Avoid care home fees by divorcing!

[champchomp]

I know this sounds extreme but I’m thinking ahead. DH is a bit older than me and is having some health problems. We have no mortgage and he has a good pension and savings. I’ve seen instances where a spouse has entered a care home and the other one has struggled to pay the fees and had to sell up and use all the savings. Hypothetically speaking would divorcing and splitting assets protect some of the money and property. I know anything could happen between now and if my husband needs care but it worries me and we have children we would like to help financially if need be. I’d always be there for DH no matter what and visa versa. But financially does it make sense to financially separate/divorce if care is needed for either of us?

We the tax payers are funding those who don't own homes so I'm sure we can manage to fund homeowners too.

Unfortunately, as the baby boomers reach old age, it's increasingly difficult for the working population to fund the care and healthcare of the elderly. It's a demographic problem.

This!
If this is real /just mind blowingly selfish and entitled.

Not like the over didn’t have 50 years to work out a solution

It’s done on purpose, to negate tax. Off shore accounts and clever accounting

tjats how these homes are collectively making £1.5 billion annually

Which care home chains are offshoring? How could they possibly do this, when clearly their business is squarely based in, and operating in, the uk? (Chartered accountant here)

there is a real issue here but it’s not helped with conjecture and unspecific accusations. This is a really small industry (relatively) with lots of small providers. The Starbucks model doesn’t fit at all.

Hi OP. There are a couple of assumptions you have made that are untrue:

I’ve seen instances where a spouse has entered a care home and the other one has struggled to pay the fees and had to sell up and use all the savings.

That does not happen. As pp have said, your home is disregarded from any assessment so you can continue living there.

Also, your DH probably won’t be placed in exactly the same care home regardless of whether he is self funding or not. In my experience there is a huge difference. Also, if you don’t have the funds, social work will have limited places to offer you.

How many of the people saying it’s selfish to expect the state to fund your care and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it have really experienced what it is like living with and caring for someone with dementia?
If you had I doubt you would be saying this. We don’t expect cancer patients to be deprived of their assets to fund their expensive multi thousand pound drug treatments but the necessary care of dementia - 24 hour supervision and nursing, support for feeding and toileting - is treated as an entirely selfish expectation. There is still so much ignorance about this disease which will affect 1 in 3 of us as patients and more as carers and family members.

indeed lots of people do decide they don’t want to pay for care which ultimately is their decision. Formal care is generally chargeable. One point I want to make is you’re assuming your husband moved into a care home which should be a last resort. Many people live very well at home with carers or family help.

Me, I'm one. My parent has dementia.

To be fair, the OP talked about care for her husband in old age, not dementia care which is different.

It’s totally different to cancer care because it’s also housing. You live there. You have moved there to finish your life. The medical and care side is one thing but no one gets to keep an empty home whilst the taxpayer pays for them to live elsewhere

My mum was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 5 years ago.

And it's not only people with dementia need to pay for their care. Mobility, disability following stroke, general frailty, heart failure are all things we have dealt with in parents that have required paid for care.

Dementia patients don't have to pay for their medical treatment either. I think people forget the older people have enjoyed the benefit of their wealth in their lifetime, whether that is simply having years (often decades) of paid off, secure housing, retirement and financial security.

Having a financial cushion means choices in care, without having to wait for a pretty serious crisis before receiving care. It is far too much to expect the generation of their grandchildren to foot the bill, when they do have and will not have the same level of financial stability and medical care.

Please be polite to all those at the LA in adult social services that you come into contact with, their family members are subject to exactly the same legislation and they will have heard your version of 'worked all their life' (no they haven't) a thousand times over. Please pay the bills on your parents' behalf without making a song and dance about it.

I think another element that people forget is that people going into residential care have their income. In addition to state and private pensions, their care needs entitle them to higher rate attendance allowance.

If you object to your parents paying for care, free up some capital and give it to your children now, if legacy is really a concern.

Most other people i encounter with parents in care are 15 to 20+ years older than me, often retired with paid off mortgages themselves.

Private equity (PE) firms operating care homes in the UK have been accused of using complex corporate structures, often involving offshore tax havens, to minimize tax liabilities and maximize returns
. Analysis has revealed that, while the sector is heavily funded by public money (local authorities), a significant portion of income is siphoned out through debt repayments, rent payments to related parties, and dividend payments, often resulting in little to no UK corporation tax being paid.
Key Methods of Tax Avoidance and Profit Extraction

• Offshore Structuring: PE firms often use parent companies based in tax havens (such as the Cayman Islands or Jersey) to hold the UK care home operators, allowing profits to be moved offshore without attracting UK tax.
• Related-Party Debt (High-Interest Loans): Instead of investing capital, PE firms often "lend" money to the care home companies they acquire at high interest rates. The interest payments made by the care home to the offshore parent company are tax-deductible in the UK, reducing taxable profit to near zero.
• Property Sale-and-Leaseback Arrangements: Care homes are often split into separate companies: one that operates the care and another that owns the property. The operating company then pays high, above-market rent to the property company (often based in a low-tax jurisdiction), which shifts profits out of the UK care provider.
• Artificial Losses: By using the above methods, some of the UK’s largest care home operators have reported artificial losses to HMRC, despite receiving significant taxpayer funding.

Impact on the Care Sector

• Financial Instability: The high levels of debt placed on care companies by PE owners can lead to financial distress, as seen in the collapses of Southern Cross and Four Seasons Health Care.
• Reduced Quality of Care: Profits are extracted rather than reinvested into staff wages or facilities, leading to concerns about the quality of care provided.
• Siphoning Public Funds: Millions of pounds in government funding meant for social care are siphoned to offshore owners.

• PSP Investments (Canadian Pension Fund): Controlled over 60 UK care homes (Gracewell Healthcare and Signature Senior Lifestyle) while allegedly shifting profits offshore and reporting losses in the UK.
• Revera Inc. (Canadian Company):Operates Signature Senior Lifestyle and Gracewell Healthcare, with reports alleging the use of Jersey-based holding companies to avoid UK corporation taxes.
• Welltower (US REIT): A major investor holding stakes in over 120 UK care homes, including those operated by Revera/Sunrise, involved in structures described as creating artificial losses to avoid tax.
• Cindat Group/Omega: Identified as holding 69% of their UK care home properties through entities based in Jersey.
• HC-One: Reports have detailed the use of Cayman Islands subsidiaries to siphon profits, while the company claimed to make "artificial losses" during the pandemic.
• Cap10 Partners: Owners of Compass Community, which operates children's homes and has faced scrutiny for profit extraction.
• CareTech: Reported to have sent funds to offshore companies in the Caribbean, according to The Times.

Key Offshoring Methods Used

• Jersey-based Trusts: Using subsidiaries in Jersey to hold property.
• Related Party Debt: High interest payments to offshore parent companies.
• Management Fees/Dividends:Extracting cash to tax havens rather than reinvesting in care.
• Property Ownership Splits:Separating the operating company from the property-owning company to minimize tax.

Key details regarding private equity ownership in the UK care sector as of early 2026:

• Market Dominance: In some regions, over a third of care service companies are owned by private equity firms or firms in tax havens.
• Children's Care Focus: In the children's residential care sector, over 80% of providers are for-profit, with eight of the 10 largest providers having some form of private equity involvement.
• Profit Extraction: Recent analysis indicates that private equity-owned providers have been extracting significant profits from the UK care sector.
• Corporate Ownership: Major providers, such as Care UK, have historical or current links to private equity firms like Bridgepoint.
• Market Shift: The sector has shifted from local authority-run to 96% privately run as of 2025.

I mean obviously this is AI but have you checked any of it? Senior signature living for example, their accounts don’t show any relationship out of the UK. They are a very small company (only £8m turnover) im pretty sure PE aren’t rubbing their hands with glee at that opportunity.

and that’s only one of them I’ve checked randomly.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-59504521

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/13/canadian-owners-of-signature-care-homes-avoid-uk-taxes-researchers-claim

Do what you need to OP but consult a solicitor to make sure you're not doing yourself over in other ways. Completely understandable - you've paid all your taxes and NI while successive governments kicked the elderly care can down the road and failed to deal with it, and now they're expecting individuals to foot the bill to compensate for those government failures. Fuck that.

Dementia patients don't have to pay for their medical treatment either.

No but they have to pay for the care that keeps them alive, which isn't classed as medical.

And adult social services don't get to go around demanding politeness when their entire set-up is designed to obfuscate and block what possible funding does exist.

Everyone pays for the social care they need. Even cancer patients if they need it (FIL). MIL did when she was severely disabled after a stroke and couldn't be left. Dad did when arthritis and heart failure meant he needed help washing and dressing. So many people think it's just dementia this applies to and it isn't.