Sir Ranulph Fiennes: What happens when welfare concerns are raised?

The recent media attention surrounding Sir Ranulph Fiennes has highlighted a issues that regularly arise in Court of Protection and safeguarding work: what happens when concerns are raised about a vulnerable adult’s circumstances?

Reports that friends and family were allegedly unable to contact Sir Ranulph for a prolonged period have brought difficult questions into the public spotlight. While the specific facts remain uncertain, the story highlights the legal safeguards available when concerns arise about an individual’s welfare and the decisions being made on their behalf.

These situations can be particularly challenging because they often involve competing views about what is best for the person concerned. The role of the Court of Protection is not to determine who is “right”, but to ensure that decisions are made lawfully and that the individual’s rights, wishes and best interests remain at the centre of the process.

Although the full circumstances remain unclear, the issues raised by the reporting are not uncommon. When concerns are raised about a vulnerable adult’s welfare, it is often necessary to examine not only the decisions being made, but also who is making them, whether they have been arrived at in the correct way, and whether the appropriate legal safeguards are in place.

When welfare concerns begin to surface

Cases of this nature often begin with a lack of information. Family members, friends or professionals may become concerned because they no longer have regular contact with a vulnerable adult or because there is little transparency about their circumstances. Questions can then arise about where the individual is living, who is making decisions on their behalf and whether their wishes are being properly taken into account.

The focus of any investigation is not whether relatives or friends agree with the decisions being made. The key question is whether the individual has capacity to make those decisions themselves and, where they do not, whether decisions are being made in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in their best interests, and in a manner that is consistent with the vulnerable person’s wishes and feelings.

That distinction is often central to Court of Protection proceedings.

The role of a Lasting Power of Attorney

Much of the reporting has centred on a Lasting Power of Attorney granted in 2024. An LPA can be an invaluable tool, allowing somebody to appoint a trusted individual to make decisions on their behalf if they lose capacity in the future. Attorneys are frequently required to make difficult decisions and, in many cases, perform that role responsibly and effectively.

However, attorneys must act within the framework set by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and always in the donor’s best interests.

Concerns can arise where an attorney is alleged to be:

• Restricting contact with family or friends.

• Failing to act transparently.

• Making decisions that appear inconsistent with the donor’s wishes and feelings or their best interests.

• Exercising undue influence over the individual.

Where concerns are raised, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Court of Protection have powers to investigate the circumstances and scrutinise the decisions that have been made. Local authorities also have duties to safeguard vulnerable adults, underpinned by the duty on local authorities to promote an adult’s wellbeing including protection from abuse and neglect.

Can an LPA be challenged?

The reports surrounding Sir Ranulph have also brought attention to the safeguards that exist when concerns are raised about an attorney’s conduct.

The Court of Protection has wide-ranging powers and can examine how decisions have been made, require information to be disclosed and consider whether an attorney remains suitable to continue acting.

In some cases, applications may be made to revoke an LPA or remove an attorney altogether. The Court can also appoint an independent professional Deputy where there are concerns about conflicts, accountability or ongoing disputes between those involved in the person’s care and welfare.

These applications are fact-sensitive and often require careful investigation, but they remain an important safeguard for vulnerable adults.

What happens when contact is restricted?

One of the most striking aspects of the reporting has been the suggestion that friends and family experienced difficulties maintaining contact with Sir Ranulph.

Restrictions on contact are not necessarily inappropriate, nor does every restriction on family contact amount to a deprivation of liberty  There may be legitimate reasons why visits, telephone calls or other forms of communication need to be managed. However, where there is uncertainty about who is imposing those restrictions and why, concerns can quickly develop.

In practice, these cases often give rise to questions such as:

• Does the individual want contact with family and friends?

• Do they have capacity to make that decision themselves?
• What are there known wishes and feelings on the subject?

• If they lack capacity, who is making the decision and on what basis?

Where concerns persist, safeguarding referrals may be made and, in some cases, urgent applications can be brought before the Court of Protection. These applications can investigate whether the person has capacity to make the particular decision, seek disclosure of welfare information, investigate living arrangements or establish whether restrictions on contact are justified.

How are concerns investigated?

Contrary to popular perception, the Court does not simply accept one person’s account of events.

Cases involving welfare concerns often require detailed evidence gathering before any conclusions can be reached. This can include medical evidence, expert capacity assessments, care records, safeguarding investigations and witness evidence from those involved in the person’s life.

The purpose is to establish not only what arrangements are currently in place, but whether they are lawful and whether they reflect the individual’s wishes, feelings and best interests.

The vulnerable person may need a Litigation Friend to act for them in the proceedings and the Court will consider who this should be for example a family member or the Official Solicitor. The Court will always ensure the vulnerable person’s voice remains central throughout the process.

Deprivation of liberty and legal safeguards

The reporting has also highlighted concerns regarding deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Whilst the phrase can sound alarming, it has a specific legal meaning. Broadly speaking, a deprivation of liberty may arise where a person who lacks capacity is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave their place of residence. Restrictions on contact are not necessarily inappropriate, nor does every restriction on family contact amount to a deprivation of liberty

Safeguards exist to ensure that:

• Any restrictions are necessary and proportionate.

• The individual’s rights are protected.

• Decisions are subject to independent scrutiny.

Where concerns arise that the appropriate authorisations are not in place, the Court of Protection can be asked to review the arrangements and determine whether intervention is required.

Keeping the focus on the individual

Cases such as this attract public attention because they often involve competing views from people who all believe they are acting in a vulnerable person’s best interests.

The legal framework seeks to move beyond those competing perspectives and focus on the individual concerned. Whether the issue relates to contact with family members, living arrangements, the exercise of an LPA or the lawfulness of care arrangements, the central consideration should be the person’s wishes, feelings, beliefs and rights.

That balance between protection and autonomy sits at the heart of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and remains one of the most important principles underpinning Court of Protection work.

How we can help

At Slater Heelis, our Court of Protection team advises families, friends, attorneys and professionals involved in disputes concerning welfare, capacity and safeguarding.

We regularly assist with:

• Challenges to LPAs and attorney decisions.

• Urgent Court of Protection applications.

• Contact, welfare and deprivation of liberty disputes.

• Safeguarding concerns and investigations.

If you have concerns about the welfare of a vulnerable adult or require advice regarding a Court of Protection matter, our specialist team can provide practical and sensitive guidance.

Get In Touch

John Gorner is a Consultant Solicitor at Slater Heelis specialising in contentious Court of Protection, community care, safeguarding, contentious probate and trusts disputes. If you would like to discuss a matter with John or a member of the team, please contact Slater Heelis by calling 03300 606 853 or completing our online contact form.