Councils lay claim to 7,000 family homes to claw back care bills
Thousands of families are being forced to hand over their estates to councils to pay off care home fees, The Telegraph can reveal.
Cash-strapped local authorities across the country are in line to claim back £343m from care home residents' home sales after they die, NHS data shows.
It comes after Labour scrapped a planned cap on care costs by the Conservatives as part of their pledge to ensure nobody would have to sell their house to pay for care.
Across England last year there were 6,815 outstanding Deferred Payment Agreements (DPAs), which allow homeowners to pay for care by borrowing from the council and using their home as a security.
After they pass away, the council will reclaim the debt either from the house sale or from other assets in their estate.
Some 3,205 families agreed new DPAs last year, up 35pc from the year before.
The loan lets homeowners delay the sale of their house to pay for care. But there are downsides as the cost of care will eat into the family inheritance.
Some local authorities also charge interest as part of the agreement, with the rate capped at 4.25pc as of January 1 this year.
The total debt tied up in DPAs has soared from £237m since 2020, a rise of more than 40pc.
Essex County Council was pursuing the largest amount of debt of any local authority at almost £16m, followed by Lancashire County Council which is set to reclaim nearly £14m from care home residents.
In 2023-24, councils successfully clawed back £90m from 2,295 families – an average debt of almost £40,000.
Mike Padgham, of care provider Saint Cecilia's Care Group, said: 'Councils are cash-strapped and doing everything they can to avoid paying for care. So they are trying to encourage people to go to them and use a deferred payment agreement rather than go to a private provider.'
However, these agreements are increasingly causing disputes between councils and families.
In a recent case, Essex County Council was ordered to pay back over £11,000 in care fees to the family of an elderly man with dementia after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found it had failed to carry out a financial assessment after his funds decreased. This resulted in the care home resident overpaying at a higher self-funding rate for longer.
Mr Padgham said the risk of disputes would 'only increase' as more families find themselves paying for care.
He said: 'We're still in the situation where people are selling their homes to pay for catastrophic care costs.'
Jane Townson, of the membership body the Homecare Association, said: 'DPAs can provide vital financial flexibility for those entering residential care. Families frequently report delays, inconsistent eligibility criteria, and a lack of transparency about costs and repayment terms. These challenges can create unnecessary stress for people at a difficult time in their lives.
'It is crucial that councils administer DPAs fairly, promptly, and with full regard for the needs of individuals requiring care.'
In England, someone in need of care will not be eligible for state funding if they have more than £23,250 in capital. Arranging a DPA with the local council is one way of covering the fees.
The Government has launched an independent commission into reforming adult care amid soaring costs. However, a final report is not due until 2028. Campaigners have criticised successive governments for failing to adequately fund the crumbling sector.
National Insurance raid piling on extra staff costs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
KKR threat to NHS landlord: Don't give the barbarians a foothold in a sacred public service, says ALEX BRUMMER
Freed from the proposed £4billion rescue of Thames Water, private equity barons KKR have come fizzing back with an upgraded offer for NHS and private healthcare landlords Assura. KKR's latest and final bid of £1.7billion is only marginally better than that from listed rival Primary Health Properties (PHP) but is being recommended by Assura's board. The battle isn't necessarily over, with PHP still looking at options and claiming Chancellor Rachel Reeves's bonanza spending on the NHS as an ally. As has become customary when listed companies seek to vanish from the London stock market, there is extensive waffle from Assura about careful evaluation and fiduciary duty. The latter is investment banker-speak for running up the white flag. In cash terms, the KKR offer, at 52.1p a share, is barely better than the 51.7p bid from PHP. A 39 per cent premium may seem wonderful but given the depressed state of share valuations in London and a recent tech offer with a 96 per cent premium, the KKR deal is hardly effervescent. There is no obligation for Assura to accept either deal. A braver board would have told the private equity plunderers to get lost. Instead, it chose to disparage the alternative 'merger' with PHP, claiming financial and execution risk. The board also argues that the PHP offer would diminish Assura's efforts to support investment in the NHS estate. Who is Assura kidding? KKR fears too much exposure to regulated British assets and the political risk which comes with it as we learned when it pulled out of the near-complete Thames Water deal. Assura also needs to remind itself of how private equity works. Load up target companies with debt, squeeze costs, do some clever financial engineering with the leverage, raise prices or rents and head for the hills. A Government which better understood how highly indebted deals work might be cautious. A reading of the Competition & Markets Authority's work on veterinary services, revealing how the cost to pet owners and farmers has escalated, illustrates the dangers. More market-based private medicine in the UK eases pressure on the NHS. But allowing the barbarians a foothold in a sacred service is unacceptable even if it's wrapped up with tinsel and a bow. Sign of the Zodiac This week's pandemic of bids for Britain's tech crown jewels and skin care specialists rightly has been accompanied by much handwringing. How is it that companies born and bred in UK science and tech struggle to develop into national champions? After all, the City is second only to New York as a financial centre and is home to one of the world's biggest collection of banks and a strong venture capital industry. There ought to be no bars to start-ups or smaller listed firms accessing capital. Freeing up pension funds, allowing them to be more adventurous, ought to help. But swift market access to funding and liquidity is the key. That is why the launch of Pisces, the London Stock Exchange's platform for 'intermittent' capital, a place to come to raise funding and then vanish behind a privacy wall, is an important innovation. Stock exchange group boss David Schwimmer has been promoting the concept for years but freeing it from the weeds of regulatory bureaucracy is not easy. The insistence on broad-based disclosure rules threatened to sideline it. So it is good to learn that the Financial Conduct Authority, in keeping with the growth agenda, has dropped onerous transparency requirements on the environment, shareholder transactions and director pay. These threatened to strangle Pisces at birth. Let the fundraising begin before the rush to the door of UK tech and AI becomes a stampede. Peer pressure It has become something of a thing for Chancellors to name-check colleagues when delivering grand financial statements to the Commons. Rachel Reeves set a record with her pledges to spend, spend, spend in Labour constituencies in the North, Midlands, Scotland and Wales. Lonely Weymouth was the only southern town to receive much of a mention. Unlike Southport, it already has a serviceable pier.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves sacrifices defence and police for NHS splurge
Rachel Reeves has been accused of sacrificing police and defence spending in favour of a record handout for the NHS. Police chiefs warned that Labour's flagship election promises on reducing crime could be missed after the Chancellor set out her spending review on Wednesday, while former military leaders criticised her 'totally inadequate' plans for the Armed Forces. Instead, the Chancellor prioritised a 'record' funding boost for the NHS, which will now get an extra £29 billion a year compared with 2023-24, despite the lack of a detailed reform plan. Economists said tax rises in the autumn Budget were now inevitable. Treasury documents revealed that the Government was already forecasting a 5 per cent increase in council tax each year until 2028, meaning an extra £395 for the average Band D property. Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, said: 'Despite the biggest tax rises for a generation, this Labour Government has made the wrong choices and is leaving our country's national security at risk. 'The military are not receiving the money they need to face a dangerous and uncertain world and it is likely we will not see the record police numbers I delivered as police minister last year being maintained.' Boris Johnson also told The Telegraph that Labour's 'feeble' spending on defence would leave Britain at the mercy of Russia. The spending review set out three years of day-to-day spending and four years of capital investment, with an extra £300 billion spent after money-raising measures last autumn. Ms Reeves told MPs: 'I have made my choices. These are my choices. These are the choices of the British people.' Writing for the Telegraph, she added: 'We are keeping our country safe.' But there was immediate scrutiny of the Chancellor's priorities, which Sir Mel Stride, the Conservative shadow chancellor, described as a 'spend now, tax later'. There were also accusations of questionable accounting as critics asked whether Ms Reeves was being fully transparent on spending levels. Health spending will rise by £17.2 billion a year between 2025-26 and 2029, almost 90 per cent of total additional day-to-day spending, leaving budgets in real terms flat or falling per person for most other Whitehall departments. The real budgets for daily running costs for defence, including the Armed Forces, will rise by just 0.7 per cent per year over the next three years. That compares with a day-to-day budget increase of 3 per cent for the NHS. However, Ms Reeves's cash injection for tanks, warships and military bases will mean the overall defence budget rises by an average of 3.8 per cent until the next election. The Resolution Foundation said the surge in health spending would 'leave little to rebuild other public services'. The think-tank described increases for defence and education as 'small'. Extra funding for the police is expected to amount to just £200 million in real terms by the end of the decade. The policing budget will rise by 1.7 per cent a year. Police chiefs criticised a Treasury suggestion it was increasing by 2.3 per cent, noting that the figure included a past boost to cover the National Insurance increase. Documents released alongside the spending review suggested that higher council tax police precepts would form part of 'additional income' used to increase police budgets, alongside funds from central government. Senior officers warned that the lack of funds puts at risk Labour promises to deploy an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, as well as halve violence against women and girls and reduce knife crime. Gavin Stephens, the chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, said: 'It is clear that this is an incredibly challenging outcome for policing. 'In real terms, today's increase in funding will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases for officers and staff ... the amount falls far short of what is required to fund the Government's ambitions and maintain our existing workforce.' Tiff Lynch, the acting chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: 'When this Government came in, they said they had the police's back. It feels like we have been incredibly let down.' The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said that 'the funding announced is not enough to deliver the Government's Safer Streets mission'. Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, also claimed it would mean cuts in the number of Metropolitan Police officers. He called the funding 'insufficient'. Earlier this year, it was announced that defence spending would rise from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent. However, new plans for the 2028-29 financial year show the Government will not go further, despite the stated 'ambition' to reach 3 per cent in the early 2030s. It threatens to undermine Britain's expected endorsement of an even more stretching 3.5 per cent target, which is set to be adopted at a Nato summit this month. Earlier this week, Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned that failure to invest in defence would mean 'you could still have the NHS … the pension system, but you better learn to speak Russian'. Mr Johnson, the former prime minister, told The Telegraph that the lack of new defence funding beyond February's uplift was a 'wasted' opportunity. He said: 'My view is that this Government is completely failing to show the leadership that is needed to defend Britain and defend Europe. Labour are congenitally hostile to defence spending. Their grass roots are still basically Corbynistas who think Russia is a great thing. Those views are still highly influential in Labour.' The Treasury also came under fire for allegedly massaging its numbers after Ms Reeves confirmed intelligence services spending would be included as defence spending, taking the figure to 2.6 per cent. Sir Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, said: 'Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. 'They have now folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along.' Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, said the figures presented on Wednesday were 'totally inadequate' and warned that the UK would be 'embarrassed' at the Nato summit in the Hague later this month. By contrast, the NHS was one of the big beneficiaries of the spending review. Whereas the defence spending uplift largely came in capital investment, the health budget rise was in day-to-day spending. An extra £29 billion a year for the running of the health service was announced, with Ms Reeves promising 'more appointments', 'more doctors' and 'more scanners'. Another winner was Lord Hermer, the Attorney General criticised for defending alleged terrorists before he took the job. A long-standing friend of Sir Keir Starmer, his law officers were given a spending increase of 5.3 per cent, although the rise was small in cash terms. The Chancellor defended her approach in an article for The Telegraph. She said: 'I have announced record investment in the NHS, with £29 billion more a year to improve patient care. 'But let me be clear: this investment comes on the condition of reform. It's not enough to spend money on a broken system. It is about investing to reform services so they are fit for the modern century.' Ms Reeves insisted she was a defender of national security, writing: 'We are keeping our country safe with an £11 billion real-terms increase in defence spending, making sure our Armed Forces have the equipment they need. And we are boosting funding for our security and intelligence agencies, so they have the tools they need to respond to new threats.' But Sir Mel countered in his own article for The Telegraph: 'Rachel Reeves confirmed that she is a 'spend today, tax tomorrow' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course in the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously?' There were other claims of questionable accounting. The Government vowed to eventually find £14 billion a year of efficiency savings. But a document some 50 pages long detailing claims by each department on how those savings would be made included loose promises such as better use of artificial intelligence. The Chancellor also pledged to end the 'costly' use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament. However, the Home Office will still be paying £2.5 billion a year by then to support migrants.
Scottish Sun
34 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Chancellor Rachel Reeves unleashes eye-watering borrowing spree in do-or-die bid to drive growth
RACHEL Reeves was yesterday branded a 'spend now, tax later' Chancellor after unleashing an eye-watering borrowing spree in a do-or-die bid to drive growth. Ms Reeves put £113billion on the country's credit card to fund 'national renewal' projects — with defence and the NHS taking the lion's share of the budget uplifts. 3 Rachel Reeves was branded a 'spend now, tax later' Chancellor Credit: Simon Walker / HM Treasury 3 The Chancellor unleashing an eye-watering borrowing spree in a do-or-die bid to drive growth Credit: AFP She was accused of digging the 'black hole' in public finances Labour claimed to have inherited into a 'crater into which public confidence is plunging'. Experts said her next Budget may have to raise up to £23billion to keep to her fiscal rules amid economic slowdown and uncertainty over US tariffs. It sparked fears of tax rises in autumn to stop UK debt worsening and spooking money markets. Ms Reeves came out fighting after a humiliating 48 hours in which she U-turned on winter fuel cash for millions of OAPs. She unveiled spending plans for the next three years, calling them 'Labour choices' in the hope of shoring up support in the party's heartlands amid the threat of Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said she had a 'Corbynist catalogue' of tax rises to flick through to fund her pledges — a reference to a secret memo Deputy PM Angela Rayner sent her suggesting ways to raise cash. He called her a 'tinfoil Chancellor, flimsy and ready to fold in the face of the slightest pressure' as she set out her plans. He said: 'This is the spend now, tax later review, because the Chancellor knows she will need to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes and a cruel summer of speculation awaits. 'How can we possibly take this Chancellor seriously after the chaos of the last 12 months?' Mr Reeves insisted later that no tax rises would be needed to pay for her commitments. Top 5 takeaways from Spending review She said: 'Every penny is funded through the tax increases and changes to the fiscal rules that we set out last autumn.' The review was the first since 2007 to go through spending 'line by line', it was claimed. The health department is expected to make £9billion in efficiency savings by 2028-29, and the defence budget £905million. The Chancellor told MPs: 'I've made my choices. In place of chaos, I choose stability. 3 'In place of decline, I choose investment. In place of pessimism, division and defeatism, I choose national renewal. 'Reforms that will make public services more efficient, more productive and more focused on the user. I have been relentless in driving out inefficiencies. 'I will be ruthless in calling out waste with every penny being reinvested into public services.' She will hope the cash injections will ease relationships with Labour backbenchers concerned at welfare cuts. A vote on measures is planned for next month. The biggest winner in the review was the NHS, which gets a three per cent budget rise in England over the next three years, taking its funding to £226billion. Financial cushion The defence budget will go up by 2.6 per cent but pressure is mounting on ministers to raise it again to 3.5 per cent by 2035. The vow to build 1.5 million homes in the next five years was boosted with confirmation an average of £3.9billion will be go on social and affordable housing in the next decade. Ed Miliband's energy department gets a 16 per cent real-terms rise with £14.2billion extra going on the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Families and OAPs could save £600 a year on bills in more energy-efficient homes, she said. A pledge to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029 will save £1billion a year, she insisted. The police will get an above-inflation increase but top cops have warned of 'incredibly challenging' budgets following tense talks between the Chancellor and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Surrey Chief Constable Gavin Stephens said the money will 'fall far short' of that needed to fund Government ambitions and maintain the existing workforce. He said the increase 'will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases'. The Chancellor inherited, supposedly, a black hole and she has dug a crater into which public confidence is plunging. Richard Tice Ms Reeves aims to meet her fiscal rule of balancing day-to-day spending with revenues by 2029-30 and plans to reduce the UK's debt. Her financial cushion is just less than £10billion. Reform deputy leader Richard Tice said public spending was 'completely out of control'. He said: 'The Chancellor inherited, supposedly, a black hole and she has dug a crater into which public confidence is plunging.' Economist Ruth Gregory, of Capital Economics, said Ms Reeves may need to find an extra £13billion to £23billion in autumn's Budget 'simply to maintain her current buffer against the fiscal rules'. Stephen Millard, interim director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said it is now 'almost inevitable' that if she sticks to her rules, she will have to raise taxes this year. Rain Newton-Smith, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, warned that the Government cannot target business again following its £25billion raid at the last Budget. She said: 'We will hold the Chancellor to account that she won't come back for tax rises on business . . . because I don't think business can shoulder any more. 'The Prime Minister himself has said you cannot tax your way to growth. "So I think it's critical that we don't see rises like that on business because they are the ones that need to invest to deliver the growth mission.'
