Nothing lasts forever, it is said. Many residents in care and nursing homes sleep easy in their beds each night, believing they can stay in that home until they die. But burgeoning administrative burdens on care providers, and the increased financial costs of complying with the recently implemented legislation, have had a crippling effect on many care homes. This raft of changes has meant that, for some providers, closure is the only option.

But closing a home is not simply a case of nailing the shutters tight and dismantling the flatpacks. Home owners have a vast array of responsibilities and obligations towards their residents and staff, and duties under the Care Standards Act 2000, all of which have to be addressed and complied with. Many of the procedures to which home owners are subject involve periods of consultation, and home owners should bear these in mind before they embark on closure.

People will normally occupy homes on the basis of a residential licence, although increasingly there is a desire to give residents the greater security in law offered by a tenancy. So home owners also need to consider how court orders are to be obtained, as well as the amount of any compensation for home loss or disturbance that may be payable. Obtaining court orders for possession can be costly and time-consuming.

Home owners will also have to assess whether suitable alternative accommodation is available for each resident. To do this effectively, home owners must take into account individual care needs, as well as the location of the new home, the type of tenure, and the wishes of the resident's next of kin.

Timing is essential in the home closure process and a home owner must bear it in mind, especially in deciding when to tell the residents about impending home closure. For many residents, this will be a distressing ordeal. Tabloid newspapers have recently been full of stories about residents who have fought tooth and nail to stay put, engaging in hunger strikes and commencing legal battles through the courts. Obviously there is a risk when closing a home that tensions will run high. But this, in itself, is not a reason to keep information from residents. Recent case law has established that any consultation with residents can commence after a firm decision has been made, but should always include "full and frank" disclosure by the home owner. This disclosure should include information regarding any new home or alternative accommodation on offer.

The Care Home Regulations expand the requirement on home owners to disseminate information, and oblige them to inform the resident of the termination of their accommodation, as well as the person who seems to be their next of kin. Where the local authority has arranged for the provision of accommodation for residents, they will also need to be informed of any termination. Home owners also need to inform the National Care Standards Commission, as any home closure will inevitably entail the cancellation of a home's registration under the Care Standards Act.

When closing homes, owners also have responsibilities towards their staff. While larger care providers may have the choice to redeploy staff on different sites when one of their homes is being closed, often the only option for many care providers is redundancy, which requires them to follow certain procedures.

Redundancy is a statutorily defined term, and, to comply with the relevant employment law, the employer must ensure any redundancy dismissals are carried out fairly. Failure on the part of the home owner to carry out a "fair" selection process means risking severe financial penalties of up to 90 days' pay for each affected employee. Employers have a duty to undertake a consultation procedure with staff, fairly select employees for redundancy, and consider whether there is any other suitable alternative employment for them.

So yet again, a home owner must consult - this time with their employees. Timing is of the essence, and all consultation should start in "good time". The length of the consultation period varies between one and three months depending on the number of employees involved. This means that redundancy is not a quick-fix option; in most cases there will be a minimum period of consultation and negotiation. If more than 20 employees are being made redundant - which includes all positions at the home, from the home manager to chief washer-up - the Department of Trade and Industry must be informed of the proposed redundancy plans. Failure to do this attracts criminal sanctions.

Throughout the whole of the redundancy process the employer must act "fairly"'. This includes choosing objective criteria for the selection of redundant employees. Such criteria could include length of service, experience and efficiency. Selection must not be discriminatory, and employers should avoid choosing criteria based on sex, disability and race. This is a potential minefield for the employer, as, for example, an employee's performance may well be affected by disability. Therefore, employers are well advised that even seemingly objective criteria must not be blindly applied without careful consideration in each individual case.

Home owners must also bear in mind the controversial issue of promising residents a "home for life". Many occupancy agreements or literature handed to residents when they move into a home have given them such an assurance. Where residents have relied on verbal assurances given by staff, the courts have been reluctant to find that a promise of a home for life exists, and have decided that it is the resident who has to prove that they have been given such a promise. A resident must prove this with sufficient clarity and certainty. Additionally, they must show that the consultation process undertaken by the home owner before the closure was inadequate.

Recently, residents have been battling in the courts, claiming that their human rights and, more specifically, their right to respect for their home, have been interfered with by the proposed closure of their home. However, because a person's right to a home is not absolute and can, in some cases, be legitimately interfered with, closure remains a possibility. The courts have also considered how far the Human Rights Act 1998 might apply in these circumstances, and whether a private home owner who provides care and accommodation for people placed by a local authority or an NHS Trust is carrying out a public function, and is thereby covered by these provisions of the act. Whether the act is relevant will depend on the circumstances of any particular case.

All this shows that care home owners should plan any home closure with military precision. They should put in place procedures that manage the expectations of all parties involved. Consultation is key, with the exchange of information between the parties involved being an essential part of the process.

Home owners should also revise any current literature, brochures, staff training and residency contracts to ensure that residents are not under the false expectation when entering the home that they can stay there for ever. This, in turn, may decrease the casualties of a "broken home".

Rosemary Hart is partner and head of the Trowers & Hamlins Care Group.