Care fees should be clear before the signature

Read the older advice in its current context

The CMA’s case page links revised advice issued in December 2021 for UK care homes for older people. It also warns that the document predates the unfair-commercial-practices provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which came into force on 6 April 2025.

The CMA explains that the newer provisions contain broadly similar prohibitions against unfair and misleading commercial practices, while linking further guidance on the differences. A provider should use that current material and obtain an informed review of its documents, rather than treating a historic template as permanently approved.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides a separate context for consumer contracts. This article does not decide whether an individual clause is enforceable. That requires examination of its wording, the circumstances and applicable law by a suitable adviser.

Make the total commitment visible

Our practical recommendation is to place the standard fee, what it includes and any additional charges together in the information given to a prospective resident. Explain when the assessed offer may differ from an advertised indication. Staff should know which matters remain subject to assessment.

Check whether families can distinguish a deposit, an advance payment and a separate charge. Give each amount a clear description, explain the circumstances in which it is payable and ensure the contract reflects the explanation. Do not rely on a later signature to correct a misleading earlier impression.

Ask someone unfamiliar with the sales process to follow a sample enquiry through the website, telephone response and documents. This is an editorial quality check, not a substitute for legal review. Record inconsistencies and name the person responsible for correcting them.

Explain review mechanisms before they are used

A resident needs to understand how an ordinary fee review differs from a change associated with assessed needs. Avoid a broad statement that fees may change where the supporting process and limits remain unclear. The legally appropriate mechanism should be reviewed by an adviser.

The operational record should identify the reason for a proposed change, the evidence supporting it, the contract provision being relied upon and the communication route. Where care needs change, involve the appropriate assessment process rather than allowing a billing change to substitute for a care review.

Provide a clear opportunity for questions and a route to challenge or complain. Do not promise that an inflation measure alone settles every fee question. Nor should a provider assume that a resident’s relative has authority to agree a variation simply because that person is the familiar contact.

Give staff a consistent explanation

The person taking an enquiry may not be the person preparing the contract or discussing a later increase. Create a current information pack and retire superseded versions. Make it clear who can explain an unusual charge and who must approve a change to the standard documents.

Use realistic internal scenarios: a prospective resident requests a price before assessment, a family asks whether an optional service is essential, or an existing resident queries the review mechanism. The purpose is to find inconsistent explanations before they reach a difficult live conversation.

Keep records of the information actually provided and its date. Evidence of a consistent process helps a provider investigate a complaint, but it does not by itself demonstrate legal compliance. Review the substance of the explanation as well as whether a checklist was completed.

Treat clarity as a continuing relationship

Financial information should remain accessible after admission. Identify how the resident receives explanations in a form they can understand and how an authorised representative is involved where appropriate. Communication needs may change, so the original admission arrangement should not be assumed sufficient forever.

Review themes from fee enquiries and complaints alongside the contract review. Repeated questions about an extra charge may reveal an unclear description. A reduction in questions alone does not establish improved understanding; ask people what they think the arrangement means.

The practical outcome is a defensible, consistent conversation supported by current documents. It can reduce avoidable uncertainty for residents and staff, while giving the provider a clearer basis for explaining the service it offers and the financial commitment involved.

Choose a review owner who can connect marketing, admissions, finance and the registered manager. An isolated contract review can miss an outdated website description; a refreshed website can leave old printed packs in circulation. Set a version date and make replacement practical for the staff using the information. Where a material inconsistency is found, ask an appropriate adviser what correction and communication are required. Do not simply change the wording and assume everyone already affected has understood the revised position.