Leading York law firm Lupton Fawcett is warning that more people face the prospect of paying for residential care following the decision to freeze local authority residential care thresholds for a ninth consecutive year.
Upper and lower capital limits have remained at the same level since 2010, forcing more and more people to self-fund or pay charges for care.
Currently, if an individual has £14,250 or less in assets, their residential care fees will be covered by local authority funding, although such individuals do have to contribute from their income. If an individual’s assets are worth £23,250 or more, they will have to pay the full cost of their residential care without the help of the Local Authority. If the individual’s assets are between the two thresholds, the amount the local authority will contribute is determined by a means-tested sliding scale.
Associate Solicitor Jo Farrow said: “I believe that the Government needs to rethink the decision to hold residential care thresholds yet again. It does not take into account inflation or the many economic issues people have faced since 2010 and will be leaving countless older people in financial hardship.
I completely understand that local authorities don’t have a bottomless budget to support residential care, but the thresholds could be more generous in order to make a meaningful difference to a greater number of families.”
The unchanged thresholds are 12% lower in real terms than when they were set in 2010/11 and could result in more older people facing financial hardship, should they or their families take the decision to move them to residential care.
This, in turn, means that an increasing number of families may be forced to sell their homes in order to pay for necessary care.
Jo added: “When I speak to clients who are planning for their future, how residential care will be paid for is a real concern for a lot of people. There is a duty to be a voice for those people, and to speak out when issues are raised that affect the future of many people. The thresholds were not adequate when they were introduced, and they certainly are not adequate now.”
