Care homes may be breaking the law by failing to tell families they will have to pay their loved one’s fees for a month after they die, campaigners say.
Fewer than one in ten homes contacted by Which? on the premise of looking for care for an elderly relative were happy to send over contracts.
The consumer watchdog said there was a danger that firms were breaking the law by neglecting to tell residents about important terms and conditions.
Of the contracts that Which? investigators were sent, three included terms that could be considered unfair to residents.
Which? asked care homes to send a copy of their contract and among these were homes charging fees for a month after death (file photo)
Among these were charging fees for a month after death and the right to terminate a contract with 24 hours’ notice for undefined ‘detrimental behaviour’.
Which? also received reports from more than 500 members of the public about their experiences with care home contracts. Only around a half said the provider checked if they understood the document they signed.
One family explained how they were hit with a tripling of fees overnight because their loved one had dementia – and the manager claimed the rise was covered in their contract.
Alex Hayman, of Which?, said: ‘It’s unacceptable that care homes are making it difficult for people to get hold of contracts and the terms and conditions they are signing up to when making such an important life decision.
Which? has called on the Government to strengthen consumer protections for residents and relatives including on contracts, unfair fees and evictions (file photo)
‘Far too many care home residents are hit with unexpected fees or contract terms, which can have far-reaching and devastating consequences for vulnerable people and their families at an already distressing time.’
The Which? findings come days before a deadline for the Government to respond to last November’s Competition and Markets Authority’s damning care home market study.
The CMA raised concerns about care homes failing to provide contracts and warned that they risk breaking consumer law; either by failing to give residents and families enough time to read contracts, or by only giving them a contract after they have moved in, or by failing to let them see it at all.
Which? called on the Government to strengthen consumer protections for residents and relatives including on contracts, unfair fees and evictions.
One family explained how they were hit with a tripling of fees overnight because their loved one had dementia (file photo)
It contacted 50 homes for its study, but only four provided the information. The other 46 homes refused to send a sample contract, in many cases urging Which? investigators to visit or directing them to websites that did not provide the information.
One relative told the watchdog: ‘I was only given the contract to sign after my mother moved in, which I only signed not accepting a particular clause.
‘They charged for the room at full rates for 30 days after someone dies. I had previously asked if there were any exit/vacation charges and had been told “No”.’
Another said: ‘The day after [Dad’s] death, when I asked the home owner about the fees for that month and whether we would get any money back (around £3,500 per month), I was told that we would not, as the contract that we signed said that at whatever point in the month a resident dies, there will be no refund for the rest of that month.
‘Even though we were prepared to fully clear his room that day, we never received a penny back. Upset from just losing Dad, I was not in a fit state to challenge her on this.
‘Dad or I must have signed a contract for his admission, though I don’t remember doing so, as the time of crisis that had led to us finding him a place in a home he could afford was so stressful.’
Another person told the watchdog: ‘The manager said, due to the type of dementia, she would have to place our friend on 24/7 one-to-one care at a cost of £15 per hour.
‘The bills went up from £4,000 per month to over £15,000. We protested but were told that we had signed an agreement saying this could be done. It gave no indication of the costs involved.’