Local Government Reorganisation 2026
Decisions on care home fees
- Details
The High Court recently rejected a judicial review challenge to a council's decision on care home fees. Claire Booth explains why.
In R (Care England) v Essex CC [2017] EWHC 3035 (Admin) (Admin Ct) Care England (CE), a charity and a representative body for care home operators, applied for judicial review of Essex County Council's decision to increase some of the fees which it paid to the operators of care homes.
CE contended that the council had breached its duty under s.5(1) & (2) of the Care Act 2014 to promote the efficient and effective operation of a market in services for meeting care and support needs, failed to follow government guidance and that the decision was unreasonable.
The court dismissed the application. The council's day-to-day dealings with care home providers and the recent tender exercise provided ample evidence that fee levels for care and support services were appropriate to provide the delivery of the agreed care packages with agreed quality of care. The fact that the seven years without fee increases under the old framework agreements had resulted in few care home closures, and even fewer for financial reasons, was potentially relevant, and the weight to be given to that consideration was a matter for the council.
CE's contention that the council had failed to comply with the Guidance because "the fees are set at a level which was significantly below the actual costs of providing care" used words that were not taken directly from the Guidance; the Guidance was lengthy and detailed and it was neither necessary nor appropriate to interpolate words which were not to be found in it.
CE's case was that there was a certain level of increase which was necessary if the s.5 duty was to be met. What that level was (assuming there was one), and whether it was more or less than the level of the increases decided on in July 2016, was not a judgment which the court could easily make on an application for judicial review, and certainly not on the evidence in this case.
Claire Booth is an associate professional support lawyer at Bevan Brittan. She can be contacted on 0370 194 1705 or
Must read
The Procurement Act 2023: One Year On - How procurement processes are evolving
Practical impact of the Procurement Act 2023 – the challenges, the benefits and the legal lacunas
Sponsored articles
Walker Morris supports Tower Hamlets Council in first known Remediation Contribution Order application issued by local authority
Unlocking legal talent
Latest Webinars
Interveners in financial remedy proceedings
Standish 18 months on
Employment webinar: Managing settlements: the legal and practical issues, and the pitfalls to avoid
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill – what’s in, what’s out and will it work?
Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation: the planning perspective
Procurement Act 2023 webinar: Key Update
Public Law Update Webinar
Inquiry Law webinar series — Session 3: Challenging (& Challenge Proofing) Inquiries
Inquiry Law webinar series - Session 2: Issues of Evidence
NHS Legal Framework Webinar Series - Masterclass on NHS Continuing Care for Adults and Children
15-07-2026 11:00 am






