Two siblings face imminent eviction due to care home closure: A race against time and a local authority lacking urgency

By Amanda Hill, 3rd November 2026

There’s a shocking new development in this case.

Two siblings, AA and BB, have lived together almost all their lives and now reside in the same care home. At a hearing on 11^th September 2026 (blogged here) all parties agreed that it was in the best interests of the two siblings to live together. One had been facing eviction.

But now in a completely unexpected development announced on 15^th September 2026, just four days after that hearing, it turns out that both siblings will be evicted. The new owners of the small care home the siblings live in have announced that they will be closing the care home in a few short weeks. A new home has to be found for the siblings, urgently.

This new development was reported at the latest hearing in these joined cases (COP 20005457 and COP 20031247) before DJ Clarke at First Avenue House, which I observed in person on Friday 30^th October 2026.

One would think that in this situation, the local authority, the London Borough of Haringey, would pull out all the stops to find somewhere new for the siblings to live. The process is not easy. Not only are there two vulnerable people involved, each with their own care needs, but there are geographical constraints. A family member of the siblings, who has Lasting Power of Attorney for both Health and Welfare and Property and Affairs, is heavily involved in supporting them. Indeed, the judge said at the hearing that the local authority actually relies on the support of the family member, including taking one of the siblings to medical appointments. The new home has to be near the family member for that to continue. The Local Authority has cost constraints. Another constraint is that the new home must have a CQC registration or rating.

Once a potential placement has been identified, assessments need to be done to ensure that the placement can meet the needs of the siblings. And once they have been offered a place, the Local Authority has to approve the new placement.

And yet here we are at the beginning of November, with little time remaining before the home closes, and nothing has been arranged. As the judge said to the local authority during this hearing, the siblings “deserve to have a proper transition, which leaves you less time”.

The “Gardner documents” ^[1] I received shortly before the start of the hearing shed some light on what has happened since the closure of the current home was announced.

The family member has been frantically searching for a new provider herself and identified some possibilities. But she clearly felt she wasn’t getting a quick enough response from the LA. On 5th October 2026, the family member (a Litigant in Person) filed an urgent COP9 application “raising serious concerns about the LA’s conduct of the placement search and its alleged failure to follow-up on the six potential placements she had identified and brought to its attention, thereby losing valuable time in securing a viable options for the two [siblings].^[2]

At a Round Table Meeting on 27th October, the LA explained that the “search remains constrained” by issues of cost, geographical proximity to the family member, CQC registration and the availability of suitable accommodation,  and they were considering looking further afield.

Each sibling is represented by their own litigation friend via the Official Solicitor. Each raised concerns about progress at the Round Table Meeting, including “delays in progressing assessments, the exclusion of placements above the local authority’s financial benchmark and the absence of a clear timetable for decision-making and transition”.

Although a number of issues were identified for the hearing, there was really only one issue addressed:  the need to progress the search for a new placement with the utmost urgency.

In the remainder of this blog, I will focus on the role of each participant in the search process before making final reflections.

The role of the family member in the search

Since the announcement that the care home was closing, the family member has clearly been making strenuous efforts to find a new placement for the siblings. But, as the judge stated during the hearing, the siblings are not self-funding their care and so the choice is not theirs, nor is it the choice of the LPA acting on their behalves. The local authority makes the decision and commissions the care. Having identified possible providers, the family member has to wait for the local authority to act. It seems as though rather than facilitating the search, there have been barriers to progress because of the LA. One placement had been lost due to a lack of action by the local authority. Another had been lost as the provider seemingly did not want to work with the London Borough of Haringey: this led the judge to remark that was a “damning view of Haringey”.

Another barrier to progress has been a lack of a clear communication route for the family member with the local authority. A key social worker involved in the process had been absent on leave due to a bereavement, which the judge said they couldn’t be criticised for. But the family member was not given another point of contact in their absence and is still struggling with communication with the LA.  The Litigation Friend for BB^[3] stated that the family member should have a named person, but not the social worker; somebody who could respond quickly. He made the novel suggestion during the hearing of setting up a WhatsApp group including the family member, to facilitate communication.

The family member has also been proactive in applying to the court, and providing evidence of how the search has been progressing. This proved key in this hearing. For example, there was a discrepancy between the social worker’s statement about a potential provider and the family member’s. The social worker’s account stated that there were no places at a particular provider identified by the family member. However, the judge pointed out to Counsel for the LA, Rebecca Davies, that the family member’s evidence included recent emails from the potential provider that they have already done assessments on the siblings and were asking for more information which had not been responded to, indicating they did have places for the siblings.

The contrasting efforts made by the family member and the local authority reminded me of a comment Mrs Justice Lieven made about a family member in a different hearing I observed recently: “it’s their real life, it’s just our job”^[4]. Professionals involved in cases like this do not have to live with the long term consequences of decisions made, unlike the family members. This is a possible explanation for the different degrees of urgency.

Counsel for the LA acknowledged the distress for the family member and said she was grateful that they were involved as “we don’t often have family members to speak for their family” and she acknowledged the value in that.^[5]

The role of the London Borough of Haringey

Despite the efforts of the family member, it is the London Borough of Haringey that commissions and pays for the siblings’ care. And their priorities are different. One reason why placements proposed by the family member were not being considered was cost. The placement which was the subject of the “discrepancy” between accounts was, according to Counsel for the LA “more expensive than usual and funding is an issue to compare to other places”. The judges’ reply was that she hoped suitability was an issue too.

The placement which was the subject of the discrepancy was not CQC registered, to which somebody commented “it is”, and then the LA Counsel corrected herself to say that the LA has a policy not to place people in homes that do not have a CQC “rating” (due to not having been inspected). Another possible placement was also “not CQC registered” to which the judge replied that that was because they hadn’t opened yet.

The case summary referred to the local authority reviewing concerns about delays with “Brokerage”. I hadn’t heard of this before but a search online revealed that, for Residential and Nursing care placements in the London Borough of Haringey^:“Residential and nursing care placements are commissioned on a spot contract basis via Adam’s Dynamic Purchasing System [DPS]. If a framework provider is unable to deliver a service, Brokerage can identify a provider outside of the Framework and commission a spot contract.”^[6]

This internal process does not seem to be adapted to an urgent search for vulnerable people with very specific requirements.

All in all, the LA has not acted with sufficient urgency, for a variety of reasons.

The role of the Litigation Friends

Only one of the three legal representatives was the same as in the previous hearing I’d observed, and that was Tutku Bektas who represented AA by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. This continuity proved important. She told the court that she was the only Counsel who had been at the Round Table Meeting and recounted how when Brokerage were mentioned, that had “got a laugh” from the LA. Counsel for AA appeared shocked by this and she informed them that she wanted a focus on “collaboration” and that although some of the places being proposed “might be more expensive” there should be compromise about funding and the CQC. She wanted a clear explanation for why two of the providers were not being considered. She acknowledged that the court could not direct the London Borough of Haringey to commission a particular provider but she said the court could be “robust”.

This exchanged confirmed to me that the LA seemed to be mainly focussed on cost above other considerations.

Counsel for BB expressed grave concerns about the risks to the siblings of a placement not being found. Options were “falling away” and he was blunt in his assessment of the situation: “if ever there was a priority, this is one …the siblings could be placed in hospital and the impact would be devastating for them”.

He also outlined the role of the litigation friend in helping the family member. He told the court that they had helped her draw together her material, and could act as a “conduit” due to the “overwhelming” information. I also noticed that Counsel for AA was sitting right next to the family member, which is unusual. The family member cut less of a lone figure in this hearing compared to the previous one I’d observed.

The role of the court

The family member had applied to the court to get things moving. But the court has limited powers – it cannot order the LA to commission a provider. I did see the judge being robust, though. She had read all the papers and focussed on moving things forward. She stated, “I can direct them to provide information about how they have taken their decisions ….even if I can’t direct what they commission”.

She also said that she was considering listing future hearings for the 4^th and 11^th of November so that the court could keep what needs to be done “under consideration”. She remarked on the fact that the family member was not given a person to be in contact with when the Social Worker was absent. There was a failure to respond to the family member’s inability to contact appropriate people, and “her concerns were not being dealt with”. The judge said that she was considering “whether somebody more senior who can make decisions…from Brokerage or the Head of Social Services should attend the hearing”.

She stated she was “exceedingly concerned about this case” because “there is an incredibly strong bond between these individuals that has to be preserved whatever happens and there is nothing in the [LA] documents about how contact will be preserved.”

The family member voiced her concern that there were no sanctions for the LA and that “mistakes keep happening”.

The judge replied: “Let me be clear. There may be no sanctions…but the concerns you have raised lead me to consider more senior people attending court, people who make decisions. Haringey may not like that, but I will only have them here to make progress. I understand your increasing frustrations [about the placement that was lost]……. we have to focus on moving forward”.

The judge asked Counsel for the LA to seek instructions about two of the placements, whether or not they can be commissioned and what the LA contingency plan is if there are no placements arranged when the care home closes. The hearing was adjourned for 15 minutes.  Unfortunately, I had to leave the hearing at this point, so I don’t know what the final outcomes were. 

Final reflections

This case displays the limits of the Court of Protection, the immense pressure on social services, and the harm being caused to vulnerable people. And although the LA seems to be focussed on the financial cost of future care for the siblings, there are emotional and psychological costs too – for the siblings having to move, as well as for the family member trying to sort things out. The judge acknowledged how “stressful it must be for her”. And of course there is a substantial financial cost to the taxpayer of all the potential hearings resulting from the LA dragging its heels.

I hope that a suitable new home for these siblings is identified in time to allow an orderly transition, as I can only imagine how distressing this move will be for them. And I sincerely hope that they don’t end up in hospital as a backstop contingency.

Amanda Hill is a PhD student at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University. Her research focuses on the Court of Protection, exploring family experiences, media representations and social media activism. She is a core team member of OJCOP. She is also a daughter of a P in a Court of Protection case and has been a Litigant in Person. She can be contacted on LinkedIn (here).

Endnotes

[1] Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Gardner (Deceased) [2026] EWCA Civ 640, observers can request three documents (listed at PD4B para.4.2(a)-(c) COPR 2017), which are now commonly referred to as the “Gardner Documents”. These are the case summary, a chronology of relevant events, and the issues for determination at the hearing. I asked for these at the reception desk of First Avenue House, and the judge agreed I could have them, as she did at the last hearing. I am grateful to the LA legal team for providing these to me so I could read them before the hearing.

[2] In the blogs about this case, we have disguised certain details to limit the risk of jigsaw identification of the protected parties

[3] A Mr Slater, but I didn’t catch his first name

[4] COP 13630253  before Lieven RCJ  Tuesday 15th September 2026

[5] I was surprised by this comment, as I observe a lot of hearings where a family member is there to speak for their family, but it’s rarer that their value is acknowledged.

[6] Source: https://haringeyadults.trixonline.co.uk/chapter/commissioning-and-brokerage-procedures#residential-and-nursing-care-placements