Consent, Coercion and Undue Influence in Safeguarding: Making Defensible Decisions
In safeguarding, “they consented” is not the end of the story. People may agree to harmful situations because they feel pressured, frightened, dependent, or unsure what will happen if they refuse. Providers must be able to show how consent was explored, how coercion or undue influence was considered, and why the safeguarding response was proportionate and lawful.
This article sits within Mental Capacity, Consent & Safeguarding Decision-Making and links closely to patterns of harm described in Understanding Types of Abuse. It focuses on practical steps that make your safeguarding decisions defensible under commissioner review and inspection.
Why “Consent” Can Be Unreliable in Safeguarding Contexts
Consent can be compromised even where a person appears confident and consistent. Common safeguarding realities include:
- Fear of retaliation or abandonment
- Financial dependency or “owed” loyalty
- Isolation, grief, or low self-worth
- Controlling relationships that shape what the person feels able to say
- Hidden exploitation where “agreement” is part of the grooming process
Operationally, this means staff must avoid binary thinking (“consents / does not consent”) and instead evidence how the person’s will and preferences were explored, what risks were explained, and whether external influence was likely.
Separating Capacity From Voluntariness
A person can have capacity to make a decision and still be acting under coercion or undue influence. In safeguarding, the question is not only “can they understand and decide?” but also “are they able to decide freely?”
Providers should build a habit of documenting two linked considerations:
- Decision-making ability (capacity where relevant)
- Decision-making freedom (pressure, control, fear, grooming, dependency)
This is particularly important where safeguarding plans restrict contact, change accommodation, limit access to finances, or increase supervision, because these actions will be tested for proportionality and rights impact.
Operational Example 1: Consent to Contact Where Grooming Is Suspected
Context: Staff observed frequent “money requests” from a new “friend” and increasing isolation. The person insisted they wanted the contact and refused to block the individual.
Support approach: The team used planned keywork to explore the relationship, explain risks in plain language, and test understanding of patterns consistent with exploitation. They also explored whether the person feared losing companionship.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff agreed a neutral monitoring plan: logging contact frequency, triggers for distress, and any requests for cash or gifts. The person was supported to practise refusal scripts and to use agreed phrases when pressured. Staff ensured discussions happened away from phone calls and private messaging.
How effectiveness was evidenced: Records showed the person’s stated wishes, the risks explained, and changes over time. When the person later disclosed feeling “guilty” and worried the friend would “turn nasty”, the provider had clear evidence that the earlier “consent” may have been shaped by pressure, supporting escalation to multi-agency safeguarding.
Signs of Coercion and Undue Influence Staff Should Record
Safeguarding defensibility depends on specifics. Instead of vague statements (“seems pressured”), records should capture observable indicators, such as:
- Sudden changes in routine, communication, or spending
- Scripts or repeated phrases that do not match the person’s usual language
- Fearful behaviour after messages or visits
- Contradictory accounts depending on who is present
- Reluctance to speak privately or attempts by others to stay in the room
Where possible, providers should evidence that the person had opportunities to speak privately, had information in accessible formats, and was offered advocacy or independent support where appropriate.
Operational Example 2: “Consent” to Remaining in a Risky Living Arrangement
Context: A person wanted to remain living with a relative despite repeated incidents of neglect and controlling behaviour reported by staff.
Support approach: The provider explored what the person valued (familiarity, belonging, fear of change) and what they feared (being “put in a home”, losing family contact). Safeguarding discussions focused on options, not threats.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff used structured conversations over several weeks, involving a senior lead to ensure consistency. A safety plan was introduced: agreed check-in times, coded phrases for calling for help, and documentation of missed meals, medication issues, or restricted access to the person’s phone.
How effectiveness was evidenced: The provider documented the person’s wishes, the risks, and the protective measures attempted. When risks escalated, records demonstrated that the provider did not ignore consent but treated it as part of a wider safeguarding risk assessment and proportional response.
When Providers Should Escalate Even Where the Person Appears to Consent
Providers sometimes delay escalation because they fear “going against the person’s wishes”. A defensible approach is to explain that safeguarding is about reducing harm and that concerns can still be raised while keeping the person at the centre of decisions.
Escalation is particularly important where there is credible evidence of:
- Serious or repeated harm
- Criminal exploitation, fraud, or physical assault
- Coercive control, threats, or intimidation
- High risk of retaliation or worsening harm if concerns are not managed
Good practice is to document: the person’s expressed wishes, the risks, the rationale for escalation, and how the provider will keep the person informed and involved.
Operational Example 3: Consent Under Fear of Retaliation
Context: A person stated they did not want any safeguarding action because the alleged perpetrator “would make it worse”. Staff suspected intimidation.
Support approach: The provider prioritised immediate safety planning and created a staged disclosure process: what could be shared, with whom, and at what point, while maintaining transparency wherever possible.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff increased welfare checks, adjusted visit patterns to reduce predictability, and implemented communication safeguards (private call windows, safe storage of notes). They recorded every expressed fear and any contact attempts by the alleged perpetrator.
How effectiveness was evidenced: The provider could evidence why immediate escalation was necessary, how risks of retaliation were managed, and how the person’s wishes were respected through controlled information sharing rather than doing nothing.
Commissioner Expectation: Proportionate Safeguarding With Clear Rationale
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate a clear decision trail: what was known, what was observed, what was discussed with the person, what options were considered, and why the chosen safeguarding action was proportionate. “They consented” without analysis of influence, risk and alternatives is not sufficient.
Regulator Expectation: Rights, Safety and Robust Governance
Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): Inspectors expect providers to protect people from avoidable harm while respecting choice and autonomy. This requires robust recording, professional curiosity, and management oversight where consent may be compromised by coercion or control.
Governance That Makes Consent Decisions Defensible
Providers reduce risk by embedding governance steps into safeguarding practice, such as:
- Senior review of cases where consent is contested or appears unstable
- Structured supervision prompts on coercion and undue influence
- Audit checks for private discussion opportunities and accessible information
- Clear thresholds and escalation pathways understood by all staff
Where safeguarding decisions may restrict rights, defensibility comes from documenting the “why”, reviewing the “how”, and evidencing ongoing efforts to reduce restriction and keep the person at the centre of the plan.