Cornwall Council Accused of Systemic Misrepresentation in Care Funding and Property Rights

Cornwall Council stands accused of turning care into commerce — demanding unlawful fees and locking families out of their own homes through questionable property cautions. What began as isolated complaints is now emerging as a systemic scandal with national implications.

Families across Cornwall are raising serious concerns about the council’s handling of care home fees and property rights, alleging practices that amount to misrepresentation, unlawful charges, and improper use of land registration cautions. Documents and case histories reviewed by this publication suggest a pattern of behaviour that has left vulnerable households financially exposed and legally constrained.

Care Funding and Misrepresentation

Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities are required to assess needs fairly, provide transparent information about funding, and ensure that individuals are not misled about their financial responsibilities. Yet families report that Cornwall Council has demanded care home fees in circumstances where eligibility rules were misapplied or deliberately obscured. It is illegal for a local authority to provide and/or charge for Nursing Care and has been since 1948.

The Misrepresentation Act 1967 makes clear that false or misleading statements inducing financial obligations can constitute actionable misrepresentation. Campaigners argue that the council’s practices — including presenting fees as unavoidable when statutory guidance suggests otherwise — fall squarely within this definition.

Property Rights and Cautions Against First Registration

Equally troubling are reports of the council placing cautions against first registration on family homes. Under the Land Registration Act 2002, cautions are intended to protect legitimate interests in property. However, legal experts note that councils cannot lawfully use them to secure disputed debts or speculative claims.

Families affected describe these cautions as “illegally obtained,” effectively blocking property transactions and undermining basic rights of ownership. The practice appears to bypass due process, raising questions about whether the council has acted ultra vires — beyond its legal powers.

Guidance Ignored

The issues are not isolated. Over time, Cornwall Council has been accused of disregarding multiple layers of statutory and regulatory guidance:

• National Assistance Act 1948 Established the foundation of the welfare state, making local authorities responsible for providing residential accommodation for those in need. It set the principle that care should be provided based on need, not ability to pay. Section 21 makes it clear that a Local Authority legally cannot provide Nursing Care.

• Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 Strengthened rights for disabled people, requiring councils to provide practical assistance and adaptations. It reinforced the duty of transparency and fairness in how services were delivered.

• NHS and Community Care Act 1990 Introduced the requirement for community care assessments, ensuring individuals had a right to a proper evaluation of their needs before charges or placements were imposed.

• The Coughlan Case (R v North & East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan, 1999) A landmark Court of Appeal judgment confirming that where a person’s primary need is for healthcare, responsibility lies with the NHS, not local authorities. This case remains binding authority, yet families in Cornwall argue the council has ignored its implications by shifting costs unlawfully onto individuals.

• Care Act 2014 statutory guidance on transparency and fair charging

• Local Government Ombudsman principles requiring councils to act lawfully and fairly

• Land Registry practice guides restricting the use of cautions to legitimate claims

• Human Rights Act 1998, particularly Article 1 of Protocol 1, protecting peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Campaigners argue that these breaches are not administrative oversights but systemic failures that have persisted despite repeated challenges.

📅 Case Timeline: How the Dispute Unfolded

Initial Demands for Care Home Fees

• The council first approached the family with demands for care home fees, presenting them as unavoidable obligations.

• At this stage, statutory guidance under the Care Act 2014 required clear financial assessments and transparent communication. Instead, correspondence suggested fees were due regardless of eligibility, raising concerns of misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Escalation and Procedural Breaches

• Repeated requests for itemised breakdowns of costs were ignored.

• Families were left without the transparency mandated by Care Act statutory guidance and Local Government Ombudsman principles.

• This lack of disclosure created evidentiary gaps, making it difficult to challenge the council’s claims.

Property Rights Compromised

• The dispute escalated when the council lodged a caution against first registration on the family home.

• Under the Land Registration Act 2002, cautions are intended to protect legitimate interests, not speculative debts.

• Legal experts argue this action was ultra vires, unlawfully restricting property rights and breaching Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Legal Challenges and Appeals

• Proceedings were initiated in the County Court, challenging both the care home fees and the property caution.

• Skeleton arguments cited statutory breaches, misrepresentation, and unlawful use of land registration mechanisms.

• Appeals were lodged after procedural irregularities in the council’s defence, highlighting systemic failures in accountability.

• Campaigners argue that the problems extend beyond the council itself. Allegations of judicial misconduct have surfaced, with families claiming that judges have repeatedly sided with the council despite clear evidence of statutory breaches. Critics suggest this raises troubling questions about impartiality and the integrity of the judicial process.

  Observers point to instances where courts appeared to overlook binding precedents such as the Coughlan case (1999) and statutory duties under the Care Act 2014, effectively enabling the council’s contested practices. Advocacy groups warn that this undermines public confidence in the justice system, leaving families without meaningful recourse even when the law appears to be on their side.

Wider Scrutiny

• Advocacy groups began documenting similar experiences across Cornwall.

• Evidence suggests this is not an isolated incident but part of a widespread pattern of malpractice, with multiple families reporting unlawful fees and property restrictions.

• Calls for parliamentary and regulatory scrutiny have intensified, framing the dispute as a matter of national concern.

Ongoing Proceedings

Legal challenges are now underway, with cases progressing through the County Court and appeals lodged against the council’s actions. Campaigners are calling for parliamentary scrutiny, arguing that Cornwall Council’s practices highlight a national problem in how care funding and property rights are managed.

Attempts to secure representation have been met with further obstacles. One leading national firm, Duncan Lewis Solicitors, confirmed they lacked capacity to take on the case, directing families instead to the Law Society’s directory. Campaigners argue this illustrates the wider crisis in access to justice: even where councils are accused of clear statutory breaches, families struggle to find legal support to hold them accountable.

As proceedings continue, the central question remains: how many more families have been affected, and what accountability will follow?

Closing Note

This investigation will continue to track developments as cases progress. The allegations against Cornwall Council raise profound questions about transparency, legality, and the protection of vulnerable households — issues that demand urgent public scrutiny.