The background which led to Pembrokeshire County Council losing two high profile judicial reviews over payments to care homes will be discussed publicly for the first time today (Monday).

Since 2010 the council has been at loggerheads with owners of a number of county care homes who were fighting for higher payments. Several homes feared they might have to close if payments were not increased.

A report outlining the legal hearings and history of the case will be discussed by cabinet members on Monday.

It is not known if the report will then be brought to full council for consideration.

In the first judicial review hearing in December 2010 errors in the calculation of payment rates were admitted and the council was ordered to re-examine the amount it paid for care services, with fees later raised from £390 per resident per week to £448.

This would cost an additional £1.5million, council leader Cllr John Davies said at the time.

Following a Freedom of Information request by the Western Telegraph, the council’s costs of the first judicial review were revealed to be more than a quarter of a million pounds.

The council paid out £278,000 which included a back payment of £69,506 ordered by the court, plus an interim payment of £24,784 made during the case.

As well as its own costs, the authority also had to pay £106,000 of claimants’ costs, £85,000 of which was ordered by the court plus £21,000 agreed by the parties.

Last month a second judicial review again found in the homes’ favour, ordering the council to review the payments once again.

County councillor Viv Stoddart, who has twice called for a special enquiry into the process, said it was significant that questions about costs remained unanswered in the report for cabinet.

“Who exactly were the senior officers who decided to fight the first judicial review, and then to fight this second costly court case?” she said.

“What role did the then Chief Officers Management Board (COMB) have in deciding to press ahead, when for two years the council had been warned that their calculations on setting care home fees were wrong?

“It would seem from the outcome of this recent judicial review that the council’s highly-paid directors and their even more highly-paid consultants once again got their sums wrong.

“Under the current delegation regime, councillors have been kept in the dark about how officers arrived at the controversial decision to fight not just one court case, but two.

“The council’s directors do have delegated authority, but this does not mean they can act unilaterally.

“As councillors, we have a duty to scrutinise the actions of council managers, but these two judicial reviews exemplify the failure of scrutiny to work effectively.

“Disappointingly, this latest report leaves many of these questions unanswered.”