Citywire for Financial Professionals
Stay connected:

View the article online at

MP: care fees cap won't end bill burden for families

MP John Redwood has criticised the Dilnot Commission's plans to cap care fees at £35,000, saying it will not help families as much as promised.

MP: care fees cap won't end bill burden for families

A day after it was reported that the government is going ahead with the Dilnot Commission’s recommendation for a £35,000 lifetime cap on care fees, MP John Redwood has argued that the cap would still leave middle-class families struggling to fund care home costs.

The Dilnot Commission, led by economist Andrew Dilnot, proposed no one should pay more than £35,000 for care in their lifetime. This recommendation was left out of the government’s draft social care bill last month owing to the £1.7 billion cost, but it was reported yesterday that it has decided to include it in a large-scale reform of care.

However, Conservative MP Redwood has criticised the cap, saying that it would protect the inheritances of wealthy families at the expense of taxpayers, and that a £35,000 cap would fail to provide the amount of protection families think it would.

What will count towards the cap?

In a paper for the Centre for Policy Studies titled Care for the Elderly, Redwood said people could still face huge care bills because much of the money they spend on care for loved ones would not count towards the cap.

The Dilnot Commission said the cap should apply to care costs but, Redwood pointed out, does not cover the cost of accommodation. This means families’ contributions to care, which may be substantial, will not be accounted for in the cap.

According to care provider Anchor, the average cost of a care home is £664 per week, but if you live in the south of England this cost increases to around £870 a week.

The cap is also dependent on how much care should cost, as set out by the local council. Although a care home may cost £500 per week, the council may only cover £400 per week, with families having to make up the difference.

Top-up fees

Under the Dilnot proposals, that extra top-up to cover care fees would not count towards the cap. Effectively people could spend far more than £35,000 before they reach the cap.

Using calculations from insurer Partnership, Redwood said families could pay 90% of the cost of a loved-one’s care over four years, even if the £35,000 cap was in place.

Although councils pay around £461 a week for people who qualify for residential care, including the cost of accommodation, care home fees can be much higher. In southern England Partnership estimates the average rate is £817 a week.

As accommodation costs are not taken into account for the cap, just £217 per week would count towards the cap despite the top-up being £356.

On this calculation it would take two and a half years for the family to hit the cap of £35,000, but by that time they would have paid £105,000 out of their own pocket towards care.

Sign in / register to view full article on one page

5 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Chris Sullivan

Aug 17, 2012 at 16:52

NO idea what you just said, will come back to this subject when someone can explain it better.

report this

Mike Greenland

Aug 17, 2012 at 17:00

Smoke and mirrors again. It still means the lazy gits that never saved a bean get off scot free at the expense of those who paid their way thro life

report this

Roger T.

Aug 17, 2012 at 17:25

Without successI have tried several times to juggle the money amounts quoted - hoping to unlock the mystery of the explanation - is it time for me to go into care or the author ?

report this

Anonymous 1 needed this 'off the record'

Aug 17, 2012 at 17:30

So - accomodation will still be charged!

Now, if you are renting out space in a commercial building, you do it by the sq ft/sq metre.

It follows that the 'accomodation' cost for the person-in- care will also be by the sq ft -

want an oxygen tank - that will be 2 sq ft more (tank, trolley and tubes etc.) - want a spare for when this one runs out - well that's another sq ft.

A wheelchair, and chair to sit in, plus a visitors chair - hmm, that will be another 6 + 6 + 4.

Yup, expect to be nickled and dimed until you are dead.

Goes along the new pension controls - only allowed to take out the 'GAD' amount, and then, yes - you may get a 'ta' from the government when they take 55% of the capital that is left - wot you were not allowed to take to pay for the 'accomodation', and 'care' .

Sick SIPP owner.

report this


Aug 18, 2012 at 09:59

Mr Redwood is right on one thing, it is not the job of the taxpayer to protect other people,s inheritances. Anonymous is also right, the government has to ease up on annuity regulations and allow people to use their pension funds to help themselves fund their own old age care. GAD rates should be abolished along with the 55% tax. Pension fund payments should be treated as a return of the pension holders own money, not as income.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

The Citywire Guide to Investment Trusts

In this guide to investment trusts, produced in association with Aberdeen Asset Management, we spoke to many of the leading experts in the field to find out more.

Watch Now

Today's articles

Tools from Citywire Money

From the Forums

+ Start a new discussion

Weekly email from The Lolly

Get simple, easy ways to make more from your money. Just enter your email address below

An error occured while subscribing your email. Please try again later.

Thank you for registering for your weekly newsletter from The Lolly.

Keep an eye out for us in your inbox, and please add to your safe senders list so we don't get junked.

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet