Care homes: 'No rights law cover'

Five Law Lords, by a 3-2 majority, rejected argument that a private home is "exercising a public function" when it cares for people referred to it by a council, and is therefore bound by the Human Rights Act.

The decision, which could affect up to 300,000 residents throughout the country, came in the case of an 84-year-old Alzheimer's patient. Her lawyers argued that her threatened eviction from a private home would violate her right to family life.

Civil rights groups were angered by the decision and called for amending legislation to ensure that people in private care have the same legal protection as those in local authority homes.

Andrew Dismore MP, chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, said: "The House of Lords has decided contrary to what Parliament intended when the Human Rights Act was passed.

"The decision means that many elderly and vulnerable people in care homes have no protection from the Human Rights Act. They are vulnerable to abuse, summary eviction, and the closing of their homes with no direct right of redress in the courts."

The Alzheimer's patient, identified only as YL, has lived at the home since January last year when she was placed there by her local authority, Birmingham City Council.

The home, which cannot be named for legal reasons, is run by Southern Cross Healthcare, a private sector provider of residential and nursing services, which wanted to remove the woman because of disagreements with her relatives.

The dispute with the woman's family has now been settled and her position is secure, but the issues raised by her case were pursued through the courts. The central issue was whether the Human Rights Act should protect residents who have been placed in the care of private sector providers and are funded by local authorities under their statutory duties.

The Government itself was among the "interveners" in the case which supported the argument put forward by YL's lawyers. After the judgment, Baroness Ashton, Minister for Human Rights, said: "I am obviously disappointed that the House of Lords did not accept our arguments on this important issue. We are inviting all the other interveners in the case to meet next week to discuss our options."