Care Act 2014<\/a> and were placed in the respective care homes.<\/p>\nWhile the care homes provided essential services, the financial resources of the residents fell below the statutory threshold, triggering an obligation for Oxfordshire CC to begin funding their care.<\/p>\n
However, as essential care and accommodation continued to be delivered, the bills were being left unpaid. This placed the care homes in the difficult position of delivering unfunded care or discharging residents with nowhere else to go, an outcome no care home would ever willingly choose.<\/p>\n
A spokesperson from the nursing homes said, \u201cWe are pleased that the court has, so far, ruled in our favour regarding the injustice we faced at the hands of Oxfordshire County Council. We refused to evict vulnerable elderly residents from our nursing homes simply because they had exhausted their funds. The council suggested we should have done so but failed to provide any indication of where these individuals could go to receive the care they needed. When faced with a crisis in the lives of these residents, the council shirked its legal obligation to fund their care, instead expecting a small, family-owned nursing home to bear the financial burden of hundreds of thousands of pounds for their upkeep and care.\u201d<\/p>\n
During the legal proceedings, Oxfordshire CC sought to strike out the claim. In response, the claimants filed an application to amend the particulars of their claim, alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the council.<\/p>\n
On 17 December, the court ruled in favour of the care homes, granting permission to amend the claim and rejecting Oxfordshire CC\u2019s application to strike it out. The judgment marks the first positive ruling under key provisions of the Care Act 2014 (Sections 8, 13, and 18) and underscores the statutory duty of local authorities to provide care funding for eligible individuals.<\/p>\n
Paul Ridout commented: \u201cThis is a landmark ruling and the first positive judgment under the Care Act. It serves as a powerful reminder to local authorities across the country of their legal obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court reaffirmed that once a resident’s care needs are established, local authorities must ensure those needs are met at a reasonable cost. This ruling sets a significant precedent, highlighting that councils cannot neglect their legal obligations. Paul Ridout added, \u201cI am certain care homes nationwide will take note of this decision and review any outstanding payments owed by local authorities for the essential care they have provided.\u201d<\/p>\n
This ruling adds to the strong headwinds surrounding adult social care funding and the financial pressures on local authorities. Care England has recently reported a \u00a32.2bn shortfall in residential care provision, while the 2024 State of Local Government Finance in England report revealed that 16 per cent of councils are planning to cut adult social care services. This judgement could lead to significant national policy implications for the government, who ultimately may need to support local authorities in meeting their obligations, reinforced by the ruling.<\/p>\n
The nursing home spokesperson concluded, \u201cThis case involved two individuals whom the Council knew required a high level of care and for whom they were responsible under the Care Act. Instead of meeting these obligations and paying the fees for this care the Council decided to use their power within the market to force the costs onto a small care provider. I would be amazed if this was the only council doing this, and we were the only provider that had been forced to bear these costs.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judgment reinforces the rights of eligible individuals to access essential care, empowers adult social care providers across England to pursue outstanding payments from local authorities, and serves as a critical reminder to councils of their statutory responsibilities.<\/p>\n
The case is now on course to proceed to a full trial in the High Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The landmark judgement on social care finance was handed down on 17th December in Julie Richardson Ltd & Banbury Heights Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council, increasing pressure on local councils to meet adult social care funding obligations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":5819,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,25,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-news","category-social-care"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5818","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5818"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5818\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5820,"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5818\/revisions\/5820"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5819"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integratedcarejournal.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}