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

[SonnyHoney]

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.

Yes, I agree. I see the second one as the driver in any decision-making.

My goal is to have a fulfilled life, not the longest one I can possibly live. This will definitely have been influenced by my mother who is independent to a fault, and wants to rely on no-one. The thought of being reliant on family members, or an extended care system, and living a much-diminished quality of life, fills me with dread.

My mother has already started to proactively plan for such circumstances in the future, including giving away a significant amounts of money at the age of 60 so it's unlikely to be hit by retrospective inheritance tax. I do actually fully expect that she will one day end her life through assisted dying, as she has a huge fear of being a practical or financial burden on us.

Actually the 7 years doesn’t apply for social care. The council can look back over any time period to assess deliberate deprivation of assets.

I feel quite strongly about this. My Grandad went into a EMI care home, we could pick a specific one for his needs. Schizophrenia and dementia. I think there was about £10k left when he passed on.

Nobody talks about the benefits of being able to pick your care in a way that suits you.

I take your point, but imo you are ignoring the fact that there is a real issue here.

My mother and her cousin are in the same nursing home. My mother was widowed v young and worked hard and lived frugally all her life, into her 70s, first to support her children and then because she felt she should "save for a rainy day" and also hoped to pass something on to us (despite my sibling and I telling her to spend it and enjoy herself). We haven’t told her that her savings were quickly used up and the proceeds from the sale of her modest semi are being used up to pay for her care, because it would upset her too much.

Her cousin never worked. Her DH had a good job but they rented their home and spent all their money on expensive clothes, new cars, foreign holidays, etc. She had no savings or property so her care is nearly all funded by the LA or whoever it is.

How is that fair?

What is the point of "saving for a rainy day" if you and those who didn’t bother saving end up in the same place? I don’t know what the solution is, but the current situation doesn’t seem right.

But if you don't pay for it, who is going to pay for it?

It'll be the taxed working people who are trying to raise kids on an ever decreasing take home income.

It's not fair that some people get their care funded by the taxpayer and some don't, but the alternative of everyone getting their care funded by the taxpayer is even more unfair.

My mum is self funded in a care home. I fully expect all of her capital to go in meeting the bills but it's her money, not any of ours; she got to choose an exceptional care home which she wouldn't have been able to do if she wasn't paying for it; and the bottom line is that we would much rather her be there with lovely staff, a comfortable room, good food and engaging activities than struggling among at home with carers and us. Someone has to pay for it. Why shouldn't she contribute? The real disgrace is the venture capitalists skimming off as much profit as possible and the staff on minimum wage. (The staff at mum's earn more than minimum wage and it shows in their attitude and the low turnover of staff.) What worries me even more is the same venture capitalists moving into secure placements for children because they can make so much more profit from our local authorities -and ultimately us. If you can charge £30 k upwards per week per child then why not seems to be their attitude.

Yes, another poster pointed this out. My mistake, apparently it's a common misconception so i'm glad you have pointed it out & I apologise for putting incorrect info out there.

😂

Yeah focus on giving others less, rather than the huge corporations earning so much from these care facilities. You want tent cities like America?

The people distracting and extracting huge wealth from our public services love this..they rely on ill educated ‘oh my neighbour should have less than me or nothing’ thinking

Well done

My parents set up a trust fund (lifetime trust) in 2001 and when Dad died his half of the estate was ringfenced for me. Mum eventually moved into a care home in 2024 and was self funding. Had her savings fund run out her home wouldn't have had to have been sold.

It wasn't considered a deprivation of interest.
Lifetime trust avoids deprivation of assets by transferring legal ownership of assets (like a home or savings) from an individual to trustees, making them no longer part of the individual's personal estate, thus protecting them from being included in council care home fee assessments. To be effective, the trust must be established while the person is fit and healthy, and not simply to avoid paying for care.

Estate Planning is a shrewd investment and is sensible if you want your children to benefit after your death.

Quality over quantity of life.

Something people see to forget but would be neglect if it was your dog 🙃

I think government needs to address how those who cba to work (vs those who can't work for health reasons) and those who work minimum wage and scrimp and scrape have a very different life once retired with those who cba working having much more. That's not on at all. On a sliding scale this disparity also affects middle earners too. It's outrageous that workers fund lazy non workers. I really believe that everyone should work for their benefits unless their health prevents them from working.

However when it comes to care, those who have assets should fund it, that should not be a burden on the tax payer. So I think YABU.

Yes. Maybe the cost / service is a big part of the issue

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/mar/28/the-great-care-home-cash-grab-how-private-equity-turned-vulnerable-elderly-people-into-human-atms

Perhaps this a lesson to us all

how should care be funded?

how much are you willing to pay more in tax?

The council funded ones are often nicer and run by decent people.

Also I’d be interested in how many of those who shout their loved ones get better care because of private actually know that no council funded are also in those homes.

Because 9/10 they won’t be fully private. There will be people full funded getting the exact same care and experience for free but the care home won’t tell you that. They won’t say your paying 2k a week while Doris in the next room is council at 1.6k.

I agree - I find most of elderly life and the end of things heartbreaking, whole lives are finished and dismantled. That happens to all, whether you own the home or not though. And people who don't own their own home can also work very hard, they simply don't benefit from it in the same way.

Are you serious
’quality care ‘

They are funding their own basic care along with paying for the care of others in the home
They pay far more than local councils pay

That’s been the system for decades
It’s a disgrace

‘The Care Home Rip-Off: How Self-Funders Are Subsidising Care Home Costs
by Admin
06/03/2025

In the UK, thousands of elderly individuals are unknowingly paying excessive care home fees because they are self-funding their care.
The shocking truth?

Self-funders are subsidising care home costs for those whose fees are covered by local councils. If you’re paying for your own care or have a loved one in a care home, you could be paying 30% to 50% more than someone in the same home receiving government funding.

This is an outrageous and deeply unfair system that punishes those who have worked hard all their lives.

Why Are Self-Funders Subsidising Care Home Costs?

Care homes in the UK operate under a two-tier pricing system. Local authorities negotiate low rates when they fund a resident’s care, but these rates are often well below the actual cost of care. To make up the shortfall, care homes charge self-funding residents much higher fees, effectively

forcing them to subsidise government-funded residents.

The disparity in fees is staggering:

Average council-paid care home rate: £600–£800 per week
Average self-funding rate: £1,200 per week (sometimes as high as £1,600 per week)

Difference: Self-funders pay at least 30% more, often double
A report by LaingBuisson, an industry research group, found that self-funding residents are paying an extra £1 billion per year to prop up care homes that are underfunded by councils

The Cost of Self-Funded Care: A National Scandal

The unfairness of this system cannot be overstated.
Imagine being told you have to pay double for exactly the same service as someone else—simply because you own a home or have savings.

This is exactly what’s happening in UK care homes today.

Some key findings highlight the scale of the issue:
A self-funder in a care home for five years could pay £150,000–£200,000 more than a council-funded resident.

Many care homes rely on self-funders to stay afloat, meaning the elderly are effectively being used as cash cows.

Some families run out of money, forcing them to rely on local authority funding later—but only after they have lost their home and savings. However many elderly people find themselves having to move care homes when all of their money runs out because the care home will not accept them won the lower council rate. They have after all needed them for many years to top up everyone else. So they’ll be on the look out for a self funder to take their room

Meanwhile, local councils refuse to disclose the exact rates they pay for care home places, making it nearly impossible for families to negotiate fairer fees.’

Imagine then if as a higher rate earner with some savings you had to pay for your kids education
at the same school as others not paying. Whilst you are paying you are also topping up the fees for non payers

It’s the same principle
and then when your money runs out your kids are told they have to leave

Imagine if everything in life was treated the same as the elderly are when they need a little support

It’s a disgrace !!

If adult social care is unaffordable and cannot be met by local councils and a persons benefits then we need a new system
As a pp noted a compulsory insurance scheme would work and is used in other countries

They will also leave nothing for their kids. The financial criteria is exactly the same.

Put house into a trust which protects it

So many people have dementia now and physically cannot be cared for at home.

Im not sure why the default position is that you wouldnt have to pay for care. Why wouldnt you? You pay or have paid to live in your house, you pay for your accommodation. You pay for hair cuts, leisure activities, food and drink, you pay for a cleaner perhaps, you pay for physio or massages or eyelashes or any number of self care/home care stuff

Why when you get old, do you suddenly feel that all that should come from tax payers? Why would you expect to not live in your house anymore but live somewhere else for free and still maintain your home? How does th make sense. If I sell my house today because I dont want to or cant live there any more, I need to find alternative accommodation and pay for that. Whats the difference?

I own a property, but someone who is living in a rented accommodation may be in receipt of benefits to pay for their property, its the same thing except its called a care home.

There is no aboslute fair way to do it. If everyone got care free then it means more cost to the state and other tax payers who may never need care

A very small percentage of people need care, even smaller percentage needing to go into an actual care home. And they dont tend to be there very long.

There are a lot of private equity companies involved in care home ownership. They are in it for profit not compassion. There is no legal maximum fee you can charge. And people like my mum who is 93 with advanced dementia have to pay. This year my mum’s pension has gone up 3.8% but her care home fees have gone up 9%.

We should not have to sell our belongings to fund health and social care. What next sell your car to fund a stay in hospital? Nope. A life time of taxes should cover it.

Everyone should plan carefully when they own a house to stop this happening to them.