We highlighted in June last year that care home providers were at risk of breaching consumer rights protections where they impose unreasonable fee increases and large up-front fees or deposits, particularly where the regular cost of care is charged monthly in advance. Since the CMA published the findings of its market study in November 2017, a number of providers have found their customer contracts subjected to enhanced scrutiny.
We have already seen that the Maria Mallaband Care group has dropped the use of a contract term which required residents to pay one month’s care fees following the death of a resident. Instead, fees will only be charged up to the date of death. In a similar vein, Sunrise Senior Living Ltd will no longer charge ‘several thousand pounds’ of payments in advance labelled as a “community fee”. An average sum of £3,000 was payable and in some instances before customers had secured a place in the care home. The CMA raised concerns that it was not clear to consumers how the fee would be used and that the fee was non-refundable once someone had lived in the home for more than 30 days. After discussions with the CMA, Sunrise Senior Living Ltd has agreed to repay the community fee to some 1,500 residents who were living in their homes for less than 2 years, resulting in more than £2 million compensation being paid to residents.
Although these changes have been described as voluntary by both organisations, we know from our own work with providers that the CMA is investigating and taking enforcement action against those it believes to be in breach of consumer rights legislation. What is clear from the CMA’s ‘constructive conversations’ to date, is that it is not enough for providers to assert that they never rely on or enforce the term in practice. The mere existence of an unfair term is enough for the CMA to take action.
Where social care providers intend to charge fees before services are provided, these should be a proportionate reflection of the costs incurred before the service begins or allow for refunds to reflect the true value of the service received by the consumer. If providers do intend to charge sums which go towards central costs, such as maintaining quality facilities and communal areas. This should be built into the overall fees, so that those residents who stay for a shorter period of time are not unfairly prejudiced by paying towards services which they may not benefit from.
If you have not done so already, it is important to review your customer terms and conditions to check that they are easy to read, do not contain hidden fees and do not risk confusing consumers as to what they’re paying for. We expect these issues to be at the heart of the CMA’s wider guidance when it is published and that they will social care customer contracts generally, not just residential care.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article or to arrange a review of your contracts to ensure you meet best practice guidance, please contact Emma Watt or John Wearing.
How does a media-savvy employer ensure a season of festive cheer but without mishap, damage to their reputation or harassment and bullying claims?
Providers need to be alive to the risk of contractors becoming insolvent and how to limit the resulting inevitable disruption.
Housing associations must continue to deliver core functions effectively and compliantly notwithstanding the uncertainty over the standards to which you will be held in the future.
Over the last few years the meaning of “asset management” has changed from being all about repairs to understanding that assets might not stay in an organisation forever.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy has understandably prompted a fundamental reconsideration of how building safety is approached for High-Rise Residential Buildings.
Results from the latest three-yearly valuation of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) are starting to trickle through.
The potential for Brexit with or without a deal causes uncertainty, and credit rating agencies do not like uncertainty.
Let’s face it, Wills are underappreciated and often overlooked. In fact, around 54% of the British public do not have one!
A recent case throws light on the scope of the exemption for “land transactions” from the need for an OJEU tender process.
A leaked report into maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust revealed by The Independent has been described as the “largest maternity scandal in NHS history”.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.