECHR)
   The right to a fair trial and due process is enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which applies in the UK. If someone is described as a “perpetrator” or “abuser” in any legal proceeding, that person has a right to challenge such an accusation or label if it is inaccurate, misleading, or detrimental to their legal standing or reputation. The right to a fair hearing includes the opportunity to challenge evidence or allegations made against you, especially when it involves potentially damaging labels or findings.
2. Defamation and Reputation Protection
   If the term “perpetrator” or “abuser” is used in a way that can harm someone’s reputation, they may have a claim under defamation law. Under UK law, if an individual’s reputation is harmed by false or unjust accusations, they may seek redress through a claim of defamation. A person referred to as a “perpetrator” or “abuser” on the form may have grounds to challenge such a label, particularly if it is false, not substantiated by evidence, or not relevant to the application.
   • Defamation Act 2013: This law covers defamation claims and provides mechanisms for individuals to challenge defamatory statements. If someone is referred to as a “perpetrator” or “abuser” without evidence, they could potentially argue that such a statement is defamatory.
3. Mental Capacity Act 2005 – Best Interests and Protection from Abuse
   The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) includes provisions to protect individuals who lack capacity from abuse. However, accusations of abuse must be substantiated and handled carefully. If a person is labeled as an “abuser” or “perpetrator” in a form or legal document, it’s crucial that such claims are supported by evidence and comply with the principles of the MCA.
   • Section 42 of the Care Act 2014: This section requires local authorities to make inquiries if there is a suspicion that an adult with care and support needs is at risk of abuse or neglect. If allegations are made, there is a legal framework for addressing and investigating abuse. However, individuals accused of abuse have the right to challenge those accusations in court.
4. Court of Protection and Procedural Fairness
   If the application is before the Court of Protection (which deals with matters related to individuals who lack mental capacity), any allegations or labels used in the application (such as “perpetrator” or “abuser”) could be subject to scrutiny. The individual who is labeled as such has the right to contest these claims in the proceedings.
   • Court of Protection Rules 2017: These rules govern how cases are managed and how parties can challenge evidence. If someone is referred to as a perpetrator or abuser in an application, they can ask the court to clarify or remove such labels if they believe they are inaccurate, unfair, or unsupported by evidence.
   • Principles of Procedural Fairness: The Court of Protection must act in a way that is procedurally fair. If a person is unfairly labeled in a manner that impacts their legal rights or standing, they have the right to challenge the labeling or seek to have it removed.
5. General Principles of Natural Justice
   The principle of natural justice, which ensures fairness in legal proceedings, applies in all public law matters, including deputyship applications under the MCA. This principle includes the right to know what evidence is being presented against you, the right to respond to it, and the right to challenge any findings that could be unfairly prejudicial. If an individual is labeled as a “perpetrator” or “abuser” on the OPG130 form, they would typically be entitled to challenge such a label if it is inaccurate or prejudicial.

What Legal Authority Supports This?

• Article 6 of the ECHR (Right to a fair trial)
• Defamation Act 2013
• Mental Capacity Act 2005 (particularly Sections 1-3 regarding capacity and the best interests of the person)
• Care Act 2014, Section 42 (Duty to investigate suspected abuse or neglect)
• Court of Protection Rules 2017 (Procedural rules for managing applications and challenges)
• Principles of Natural Justice (Fairness in legal procedures)

How to Challenge the Label?

If a person wishes to challenge the label of “perpetrator” or “abuser” in an OPG130 application:

1. Raise the Issue in the Application Process: The individual (or their legal representative) can raise the issue in the initial stages of the application. They may file a response with the Court of Protection to dispute any allegations.
2. Court of Protection Hearing: The issue could be raised during a hearing, and the individual has the right to argue that the label is incorrect or defamatory. This might involve providing evidence that contradicts the label.
3. Request for Review or Appeal: If the individual believes that the decision to use such labels is prejudicial or unfair, they may seek a review or appeal of the decision.

In conclusion, a person referred to as a “perpetrator” or “abuser” in an OPG130 application has a legal right to challenge that definition, and they may do so through the mechanisms outlined above, including the right to fair treatment under Article 6 ECHR, the Defamation Act 2013, and principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.

RIGHT TO REPLY

Who raised the ‘concern’ regarding Elizabeth’s finances?

What is the nature of that concern? (in detail, not generality)

Failure to disclose this information is denying me the long established right of reply to my accuser and denying me my inalienable right to a fair hearing.

Withholding the information on the grounds of confidentiality is absurd. These concerns, as described are about me and therefore are not protected by third party confidentiality.

Being investigated as a “perpetrator and abuser” is not nice but it is very good to bring things out in the open because I am sure I am not alone. It impacts upon your life and I do not even know who this social worker is who has automatically made serious allegations to revoke the POA and that is another matter altogether and the reasons behind it. It is a pity that social services do not work together with families in an open decent and transparent manner.

I also pointed out to the Public Guardian Office the following:

“We are being denied justice under the following maxis.

Audi Alteram Partem. The right to reply.

Nemo Judex in Causa Sua. No person may be a judge in their own cause.

Unless there is a statutory exception (internal policy will not suffice)

If there is a statutory exception the burden of proof is on those claiming the benefit of it. I will require black letter law authority from Office of the Public Guardian if this position is being maintained”.

In the absence of any response from the Public Guardian Office I have been trying to locate the social worker behind all of this. I thought at first it might be the Local Authority so I wrote the following email and then to the Trust’s social work team and here are the responses, both in denial which is typical yet they must have some idea of who and where the team is located and their email address. Anyway this is the outcome of my investigations below:

MY INVESTIGATIONS INTO WHICH SOCIAL WORK TEAM IS INVOLVED

Email from “CARECONCERNS (LINCOLNSHIRE PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST)” lpft.careconcerns@nhs.net

“LPFT’s Social Services department were not involved with Elizabeth’s care until 7^th June 2024 and therefore did not contribute to this decision, or the OPG investigation. In addition, an Approved Mental Health Professional was also not involved in the decision-making process around phone use, therefore we are unable to provide a name to share with you.”

So the decision to take the phone away and hold it in the office and keep in place constant supervision 2-1 is so they say “an MDT decision! If things go wrong then it would be an “MDT fault”. In other words no accountability for anything. This is of course in breach of human rights not that they appear to even exist in this area.

So in that case who is involved???

Hi

Susan is not open to our team, if we could be removed from the email chain please.

Thankyou

Kind Regards

Sarah Duty social worker

LPFT Sec 75 social care west team.

OK let’s rule the section 75 west team out in that case. But now look at the email below and my comments in bold.

How very strange as the Council say they are not involved but somebody knows who is involved and I would like to know who is behind calling me a Perpetrator and Abuser??? I am sure anyone would want to know this.

From: Customer Relations Team <customerrelationsteam@icasework.lincolnshire.gov.uk>
Sent: 31 December 2024 10:29
To: susanb255@outlook.com <susanb255@outlook.com>
Subject: Enquiry (ref: 11294061)

Dear Susan Bevis

Ref: 11294061

The Customer Relations Team at Lincolnshire County Council have received a copy of your email that you sent to Debbie Barnes and Will Bell at Lincolnshire County Council in relation to the Lincolnshire Partnership Foundation Trust (LPFT) and your daughter, Elizabeth.

Please be advised that your concerns should be directed to the LPFT social work team. Elizabeth is open to LPFT and not LCC Adult Care. LCC Safeguarding have also advised that there is no remit for them with regards to Elizabeth case at this time.

Please find contact details for LPFT at the following link How to give feedback :: Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Trust

Kind regards,

James Taylor

Customer Relations Advisor

Customer Relations Team

I will further add to this blog once MY INVESTIGATIONS are concluded and the real reasons behind everything going on which is very disturbing for all families affected. I will add the points of law and everything other parents and carers need to know faced with these disturbing circumstances.