How Can Care Homes Charge Fees After a Death?

Why It Matters

The practice exposes vulnerable families to unexpected costs and tests the effectiveness of UK regulatory bodies tasked with safeguarding residents in a market increasingly dominated by large private operators.

Key Takeaways

• Avery charges 14‑day post‑death fees despite 2018 CMA ruling.
• Upfront £595 (~$756) dilapidation fee demanded before occupancy.
• CMA deems charges beyond three days potentially unlawful.
• Ombudsman records complaints but provides no enforcement statistics.
• Families should review contracts and file complaints over unfair fees.

Pulse Analysis

The re‑emergence of post‑mortem fees at Avery Healthcare underscores a growing regulatory gap in the UK’s residential care market. While the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued a definitive ruling in 2018 that limited post‑death charges to three days and warned against blanket wear‑and‑tear fees, enforcement mechanisms remain weak. Avery’s justification—that extended billing provides families “time and space” after loss—appears more a revenue‑preserving tactic than a consumer‑centric policy, especially given the company’s scale and the Reuben brothers’ multibillion‑dollar backing. This disconnect raises questions about how effectively the CMA can compel compliance when large private operators can leverage legal ambiguities and contractual opacity.

Beyond the immediate financial burden on grieving families, the issue reflects broader industry trends where profit margins increasingly influence care standards. Upfront dilapidation charges, such as the £595 fee (about $756), are levied before any assessment of room condition, effectively shifting risk onto residents and their families. Such practices can erode trust in the sector, prompting calls for stricter oversight and clearer guidance from bodies like the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Although the ombudsman acknowledges the problem, its limited data‑collection and lack of enforcement powers mean many complaints may never translate into systemic change.

For consumers, vigilance is essential. Prospective residents and their families should scrutinize contract clauses, especially those relating to post‑death billing and upfront fees, and seek clarification before signing. Filing complaints with the ombudsman or directly with the CMA can generate pressure, but collective action—such as coordinated advocacy through consumer groups—may be required to drive regulatory reform. As the care home market continues to consolidate under large private owners, transparent pricing and robust consumer protections will be critical to safeguarding vulnerable populations and maintaining public confidence in long‑term care services.