A friend of mine, a former schoolteacher, retired almost a decade ago, since when he has traced his family tree back to the mid-fifteenth century. He regularly tells me that his ‘project’ has actually been a labour of love which, in the name of accurate research, has taken him and his wife as far afield as France, Ireland, Eastern Europe and the USA, as well as to a series of local record offices across the UK.
So detailed is my mate’s research that several years ago, the tree’s enormity meant it could no longer be submitted to paper in its entirety and had instead to be digitised - a ‘problem’ of which I can only dream.
My own efforts at constructing a family tree took me as far back as the mid-eighteenth century in a relatively short period of time. However, before pressing deeper into family records, I realised that my primary interest would invariably draw me towards events and characters from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
In particular, I became fascinated by my grandfather, one of six brothers, who was killed in 1942 during the Battle of the Atlantic when his unarmed merchant ship, en route to Liverpool from Freetown in Sierra Leone, was torpedoed by a German U-boat. He was just 39 and left behind his wife - my grandmother and two sons, one of whom was my dad, the other Uncle Rick.
So many families suffered similar losses, which perhaps explains why the hardships and privations of World War II continue to exert a powerful influence in some areas of British life, particularly among the nation’s burgeoning older population. These are the folks who, like their parents, rarely wasted a scrap of food, contended with rationing (up until the mid-fifties), and recognise that their parents remained unbowed despite being under almost constant attack by a prodigiously armed menace.
As Jeremy Paxman writes of the prevailing wartime attitudes - which I believe have been passed on to those either too young to fight or who were not born until after the war: “The [British] saw themselves as law-abiding and civilised. They were certainly sure enough of themselves not to hate, but to laugh at Nazism.”
Although the words above might sound as though I’m going off at a tangent, bear with me, because while only a tiny number of people who can recall World War II are still alive, their offspring can still regale us with tales learnt from their parents - a generation that actually applied the practical instruction to “Make do and mend” to the repair of everything from clothes to cars.
Like their parents who contended with a world war, Baby Boomers too form part of a generation that refuses to be bullied. So it came as no surprise to read that a recent survey of retired people, conducted by Sure Safe, found that 96% of retirees would prefer to remain living in their own homes rather than move into a care home or a family member’s home.
This cohort is also conscious of the fact that the state will only fund care once a person’s assets and savings total less than £23,250 - a figure which discourages people from moving into expensive residential care.
And no wonder. The latest analysis of costs shows that a place in a care home currently costs an average of £949 per week; that’s a staggering £49,348 a year. Furthermore, local councils will only contribute to these fees if a person is eligible for financial support; eligibility is determined by a ‘care needs assessment’, which seeks answers to a variety of questions - from an applicant’s health condition and their medication to their preference for social activities and community engagement, among other things.
Yet people who have occupied their home for decades have simultaneously constructed a durable sense of belonging, lifetime friendships and independence; the prospect of selling their home - which most hope to pass on to their children - in order to pay for care, perturbs them.
Indeed, for many people, their sole option is to sell up and downsize, the prospect of which generates genuine sadness, because as national surveys regularly show, most desperately want to stay where they are.
Why is this? Perhaps it’s because most of us recognise that as we get older, we slip into comforting routines: chatting with a neighbour when out walking the dog; popping into the small, local independent shop to collect a newspaper; or volunteering to help out in the local park, rubbing down the cast iron entrance gates before applying a few coats of paint - often a precursor to nipping into the local for a ‘swift half’. This combination of exercise and connection is good for the health and helps retain a powerful sense of independence.
On top of this, we associate our homes with years of memories: family birthday parties hosted in the garden; summer holidays planned in the kitchen; Christmases celebrated in the living room. Our role as parents changes over time too: acting as bedrocks, providing certainty and, where necessary, guidance - through good times and occasional bad ones.
Small wonder that the prospect of downsizing engenders a pervasive sense of melancholy, ostensibly because our homes have usually been a place associated with thousands of happy memories.
Fortunately, there is a well-established alternative to selling the family home to pay for care - a means whereby a percentage of the property’s current value may be extracted, tax-free. The funds released in this way can be used to pay for care or a host of other things—from a world cruise or a new kitchen, to modifying the home to accommodate a stairlift or a more user-friendly bathroom, for example.
Prior to doing anything hasty, however, it’s important to consider the advantages and possible disadvantages of equity release. Releasing equity is not something you do every day: on the one hand, it can affect your entitlement to means-tested state benefits, but on the other, it can also play a massive role in helping retirement plans become reality—avoiding the need to downsize or to pay for care.
This is where an experienced equity release adviser can explain the pros and cons of equity release. Having the ability to relate to such scenarios is paramount in ensuring the correct and best decision is made for your future years.
Discussing the costs involved in both remaining in situ, and moving lock-stock, can sway those decisions. But ultimately it will be down to two variables: the short and long term effects on your estate, and the upheaval of another new start - from a physical and mental perspective.
Most significantly, the equity release process allows owners to remain in homes full to the brim with love and happy memories.
