On this basis, the CQC launched enforcement action against Admiral Court Care Home, banning the home from taking more residents and helped the residents obtain alternative accommodation. CQC case study extracted from British Institute of Human Rights blog.99 Raising human rights directly with public authorities leading to changes ‘behind the scenes’ • An NHS nursing home in London had a practice of routinely placing residents in special ‘tilt-back’ wheelchairs, regardless of their mobility needs. As a consequence, residents who were able to walk unaided were stopped from doing so. This had a severe impact on their ability to make choices about everyday activities, as well as their capacity to feed themselves and use the bathroom. A consultant pointed out to staff that their failure to consider the different mobility needs of individual residents was contrary to human rights principles. She drew particular attention to the right to respect for private life (Article 8), which emphasises the importance of dignity and autonomy, and the right not to be treated in a degrading manner (Article 3). The blanket practice was stopped as a result. Residents who could walk were taken out of the chairs and encouraged to maintain their walking skills. • A disabled woman was told by her occupational therapy department that she needed a special (‘profile’) bed. She was unable to leave her bed and this new arrangement would allow carers to give her bed baths. She requested a double bed so that she could continue to sleep next to her husband. The authority refused her request, even though she offered to pay the difference in cost between a single and double bed. A stalemate ensued for 18 months until the woman was advised by the Disability Law Centre to invoke 84 her right to respect for private and family life. Within three hours of putting this argument to the authority, it found enough money to buy the whole of her double profile bed. The woman later explained that ‘[this] has made a phenomenal difference to my life. If something similar happened in future, I would have no hesitation in using the [Human Rights Act] again.’ • A couple in the UK were living in an assessment centre so the Department of Social Services could examine their parenting skills. The couple both had learning disabilities. CCTV cameras had been installed, including in their bedroom. Social workers explained that the cameras were there to observe them performing their parental duties and for the protection of their baby. With the help of an advocate, the couple used the UK’s Human Rights Act to challenge the use of the cameras. They said that the Department had not given proper consideration to their right to family and private life. The couple explained that they did not want their intimacy to be monitored. Besides, the baby slept in a separate nursery so it was not necessary to monitor the couple in their bedroom at night. As a result, the Department agreed to switch off the cameras during the night so that the couple could enjoy their evenings together in privacy. • A physical disabilities team at a local authority had a policy of providing support to service users who wanted to participate in social activities. A gay man asked if a support worker could accompany him to a gay pub. His request was denied even though other heterosexual service users were regularly supported to attend pubs and clubs of their choice. During a human rights training session, the man’s advocate realised that the man could invoke his right to respect for private life and his right not