What is the average cost per week of a good OAP Home?

I have had in-laws in care homes, one for over 17 years as his body was in fine fettle but he had dementia and became a danger to himself, so needed drugs and care as he couldn't manage his personal needs, including feeding.

His home was sold and the burden of cost over those years, when fees increased regularly became a dreadful worry to his adult children who were managing the finances.

It is fair to say that their father, who'd been a Professor and had worked hard in academia and research (some of it ground-breaking) all his life, had nothing to leave to his children, even though he and his late wife both worked all their adult lives.

There were some people in the same home who had it all paid for them.

Is the moral of the tale It doesn't pay to work hard?

I am not sure.

I imagine most of the people who own care homes, leaving a manager to do the managing, are very wealthy individuals.

Maybe it's time for state intervention and subsidy given care of the elderly has become an expensive nightmare, hitting some families much harder than others.

Also many people who have bought their own homes have been given the money from their family. They never earned it in the first place.
Those people are always on top with the best choices!
It is really horrible to decide that people who don't own a house are bad in some way.
Or to be called a scrounger , how horrible!
I have friends with big houses and none of them earned the money outright they were all given a great start with family money.
Why so much resentment that someone might get their Care Home paid by the council? It won't be very good. Where I live all the best Homes are private and not available to those without money.
It Just boils down to some people are luckier perhaps and not necessarily about hard work at all.
both my parents worked all their lives way past retirement and still couldn't buy their home. They lived in London. Too expensive

Could anyone with some stats knowledge and experience- care to give an approximate figure re Johnson's promise that he will stop people having to sell their home to pay for their care? Please.

Agreed Monica, and I understood, thanks.

JenniferEccles I find the language in your post offensive. Sponging and squandered are the two woods I refer to. Some people, through no fault of their own, have to rely on the state for help financially but that is another debate. Squandered who are we to say what is a waste of money, everyone to their own.

jura2, my point about costs was in reply to another poster who described care home charges as outrageous. They aren't.

Your question was average cost of a good care home. My answer would to be very suspicious of any home charging less than £800 (in the south east)

"I have no problem helping those who were not in a position to look after themselves through no fault of their own but that is not always the case."

The cry of the right-wing taking us back to the Victorian view that we were put in our place by God (or science, or whatever).

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.

And that, of the poor who don't manage, they are again divided (in the views of the better off right-winger) into deserving and undeserving.

However, it seems to me that although, back in Victorian times, there was an artificial distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor we have taken over a century of progress to reach a point where all the poor are now all considered undeserving - and are to be starved or left to die in appalling circumstances as a consequence.

I am aware this may not be of interest to anyone- but I do think it is good to sometimes look at how things are done elsewhere.

In Switzerland- people need to be looked after in a 'care home' - 'normal' or 'medicalised' - and who have a house or savings- can choose to pay themselves- or give up their home and savings so the State picks up the bill- and they can keep about £30000 each for their inheritors. If they choose to pay, then again, about £30000 each is left for inheritors- but of course if they have not spent it all down to that limit- rest goes to them as well.

And that’s the crux of it. Ability to pay buys choice. Had my parents been dependent on public funding, they’d have been split up because she needed 24 hour care and he didn’t. She would have been funded, he wouldn’t. So, after 64 years of marriage, they would no longer have been able to live together.

The care home I found for them was lovely with enough, properly trained staff. The home my mum would have got, had she been council funded, literally made me cry when I saw it.

Money buys choice. I’m very grateful for that choice and would never resent those who don’t have it. I’m sorry for them.

But why would you need the money, if you were to be in a care home? You'd pay more or less the same, whether or not some people are being subsidised by the council.

Who do you think should make up the shortfall?

I'm sure some people are profligate. I'm sure we could all think of somebody like that. Personally, I can think of more people who have just been downright unlucky. Some people never did have the means to buy a property at the right time, some haven't had the health/ability to earn decent money, etc etc. I'm not going to go into details on here of people I know who've worked damned hard all their lives and ended up with nothing.

I hope the person you know enjoys being in a crummy room living on hand outs. Personally, it's not something I would choose.

growstuff I think it would penalise me because I would be subsidising the care of people who can't provide for themselves. I have no problem helping those who were not in a position to look after themselves through no fault of their own but that is not always the case. Some people are profligate. One example is someone I know who sold their pension as soon as they were 55 so that the state could care for them when they retired. There are always 2 sides to the arguments. I do not agree that it is as simple as a lottery, some spend, some save and some cannot do either.

James Cleverly must have found a magic money tree!! (As an aside, he's being taken apart on Twitter because he's starred in a Conservative propaganda film, claiming that William Wilberforce (famous for his involvement in the abolition of slavery) was a Conservative/Tory. He wasn't - he was quite famously an independent MP.)

Back to the topic. I agree with you. The whole issue needs tackling intelligently - not as a throwaway/bribe to elderly Conservative voters. It's going to cost somebody money, but the question is who should pay for it? As you say, it's a politically sensitive issue.

On your last point, I also agree. I really don't begrudge anybody who ends up in a council-funded room with minimum pocket money to pay for occasional treats and new undies/nightwear.

When you talk about "Loads of people don't inherit anything or waste their money. Many of them work hard all their life. Some end up with money at the end of their life; some don't - for all sorts of reasons.", you immediately come up against the left or right-wing views we all start from and they are very different.

Each bit of back pay that the Tories are offering is basically an idea stolen from elsewhere, or a repeat or previously offered amounts and all appear to be uncosted. I think the current and previous Tory government are an embarrassment to the country.

I do not believe there is any organisation on earth that could achieve what our civil servants are being asked to do. It's typical Johnson Waffle. James Cleverly was on Sophie Ridge this morning and it soon became apparent that all the promises are to be paid for from future "increased tax take" from future increased earning. In other words, borrowing against a very unknown tomorrow.

As for care, it needs a greater brain than these Hoorays possess. They still haven't worked out that their cuts have destabilised the whole system.

We need, first and foremost to build more appropriate housing so that people can stay in their homes but not become isolated. We need to replace the cuts in daycare so people can get out and feel life is worth living not that they are just waiting to die. We need a decent care system that does not almost totally rely on the good nature of the carers.

... and that's just for a start.

One other point. Those who do not have the capital to fund themselves still pay. The Local Authorities (LA) pay as little as possible (quite rightly). All your income except £25/£30 a week goes toward payment and you lose some of the benefits that those self-funding without the involvement of the LA would keep. Yes, you will probably be in a cheaper room but it is quite possible that, although some only pay a proportion, others loss of income could equal the cost to the LA or even, in some circumstances, be a little more.

How do you think the £300 difference should be paid? the only way would be for councils to pay more, which would have to come from increased council tax or central government grant (paid for by taxes or more cuts to services).

1MM6 our Abbeyfield homes are about £900 a week if you have dementia which my mum has.

Shoequeen I agree with you but I object to my mum paying £1000 a week as she is self funding and those who are funded by the council pay £700. In essence my mum is subsidising those who cannot pay. The fees should be the same for everyone.

I also agree the fees are not outrageous and I would rather my mum paid that money and was well looked after as she is than that I worry about her all the time as I did before she went into care.

Nonnie- so did we. Well, our first house for 8500.

I also agree with MOnica that the fees aren't outrageous.

Loads of people don't inherit anything or waste their money. Many of them work hard all their life. Some end up with money at the end of their life; some don't - for all sorts of reasons.

With all due respect, Nonnie, you won't be penalised, if you have to pay for a care home, although your children will be.

It's a lottery whether you need care or whether you live independently, until the grim reaper arrives. I guess the solution, if you have an asset to protect, is some kind of insurance, although my understanding is that insurance companies aren't keen on coming up with viable schemes.

I agree with Shoequeen.

Sheltered housing isn’t the answer if you need 24 hour care.

I disagree with the resentment of care home fees. Our house would pay for a care home for both of us for five years at today’s rates. That’s what it’s for, we won’t need it any more if we need to live in a care home.

It would sell for £350k more than we paid for it. We didn’t work for that money, we just happened to buy a house a couple of decades ago and it turned out to be a good investment. A lot of people weren’t in a position to do that.

Try Abbeyfield. Not sure how far their range extends. But in Devon they do sheltered housing. It's Not For Profit so costs approximately £1,300 per MONTH. That includes all meals except for breakfast. It is excellent.

jura with respect we bought our first house for £46000 and I imagine it is now worth about £200000 - £250000. We had friends who did not buy and eventually got council accommodation, The smoked and went out far more than we did. It was their choice and we made ours but is it now fair that, having worked hard, moved to improve job prospects, paid for healthcare etc and saved the state money, we should pay towards their care home? We didn't inherit anything, we worked, scrimped and saved for our children and our retirement. It seems awfully hard to be penalised foe that.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't pay for care if we need it but I don't think we should subsidise others and I think there should be some sort of cap. I read a suggestion that there could be an insurance scheme where we pay about £30,000 which covers our care if we should need it. We could afford that but not £50k+ each for a few years for substandard care.

Monica, I agree. But it is not at all the point of this thread.

No, the costs are not outragous. The owner of the business has to buy the property, may have mortgage payments, needs to keep it in good order and up to every safety level. the interior has to be decorated, furnished kept in good condition. Then there are fuel bills, astronomic as the temperature has to be kept so high, rates, water rates, a home will be on a meter, domestic supplies and food

Then there are staff, most on little more than minimum rate, but with 24 our care needed, staff ratio's usually work out as roughly one care worker for every resident, then there are laundry staff, kitchen staff, maintenance staff and possibly gardeners, then the owner has to live on something.

All in all, £800-£1,000 a week is not an unreasonable charge for full care.

What hotel could provide full board plus all the help a care home gives with care and laundry etc for £110 a day?

'funny' that he has never mentionned it again hey !?!

jura2 it's Boris. It hasn't been costed at all. For people with no property and my mum was such the local authority will fund a care home, but they only allow so much. When I was looking round for my mum I was shown rooms in one home which the LA would fund and some they wouldn't. The non-fundable were slightly larger and had a patio door leading onto a small decking area. My mother incidently worked hard all her life and paid her taxes. She worked in the NHS but only had a tiny pension. She sold a house in an area where property was cheap and then moved into rented sheltered housing close to me (she couldn't afford to buy). By the time she needed a care home she had spent nearly 20 years paying rent and support charges. She died in hospital so never needed the care home. Not everyone who needs help in old age has spent their lives in idleness and scrounging some just find they are in financial difficulties because getting old costs so much.
Incidentally I wonder if Boris is proposing to pay the costs of all those in sheltered housing who pay for support in their service charges?