When a person lacks the mental capacity to manage their own financial affairs, the Court of Protection may appoint a Deputy to make decisions on their behalf. One increasingly common yet complex request Deputies may face involves the use of a client’s personal injury (PI) award to fund the care or acquisition of pets. While pets can often provide substantial emotional and psychological benefits, Deputies must exercise caution and apply legal, ethical, and practical considerations before approving such expenditure. Consideration 1: Acting in the Client’s Best Interests Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, all decisions must be made in the best interests of the person lacking capacity (the “protected party” or “P”). This principle is central and non-negotiable. The Mental Capacity Act also requires that the Deputy take P’s wishes and feelings into account when making decisions. Deputies should ask: What benefit will this pet bring to P’s life? Does owning a pet align with P’s wishes, values, or beliefs? Can P meaningfully interact with or care adequately for the pet? For example, if P previously owned and loved animals before their injury, and there is reason to believe that continued interaction with pets would bring comfort, then pet-related spending may be justified. Additionally, if P has requested pets continuously then the Deputy should take that into serious consideration. Consideration 2: The Proportionality of Costs Deputies must assess whether the cost of acquiring and maintaining a pet is proportionate to the overall value of the PI award and P’s ongoing care needs. PI funds are generally awarded to cover lifetime care, therapy, accommodation, equipment, and other essential needs. Funding a pet must not compromise these priorities. Key questions include: What are the upfront and ongoing costs (e.g. vet bills, food, insurance, grooming)? Is there adequate provision within P’s funds for emergencies or long-term pet care? Would the cost of the pet adversely affect P’s financial sustainability? Consideration 3: Practical and Care Considerations If P resides in supported living or a care home, a pet may not be permitted under the terms of the accommodation. Deputies should: Check tenancy or placement agreements for pet restrictions. Consider staff availability and willingness to support pet care. Evaluate whether there is a responsible individual who can assist with daily care, especially if P is unable to do so independently. In some cases, alternatives such as pet therapy sessions or regular visits from therapy animals may provide similar emotional benefits with fewer responsibilities and complications. Consideration 4: Safeguarding and Risk Assessment The welfare of both P and the animal must be considered. Deputies should ensure that: The pet chosen is appropriate for P’s abilities and environment. There is no risk of harm (e.g. tripping hazards, bites, allergic reactions). The animal itself will be well cared for and not neglected. Failure to properly assess these risks could result in distress for both P and the pet. For example, would any equipment the pet needs, such as a heat lamp, cause potential risk? Consideration 5: Court of Protection Guidance and Authority If there is any doubt or disagreement about the appropriateness of such spending, or if the sum involved is substantial, the Deputy should seek direction from the Court of Protection. This is particularly important if: The expenditure represents a significant proportion of the overall estate. There is any disagreement among family members or professionals. The Deputy believes that the decision may be outside their standard authority. Applying to the Court for a specific order can protect the Deputy from future liability and ensure that the decision aligns with the Court’s expectations. Consideration 6: Recording and Transparency As with all decisions made on behalf of P, Deputies must keep clear records. This includes: The rationale for agreeing (or declining) to fund a pet. Evidence of P’s past and present views, where available. Budget calculations and third-party advice (e.g. from care teams, investment managers or veterinary professionals). Any risk assessments or alternative options considered. This documentation supports accountability and ensures transparency in the Deputy's role. Conclusion While pets can provide real therapeutic value, using personal injury funds for their acquisition or care must be approached with diligence, sensitivity, and a firm grasp of legal duties. Deputies must carefully balance emotional benefits with financial prudence, practical feasibility, and the overarching obligation to act in P’s best interests. When in doubt, seeking Court approval and documenting every step are the most sensible next steps.
