England’s latest Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards figures show a system still under heavy pressure. Councils received 380,715 DoLS applications in 2025 to 2026 and completed 372,145. At 31 March, 116,355 applications remained unfinished. Only 22.8% of completed standard applications met the 21-day statutory timeframe, while the average wait for a completed application was 117 days. These are application counts, not unique people, and one council did not submit data.
The dates matter. The reporting year ended before the Supreme Court changed the definition of deprivation of liberty on 2 June 2026. The new UK-wide legal position replaced the single ‘acid test’ with a multifactorial assessment. Staff must consider the type, duration, effect and manner of restrictions, whether the person objects, and the person’s wishes and feelings. November’s figures therefore describe the old period; they cannot show whether the judgment has reduced applications or delays. A fresh spreadsheet is useful, but it has not yet mastered time travel.
The change does not remove safeguards. Government guidance says compliance is not automatically consent, and people should be supported to communicate what they understand and want. Where restrictions are significant, wishes are unclear or there is doubt about valid consent, providers should continue using the applicable authorisation or court route and seek appropriate advice. Advocacy and the relevant person’s representative remain important protections.
For care managers, the practical task is twofold. First, track every live application, urgent authorisation, expiry date and escalation. Second, review current policies, care plans and staff training against the new test. Record restrictions precisely, including locked doors, supervision, restraint, covert or sedating medication and social isolation. Show how the person communicates agreement, distress or objection, and involve family, advocates and professionals appropriately. Then sample records in audit: a revised policy is only useful if daily practice can explain the person’s voice and the lawful route protecting their rights.