Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think it's unfair to sell your home to fund care when older while others pay nothing.

1000 replies

SonnyHoney · 11/04/2026 16:39

I provide healthcare services to older people, which means I regularly visit care homes. It’s something I find quite upsetting at times. I see individuals who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and are now facing care home fees of around £2,000 a week.

Meanwhile, others are living in the same care homes with their costs largely covered, aside from a contribution from their pension.

I say this as someone from a working-class background and daughter of an immigrant (El salvador) who has had to work incredibly hard to get to where I am financially. I’m also very aware that one day my own parents may have to sell their home to fund their care.
My mum, for example, has run a cleaning business for years, she’s up early every morning and has worked long, physically demanding hours. She hopes to pass something on, but realistically, I feel it will likely be used to cover care costs .

Before anyone says “Why don’t you just care for her yourself and keep the house?” And of course, if I’m in a position to do that, I will. But the reality is that with older age, there can come a point where needs become too complex, and care at home is no longer possible.

Obviously, those who don't have houses to sell need care and have to go to a care home, but my point is it just feels unfair, really.

OP posts:
Crudd99 · 11/04/2026 18:26

CIaudetheCat · 11/04/2026 18:16

The whole social care sector needs someone to sort it out

You are not wrong there. But governments of all stripes have kicked that can down the road.

That's why the government's of all stripes are pushing for euthanasia. It will be voluntary at first and then then the patients with dementias will be next.
Look how they put DNRs on elderly and disabled patients in care homes without their consent during covid.
Those who are reliant on the tax payer first to save the councils and government money. It's coming.

LouH1981 · 11/04/2026 18:26

Tableforjoan · 11/04/2026 16:53

What I think is more unfair from What I’ve been told is that some care situations are covered via nhs regardless because of medical condition while others are not regardless of property or savings.

Also for 2k a week the services are very bloody lacking.

A school mum works in the kitchen at a care home and those residents get no choices all that money and it’s just basically school meals. For 2k a week I want a menu I actually like and I don’t want to be told dinner is 4pm either.

Agreed, so my Dad had Early Onset Alzheimer’s and went in to a care home at 64.
His was fully funded and I believe, if I remember correctly, it was because he could do nothing at all for himself. He was incontinent, couldn’t speak, couldn’t walk etc.
But I saw relatives of other dementia patients, not only dealing with watching their loved ones suffer with such a wicked disease but also face losing their home. It’s just awful. And as you quite rightly point out, it’s not as if they all receive the level of care you would expect for such a large sum of money. There was one carer at night time per floor, who was expected to look after 15 or so residents alone.
My Mum and I visited every day to feed my Dad and put him to bed but the things we saw were shocking. It’s a terrible system.

nevernotmaybe · 11/04/2026 18:27

JudgeJ · 11/04/2026 18:21

I think that the point being made is that the person who is diligent and buys a house is expected to pay that money into their care whereas the person, maybe on the same income, who chooses to piss it away all their life is state funded. From my own memory of teaching where we all knew roughly what each other earned there were vastly different attitudes to self responsibility and the ones who are careful through their lives always finish up funding the wastrels.

They magically managed to not pay tent all their lives? Now there's an interesting trick. You should let us all know how to do that!

Motheranddaughter · 11/04/2026 18:27

My mother’s house was sold to pay for her care
She is well looked after and I have peace of mind
For 18 months prior to this my sister and I stayed alternate nights
Not because of the money but because she wanted to stay at home
I don’t think about the money,it is her money and is being spent on her care

Nicewoman · 11/04/2026 18:28

SonnyHoney · 11/04/2026 16:39

I provide healthcare services to older people, which means I regularly visit care homes. It’s something I find quite upsetting at times. I see individuals who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and are now facing care home fees of around £2,000 a week.

Meanwhile, others are living in the same care homes with their costs largely covered, aside from a contribution from their pension.

I say this as someone from a working-class background and daughter of an immigrant (El salvador) who has had to work incredibly hard to get to where I am financially. I’m also very aware that one day my own parents may have to sell their home to fund their care.
My mum, for example, has run a cleaning business for years, she’s up early every morning and has worked long, physically demanding hours. She hopes to pass something on, but realistically, I feel it will likely be used to cover care costs .

Before anyone says “Why don’t you just care for her yourself and keep the house?” And of course, if I’m in a position to do that, I will. But the reality is that with older age, there can come a point where needs become too complex, and care at home is no longer possible.

Obviously, those who don't have houses to sell need care and have to go to a care home, but my point is it just feels unfair, really.

Hang on!! Don’t assume everyone old needs a care home!!! Both grandparents had sudden heart attacks and died. They lived in their own homes the whole time. Likewise the other set of grandparents aged 80 and 75 sudden strokes and heart attacks and died instantly, all lived in their own homes. They paid for cleaners & kids did the weekly shop & sorted out the bills. No care homes involved. All those elderly still had their faculties.

Not all old people need care homes. Why should the elderly who don’t need care homes, fund care for those who do?

in all instances, it should be the kids who retain that choice - either pay up if you aren’t prepared to look after your own parents, or sacrifice your time to look after your own parents.

my only wish is that this situation is heavily discussed in schools, so teenagers understand there’s no free ride, financial responsibility, pensions, what to expect in relationships I.e not putting up with domestic violence, etc, scam alerts, community responsibility, ie reporting criminal acts, picking up litter, as part of compulsory citizenship classes.

Because this isn’t done, people seem to get a rude awakening at 50 when it suddenly dawns on them who is going to look after them after decades of hedonism and selfish behaviour being condoned.

CIaudetheCat · 11/04/2026 18:29

JaspersCarrott · 11/04/2026 18:24

Onemoremakesthree's post also says

Had they not have rented their house, mum would have had the exact same care for free and dad would still be living in the ‘home’ they shared

I took that to be a typo to say that had they rented the Mum would have got the care "for free". Which implies she didn't get the care "for free"? Anyway, unless @Onemoremakesthree comes back to clarify, we won't know. Which is a shame as if the LA has acted illegally, it will have a case to answer and be in deep shit.

Gloriia · 11/04/2026 18:29

Motheranddaughter · 11/04/2026 18:27

My mother’s house was sold to pay for her care
She is well looked after and I have peace of mind
For 18 months prior to this my sister and I stayed alternate nights
Not because of the money but because she wanted to stay at home
I don’t think about the money,it is her money and is being spent on her care

She would be getting exactly the same care if she didn't have a house to sell. It was her money, not the council's.
Our lifetime of taxes should pay for health and social care not our personal belongings.

ObelixtheGaul · 11/04/2026 18:30

Monty36 · 11/04/2026 18:14

It might help if the Care Quality Commission were up to scratch. They aren’t.
Cut and paste reviews for care homes ( self funded ones) and you cannot tell the difference between them. When I read a report I expect to almost know which care home they are talking about. And boy, self funded can be very different in standards.
I have to say I wasn’t impressed by any self funded homes I have seen. Talk a lot about providing this and that. Brochures with pictures of rooms that are vastly different from the one your parent ends up in. I could write a long list.

The whole social care sector needs someone to sort it out.

I worked in a private nursing home in the 90s. It was an absolute racket. I have since met people who made their not inconsiderable wealth out of that 'industry'. We had to have fundraising events for new equipment, whilst the owners turned up periodically in a Bentley with a personalised number plate. Apart from the registered nurses, none of us carers underwent any formal training even in lifting and handling.

Patients had bruises from poor lifting technique, there was only one hoist in the whole building.

It's better regulated than it was, but it still isn't enough. I am hoping I will be able to spare my own parents that.

suburburban · 11/04/2026 18:30

JudgeJ · 11/04/2026 18:21

I think that the point being made is that the person who is diligent and buys a house is expected to pay that money into their care whereas the person, maybe on the same income, who chooses to piss it away all their life is state funded. From my own memory of teaching where we all knew roughly what each other earned there were vastly different attitudes to self responsibility and the ones who are careful through their lives always finish up funding the wastrels.

Yes

long time ago but I remember one such family pleading poverty when asked to fund a school trip in Y6 but were driving around in a very nice car with the latest reg something didn’t quite add up, always want others to pay for them and plead poverty

PartQualifiedAcca · 11/04/2026 18:31

They sell insurance policies to cover this in the US. I think that needs implementing immediately needed implementing 30 years ago.

Rocknrollstar · 11/04/2026 18:31

Vconcerned1 · 11/04/2026 16:45

So how does it work? I'm intrigued by this. Is it like schools, where you get state run schools and private ones... Private ones are ££££, but the state ones will be means tested as to how much you pay?

There are no state nursing homes any more. If you cant afford to pay they will try to keep you at home with carers popping in and out. If you really need a nursing home, social services will decide which one to put you in and take your pension. If you have savings over £23k you get no help. Our local borough will not pay unless you have dementia.

GlobalTravellerbutespeciallyBognor · 11/04/2026 18:32

Of course it’s horribly unfair for the following reasons:

  1. If you have eg dementia, it isn’t covered while other medical conditions are treated in the NHS;
  2. Self funders subsidise council funded people (max ceiling paid) in the CH;
  3. People with huge houses can har much cheaper live in help more easily;
  4. It creates perverse incentives to give away houses to children and thereby deprive the state of IHT; and the big one
  5. It reduces motivation to work and be productive which our society can ill afford.

Hearing stories from the guy sitting next to you about how clever he is to have avoided paying £2200 per week must be absolutely soul destroying for elderly people who have worked all their lives in the hope and expectation of leaving their families something and ensuring they have easier lives. They haven’t worked to give CH operators easier lives. As usual it’s the strivers who are trying to make something of themselves who get hammered by the policy. It holds back social mobility within the middle class as a result.

Northernlights19 · 11/04/2026 18:32

Tableforjoan · 11/04/2026 18:09

And no offence to people who work in care as I have friends who do but honestly it’s minimum care. 2k private or 2k council. It’s as little as they can get away with selling you.

You see I struggle with this as I work in care, have done for 15 years and we work so hard, extra unpaid time on top of 12.5hr shifts, dealing with very difficult situations, sitting with people as they die because they've no family or family only care when they can get the rest of their money, being attacked in some care settings etc. However, on a personal level for the residents, it does seem like "minimal care" for what they should be getting, privately funded or not, every human deserves the best care in their final years. However, we work on the fewest staff the owners can legally get away with, there isn't enough time to just "be" with residents. We'd love to spend more time with them but we already are stretched so thin and we work through our unpaid breaks.

This isn't fair to those requiring care, however much or little they pay for it.

EarthSight · 11/04/2026 18:32

carnivalcat · 11/04/2026 16:55

Totally agree that it’s unfair. Someone that scrimped and saved will end up funding their own care whereas someone who didn’t prepare financially gets it paid for them. The only advantage to being someone with savings is opportunity of choice.

I think it should move to a two tier system similar to healthcare, dentistry & schooling where there is a basic but fit for purpose option which is available universally, and then a private option for those who wish to pay for better.

This is me but in a different situation.

I've saved up since I started working full time in my early 20s.

Unlike almost all of my peers at the time, I saved hard. I didn't go travelling, didn't go to any festivals, had minimal holidays in comparison, hardly drank, didn't have a car, and didn't have any fancy clothes or gadgets or the latest smartphone.

I still can't afford a decent house even now in my late 30s, and I've mostly worked full time for all these years. I can just about afford a scummy one that needs tens of thousands of pounds of work and that has knotweed, but not a normal place that is large and suitable enough for a modern adult.

When I applied for a help to buy local government scheme, I had to fill an incredibly detailed and quite intrusive application form, only to be told at the was told I wasn't entitled to any help at all because I had too much in savings and could technically afford to buy somewhere.

When I pointed out what I've detailed above and that it's effectively an illusion that there's a lot of reasonably priced houses in my area, and that I was single, meaning that all the mortgage payments and other bills would be on me alone, they weren't interested. They do a quick search on RightMove and if they deem you can afford any ,money sink-hole, it's cased closed. I get zero help.

I actually cried down the phone that day at the assessor. What a fool I've been. I should have lived it up in my youth gone travelling, spent it away like so many I knew. Then I'd have very little in savings and could then get some government help. I'm from a working class background, but no one gives a fuck.

nevernotmaybe · 11/04/2026 18:33

PartQualifiedAcca · 11/04/2026 18:31

They sell insurance policies to cover this in the US. I think that needs implementing immediately needed implementing 30 years ago.

Horrific care homes and the poorest in society, both those who cant work and those working, having no ability to afford this is no less fixed in the US. Even remotely.

Dansangry · 11/04/2026 18:34

nevernotmaybe · 11/04/2026 18:15

So you weren't saving for a rainy day, you were saving so you could feel superior and above others in the future.

No. My mother thought she was working and saving for a rainy day (which meant denying herself many little luxuries) but it turned out that those like her cousin who didn’t work or save but spent their money on the luxuries were provided with an identical free umbrella anyway.

HappyTalkingAndLaughing · 11/04/2026 18:34

Q2C4 · 11/04/2026 17:12

Best to own it as tenants in common rather than joint tenants. They the house can’t be sold out from under the remaining spouse.

My parents were Tennants in Common. When Mum passed, her share came to my siblings.... so Dad technically only owns half the house he is in

Nicewoman · 11/04/2026 18:34

SonnyHoney · 11/04/2026 16:39

I provide healthcare services to older people, which means I regularly visit care homes. It’s something I find quite upsetting at times. I see individuals who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and are now facing care home fees of around £2,000 a week.

Meanwhile, others are living in the same care homes with their costs largely covered, aside from a contribution from their pension.

I say this as someone from a working-class background and daughter of an immigrant (El salvador) who has had to work incredibly hard to get to where I am financially. I’m also very aware that one day my own parents may have to sell their home to fund their care.
My mum, for example, has run a cleaning business for years, she’s up early every morning and has worked long, physically demanding hours. She hopes to pass something on, but realistically, I feel it will likely be used to cover care costs .

Before anyone says “Why don’t you just care for her yourself and keep the house?” And of course, if I’m in a position to do that, I will. But the reality is that with older age, there can come a point where needs become too complex, and care at home is no longer possible.

Obviously, those who don't have houses to sell need care and have to go to a care home, but my point is it just feels unfair, really.

All I can say is thank God for the assisted dying act being passed through government.

for those hypocrites who have religious objections, then look after your parents yourself - crickets silence - oh look - nobody wants to look after their own parents anymore, but want the magic tax fairy to miraculously give 24/7 tax funded care to their parents for 30 years costing tens of millions per person.

Oh looky that - want to steal other people’s taxes just because they can’t be bothered looking after their own parents. Got it.

Let’s wait until the whole welfare budget collapses. Then you will ALL have to look after your own parents. Unless you pay of course.

Americasfavouritefightingfrenchman · 11/04/2026 18:34

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 11/04/2026 16:50

We should be paying more in inheritance tax. There is no justification at all in a system that allows a married couple to pass on £1m tax free to their children and grandchildren if it includes their home.

I so agree @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g. if virtually all estates paid significant inheritance tax then everyone with parents who had assets would lose some of them but it would be consistent and distributed across all those with means to fund social care.

EarthSight · 11/04/2026 18:34

Dansangry · 11/04/2026 18:34

No. My mother thought she was working and saving for a rainy day (which meant denying herself many little luxuries) but it turned out that those like her cousin who didn’t work or save but spent their money on the luxuries were provided with an identical free umbrella anyway.

Look at my post above. This is what happened to me. @Dansangry

Humperton · 11/04/2026 18:34

anonymoususer9876 · 11/04/2026 17:49

If people can give up careers to look after family, that is certainly an option. Not many can afford to do so though.

Also, there are possible complex medical reasons for needing care. Dad has dementia and needs 24hr care. He’s doubly incontinent, bed bound (although tries to escape it) but still has lucid moments. He needs more care than family could give him.

That's very fair but if the children cannot afford to care for the parents, then the parents must pay for themselves.

likelysuspect · 11/04/2026 18:35

Stirabout · 11/04/2026 18:18

Compulsory private insurance
Other countries do it

So the person who can afford private insurance pays it, pays all their life and essentially pays for their care that way

The person who cannot afford private insurance (because while you say compulsory, it cant be forced if you dont work or live on benefits or are disabled or whatever, how do you force it?), that person gets their care paid for in the sam way as now

How does that change anything significantly, apart from boosting insurance companies profits as the vast majority of people wont need care, so I'll pay all my life and it will be wasted money

luckylavender · 11/04/2026 18:35

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 11/04/2026 16:49

Virtually everyone has to pay. Obviously if you have no money or other assets you're not left in the street to die. It's sheer luck, or lack of it, who ends up needing care at the end of life. We don't charge for the NHS, so why we charge those unlucky enough to need health and social care is a mystery to me. There should be a specific tax or insurance arrangement so that everybody pays in for the benefit of those who need it, like the NHS. The current set up is grossly unfair.

But the population is ageing so we’d be heaping more costs on the generation coming through.

Tableforjoan · 11/04/2026 18:36

Northernlights19 · 11/04/2026 18:32

You see I struggle with this as I work in care, have done for 15 years and we work so hard, extra unpaid time on top of 12.5hr shifts, dealing with very difficult situations, sitting with people as they die because they've no family or family only care when they can get the rest of their money, being attacked in some care settings etc. However, on a personal level for the residents, it does seem like "minimal care" for what they should be getting, privately funded or not, every human deserves the best care in their final years. However, we work on the fewest staff the owners can legally get away with, there isn't enough time to just "be" with residents. We'd love to spend more time with them but we already are stretched so thin and we work through our unpaid breaks.

This isn't fair to those requiring care, however much or little they pay for it.

I don’t doubt the careers do the best they can.

But the care is still Very lacking for what a decent level of care should be especially for the costs.

Again my friend does kitchen work, a family member was in covid years private private so they went into a care facility to still Provide private care to their one resident, they where still regularly picking up the extras for other residents even though they shouldn’t of been. Even simple
things like cups of tea.

Same in hospitals at the moment. People who have had strokes who want to get back up and going again unless their families are pushing for it are seemingly left to rather rot in their beds rather than the extra care to be able to make the mobile again for those who can.

Stirabout · 11/04/2026 18:36

QueenSophia · 11/04/2026 18:14

Plus a lot of these countries had lower life expectancy until recently. Notably in China, Japan, Korea, India etc there's more women avoiding marriage or trying to avoid caring for PILs for decades (as it's usually dh's parents they care for rather than their own)

I saw a documentary some years ago about the elderly in Japan playing the prison game in their older years as they didn’t have enough to live on and didn’t want to burden family for support

They basically committed a crime like stealing and were put in jail for a while. All free. They are released eventually and do the same again
Whole prisons of elderly people due to lack of elderly support in the state system

Tragic

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.