Really sorry about your mother. Mine was evicted on the basis that the home couldn't meet her nursing needs. In fact there were many other residents who had similar, if not more intense needs than my mother and the eviction was really something the home had been angling for over a number of months, refusing to accept her back from hospital etc even when deemed by professionals to be suitable for EMI residential.
I blame myself partly for her previous eviction because I was quite persistent in checking on her care. It was me they wanted to be shot of, not her really. I was never rude or out of hand, alway polite and constructive even when sorely provoked and despairing, I thought, but I think the home could not cope with someone keeping so close an eye on them. They were looking for the first opportunity to get rid of her and they did so.
I now feel as if I must bend over backwards not to upset the current home, and that isn't in my mother's best interests either. I don't feel I have any choice however. The trauma of moving her again would be intolerable, but it means that I let things slip which really ought to be picked up on. I 'm treading on eggshells the whole time. I've learnt a bitter lesson and I don't know what the answer is.
I don't actually think the HRA issue will make a whole lot of difference to self-funded residents as I tend to think that there are already a lot of structures: care standards, registration requirements, inspectors around which are supposed to protect all residents of care homes whether self-funded or subsidised and the fear of eviction and lack of alternatives dampens the will to protest, not the absence of HRA provisions. The reality is, I believe, that there is a shortage of care home places which means that a) the inspection services do not impose rigid penalities on home owners because closing homes causes upheaval which cannot easily be managed, and b) relatives know that there isn't much out there by way of alternatives, so they don't complain or rally the inspectors, let alone think about legal action. Even with the Human Rights Act extended ( if that happens) the owners still have the upper hand whilst the market is in their favour. Very few relatives will want to go to the expense and trauma of taking legal action based on their newly found rights because the alternatives are so thin on the ground. Care homes can now and will still be able to argue all sorts of mitigation over evictions and less than impressive care standards, because they know that they still corner a not very competitive market. Sorry to be a wet blanket.
That's my humble view anyway. Others may disagree.