No, not in our view – NOT AT THE LEVEL OF POLICY – ie a stance applied to everyone.
It is one of the great unresolved questions of the era, however, because no council has ever actually allowed itself to be judicially reviewed for imposing this stance on a specific person, with a) the mental capacity to refuse to go into a care home b) a home in which to live where they could be cared for c) needs known to require more than the cost of a care home if they are to be cared for at home d) no relatives to help off-set the cost of the greater periods of alone time at home.
It is a policy that tends to be applied to people who lack mental capacity but who DO have assertive relatives who have an interest in the person being able to live in the community for as long as possible, and who will agree to take a direct payment at an equivalent rate as Authorised Persons for the individual, thereby letting the council off the hook for any foreseeable harm that may arise for want of a lawfully adequate package of care that would actually meet the needs by use of say live in care or a profile of lots of short visits a day.
Councils therefore can and do slip into thinking that it can be done, and even put online that they are doing this in the name of ‘affordable care commissioning’ or that it ‘should’ be lawful because it’s all about the client’s (family’s) ‘choice’ – but in fact when set out as above, it can be seen that it’s in fact all about the council’s choice not to be seen to walk away from a person who is refusing the offer of a care home, or to avoid a fight in the Court of Protection.
You pobably need to read more about this if you are interested to go deeper into the topic: here is where you should start, please. https://cascaidr.org.uk/2017/12/12/can-cap-level-services-provided-home-whatever-cost-way-meeting-needs-alternative-can-think/