Boris Johnson has appeared to step back from a manifesto commitment on social care, after a controversial change to his government’s reforms to the system in England were narrowly backed by MPs.
The prime minister committed in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto that “nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it”.
But addressing his cabinet on Tuesday, Mr Johnson told his ministers that “no one will be forced to sell a home they or their spouse is living in as it will not be counted as an asset”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59
Moment MPs vote on controversial care proposal
Speaking to Sky News on Monday, a minister failed to guarantee that people will not have to sell their homes to pay for care.
Having promised to “fix the crisis in social care” on the steps of Downing Street when he became PM, Mr Johnson in September announced a cap on care costs for adults in England from October 2023, promising a limit of £86,000 on how much an individual has to pay over their lifetime.
Last week, the government announced it was introducing an amendment to the reforms which will mean that only the amount a person personally contributes to their care costs will count towards the £86,000 cap.
More on Social Care
Related Topics:
Anything the individual’s local authority contributes will not be counted.
The change has sparked accusations it will be unfair on poorer people and those who live in areas where homes are worth less.
What are the changes and why could they be unfair?
In September the government announced a new £86,000 cap on the amount anyone in England should have to pay for their care when they get older or unwell.
People with less than £20,000 in assets – value of their home, savings or investments – will not have to pay anything towards their care, which is up from £14,250.
Those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will also now be eligible for new means-tested financial support from their local councils to help with the cost of their care.
This is calculated by taking into account how much income you have – and whether you are nearer the £20,000 lower limit or £100,000 upper limit.
But changes announced last week reveal that those means-tested payments you receive from your local council do not count towards the £86,000 cap.
This has led to accusations it will be unfair on poorer people and those who live in areas where homes are worth less.
For example, if you have a home worth £90,000, under the new means-tested system, you will be eligible for local council payments to help with the ongoing cost of your care.
But those payments don’t count towards the £86,000 limit, at which point you no longer have to pay anything.
So the journey to that £86,000 will be slowed down by local council payments that don’t count towards the cap – forcing you to pay with your own money instead.
The only way of reaching the cap will be spending £86,000 of your own money on care, at which point you only have £4,000 left.
But because the £86,000 cap is universal, someone with a home worth £1m won’t get council support, but will reach the £86,000 cap quicker, and be left with more than £900,000.
A total of 18 Conservatives voted against the plans, joining Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, as Boris Johnson’s working majority of 80 was cut sharply.
A further 70 Tories had no vote recorded, although this does not necessarily mean that they abstained.
And in a revelation that may risk further angering opponents of the plans, Health Secretary Sajid Javid has told a committee of MPs that an impact assessment of the policy will not be available until “early in the new year”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:19
Care costs ‘in the right direction’ – former health secretary
“We are unable to provide information at a regional or individual level, as the funding at local authority level has not yet been agreed,” Mr Javid wrote to Mel Stride, chairman of the Treasury Select Committee.
“It is important to reiterate, however, that nobody will be worse off under the system we are proposing than the one currently in operation.”
The health secretary reiterated the government’s defence of its reforms, stating that the existing system “exposes too many people to unlimited costs” and the changes will “put an end to unpredictable costs”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:13
Labour MP insists rich must pay more to fund social care
“More people will be supported with their social care costs, have greater certainty over what they need to pay and, thanks to wider reforms to the social care system, will receive higher quality care,” Mr Javid insisted.
The PM’s spokesman said the policy was the “correct approach” and the government had “no intention” of performing a U-turn.
Just a few weeks after a Singaporean court approved WazirX’s parent company’s restructuring plan, a decision out of one of India’s courts could impact users.
White House crypto and AI czar David Sacks announced Selig as US President Donald Trump’s pick after Brian Quintenz’s nomination to lead the regulator was withdrawn.
Reforms to renters’ rights have finally become law – five years and four prime ministers after they were first promised.
The legislation that received Royal Assent today is Labour’s version, after the party took office with a promise to improve and complete the set of proposals the Tories pledged then watered down, then abandoned altogether before the general election last year.
Previously it was known as the Renters’ Reform Bill, but Labour renamed it as the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Following Royal Assent, it is now known as the Renters’ Rights Act.
It aims to “decisively level the playing field between landlords and tenants”, according to housing minister Matthew Pennycook.
However there is one more crucial date – the commencement date – which is when the measures will actually take effect.
We don’t know when that is, but these will be the first changes:
No-fault evictions banned
Crucially, the legislation includes a blanket ban on no-fault evictions under Section 21 (S21) of the 1988 Housing Act.
S21 notices have allowed landlords to evict tenants with two months’ notice without providing a reason.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:25
One million renters forced to move
Former Conservative prime minister Theresa May made the pledge to scrap S21 notices on 15 April 2019, and it was also in her successor Boris Johnson’s manifesto.
After the general election, Labour confirmed in its first King’s Speech that it would end no fault evictions for both new and existing tenancies.
Mr Pennycook has said that this means landlords will not be able to “arbitrarily evict any tenant with a Section 21 notice, including tenants that make complaints about things like damp and mould, rather than fix those problems”.
Landlords will still be able to evict tenants if they have a legal reason, such as if the tenant is in several months’ rent arrears or commits anti-social behaviour.
Fixed-term tenancies ended
The Act has removed fixed-term tenancies, so that all agreements are “periodic”.
This will give tenants the flexibility to move if there is a change of circumstance or they aren’t happy with the standard of accommodation. Instead of having to stay until a specified end date, tenants will be required to give two months notice if they wish to move out.
Landlord notice periods
When a landlord’s circumstance changes, such as their need to sell up or move into the property, they will have to give four months’ notice instead of two.
All renters will get a 12-month protected period at the beginning of a tenancy, during which landlords cannot evict them on these grounds.
What are the longer term changes?
There are a range of further reforms that will come in after the new tenancy system is implemented. These are:
Awaab’s law extended
Image: Awaab Ishak
Awaab’s Law was named after the toddler who died after exposure to mould in his family’s social rented home in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.
It proposed that social landlords will have to investigate hazards within 14 days, fix them within a further seven, and make emergency repairs within 24 hours. .
Under Labour’s Renters’ Rights Act, this will be extended to the private sector to ensure all landlords speedily address hazards and make homes safe.
Plans to make homes safer also include applying a Decent Homes Standard to the private rented sector for the first time.
The government said 21% of privately rented homes are currently classified as “non-decent” and more than 500,000 contain the most serious hazards.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:26
Social home health rules to tighten
Landlords who fail to address serious hazards will be fined up to £7,000 by local councils and may face prosecution for non-compliance, the government said.
A new Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman will also be introduced to “provide quick and binding resolutions” about complaints, alongside a databaseto help landlords understand their legal obligations and demonstrate compliance.
Ban on mid-tenancy rent increases
The Act has also banned rent increases being written into contracts to prevent mid-tenancy hikes, leaving landlords only able to raise rent once a year at the market rate.
Rent campaigners want the government to go further and introduce rent controls amid a spiralling affordability crisis.
Analysis of government figures by housing charity Shelter found England’s private renters paid an extra £473 million pounds every month on rent in 2024 – an average of £103 more per month than they were paying in 2023.
Labour has ruled out rent controls, saying their plan to build more homes will bring prices down.
Powers to challenge rent hikes
However the government said they will make it easier for people to challenge excessive rent hikes which could force them out.
This will be done by reforming the First Tier Tribunal so it can’t actually demand more than what the landlord initially asked for when tenants complain.
The government will also end backdated increases if the watchdog rules in the landlords’ favour, and allow rent increases to be deferred by two months in cases of hardship.
Allowing pets
Labour’s reforms have also given tenants the strengthened right to request a pet, which landlords must consider and cannot unreasonably refuse.
Image: Activists from Shelter stage a protest in Parliament Square over delays to the Renters Reform Act. Pic: PA
There are currently no specific laws in place when it comes to renting with pets, but landlords can decline if they have a valid reason.
To support landlords, the Renters’ Rights Act has provided them with the right to request insurance to cover potential damage from pets if needed.
Bidding wars for rental properties have become increasingly common amid a chronic shortage of supply, with tenants typically paying an extra £100 a month above the asking price for their home last year, according to research by the New Economics Foundation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:26
Bristol renters face frenzied competition
The legislation includes a legal requirement for landlords and letting agents to publish the required rent for a property.
Landlords and agents will be banned from “asking for, encouraging, or accepting any bids” above the publicly stated price.
Similar laws have been passed in other countries facing a housing crisis, such as New Zealand.
Limit on rent in advance
Bidding wars have also led to some people offering months of rent in advance to ensure they get the property. Under the new laws, landlords can only ask for up to one month’s rent upfront once you’ve signed a tenancy agreement. They will be banned from encouraging or accepting any more.
The Act also outlaws landlords imposing a blanket ban on tenants receiving benefits or with children.
According to Shelter, one in five families have been unable to rent somewhere in England because they have kids.
Meanwhile, the English Private Landlord Survey, covering the period of 2021 to 2022, found one in 10 private renters – around 109,000 households – had been refused a tenancy because they received benefits.
While specific cases of this have been found to have breached the Equality Act in court, the new law will explicitly ban these forms of discrimination “to ensure fair access to housing for all”.