Elderly patients placed by the Government in private care homes should receive the same protection from human rights laws as they would in public facilities, the House of Lords heard today.

In a case that could affect up to 300,000 people in private care, the law lords will be asked to decide whether a private care home should be considered a public entity in the case of an 84-year-old Alzheimer’s sufferer, identified only as YL.

Under UK law, the provisions of the Human Rights Act apply to public bodies but not to private companies. David Pannick, QC, representing YL, today told the panel of five law lords that the Act should apply in this case because YL’s placement had been funded by Birmingham City Council.

The home, run by Southern Cross Healthcare, attempted to evict YL after accusing her husband and daughter of disturbing behaviour, including breaking a light fitting and being aggressive to staff.

Her case was taken up by the Official Solicitor - the officer called upon to represent people unable to represent themselves - who claimed an eviction would be a violation of her human rights.

In January, the Court of Appeal rejected similar arguments that a private care home is exercising a public function when it looks after people referred to it and funded by the local authority. They said they must follow previous rulings that a private care home could not be classified as a public body.

But they agreed the woman’s case should be referred to the highest court in the land because of its public importance. Her appeal has been backed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

Yogi Amin, a solicitor at Irwin Mitchell acting for YL, said: "Just because a care home is privately run it should not ignore the fact that the resident has been placed there and paid for by a public authority.

"Care homes are undertaking a public function in providing accommodation and caring for some of the most vulnerable people in society. They need to accept the responsibility that goes with it. That responsibility is simply to act reasonably and proportionately.

"It is difficult to understand why care home owners are concerned about accepting that their residents should be afforded the protection of the Human Rights Act in circumstances where decisions are being made which affect their care and residence."

The case has been supported by groups such as the Disability Rights Commission, British Institute of Human Rights, Liberty, Help the Aged and Age Concern.

Anna Fairclough, Liberty's legal officer, said: “To deny an elderly person her rights merely because her care has been contracted out by the Government to a private company is desperately unfair. Human rights are specifically intended to protect the most basic rights of vulnerable people but the current position undermines this safeguard.”

Southern Cross Health Care will argue that it and other private owners of care homes are not undertaking a public function.

The hearing is expected to last three days but a decision could take months.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• ‘Privacy law is not new – we’ve had it since Naomi’s case’
• Why the system fails children at risk
• Future Stars of the Bar 2008