A number of reports have recently suggested that, while there are many experts available to assess the capability or otherwise of individuals in a variety of groups – vulnerable or otherwise – their opinions and advice are often neither sought nor acted upon by those with the authority to decide the fate of such unfortunate individuals.

On 14 August the House of Commons Health Select Committee published the report of its Post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Health Act 2007, in which the MPs said that the interests of those who rely on mental health services are not sufficiently protected.

Introducing the report, its chair Stephen Dorrell MP said: ““Mental health legislation is designed to protect extremely vulnerable patients but our review has found that many vital safeguards are not working effectively.”

In particular, the safeguarding provisions for deprivation of liberty (DOLS) were a cause for concern.

Mr Dorrell said: “The provisions for DOLS are not working well. We found that it is commonplace for DOLS to be ignored, leaving many people at heightened risk of abuse. DOLS are seen as complicated and difficult to implement, but this is no excuse for the extreme variation in their application across the country.”

The warning followed similar concerns expressed by lawyers in June, in evidence to a Lords Select Committee inquiring into the working of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

One witness said that the Court of Protection, as a vessel of advice and legal guidance, is “so removed from the experiences of most family carers that there is nowhere for many of them to turn to in order to get some support and advice”.

• Not that many lawyers are much help in providing a helping hand, either, according to two recent reports.

On 16 August the Law Society Gazette reported on a new guide from the Legal Ombudsman (LeO: honest!) on accessing legal service for older people. The gist of the story is that lawyers can sometimes exert undue influence on older people – it actually says “elderly” – to force them to make decisions.

Astonishingly, according to the report, the guide is compelled to advise that: “lawyers shouldn’t charge for looking at a complaint you have made against them”.

The Gazette report also says: “On a more positive note, the guide advises the elderly that there is ‘no such thing as a silly question’ and that they should not hesitate to ‘ask what words mean’.”

Here’s one: what does “elderly” mean?

An earlier report in the same publication details research carried out by the Criminal Justice Alliance into the implementation of a requirement for prosecutors to consider the issue of ‘maturity’ when dealing with young adults. The headline read: “Prosecutors need training in maturity, says charity”.

I’m saying nuthin.

• Remember; if you have a complaint about this column, I am happy to look into it for you – for a fee!

Chris Stokes