Protect the Home — Fix Jersey's Long-Term Care Scheme
📣1 updateStop taxing the support islanders already paid for — protect the family home and end interest on care, and treat everyone equally.
Directed at: Minister for Social Security
Jersey runs a dedicated tax to pay for long-term care. Yet islanders who need that care can still be made to fund the first £80,000 themselves, then watch a debt grow against their home, charged interest on the very support they already paid a tax for, with no legal guarantee it won't one day swallow the whole property. A bank in London couldn't do this to a customer. Our own government can. This campaign calls for a fair Long-Term Care scheme: protect the family home, stop charging interest on care, regulate the cost of care, and answer the questions no one in government has been willing to.
The promise, and the reality
The Long-Term Care scheme was sold to islanders as protection — a way to remove the fear that needing care in old age could cost you your home. Every working person pays a dedicated Long-Term Care contribution toward it, for life, and continues paying it in retirement on their pension. It is compulsory, assessed on income, and collected by the tax department.
So islanders have already paid in. The question this campaign asks is simple: when the time comes that you need the scheme, why does it still take so much from the people who funded it?
What's actually happening
For anyone whose home is worth more than £419,000 — which, in today's Jersey market, is most homeowners — the scheme does not simply step in. You must fund the first stretch of your own care, a sum running into tens of thousands of pounds. When your savings run out, the remaining cost is secured as a debt against your home through a Property Bond.
That debt then grows two ways at once. Care costs are added every week. And on top of the rising balance, the Government charges interest — at the Bank of England base rate plus a 0.5% margin — compounded year on year, until the home is sold. Remember that islanders have already funded this scheme through a dedicated, lifelong Long-Term Care tax. Charging interest on the support it provides taxes that support a second time.
Here is the part most islanders have never been told: there is no legal cap. Nothing in Jersey law guarantees that this debt cannot exceed the value of the home. In the UK, every regulated equity-release product must by law carry a No Negative Equity Guarantee — a commercial lender is not allowed to push a customer underwater. Jersey's own scheme offers its residents no such protection. A long care period, two partners needing care, or a dip in property values can each wipe out an estate entirely.
Meanwhile, the cost of that care is not controlled. Care homes and agencies must be registered for quality — but their fees are not regulated at all. Every year prices can rise, the gap between what the scheme covers and what providers charge can widen, and islanders carry that gap personally, in cash or against their home.
And to access any of this, applicants — often elderly, often grieving, often caring for a partner with dementia — must complete a forensic financial assessment: full records, valuations, and a declaration of every gift over £5,000 made in the past ten years. The Government's own guidance suggests they "seek independent legal advice." It is neither provided nor funded.
The questions that need answering
This campaign exists because the more you examine the scheme, the more unanswered questions appear:
Why has the £419,000 disregard never risen since 2014, while Jersey house prices have climbed far beyond it — and who made that choice? Who decided to charge compounding interest on the care of a loved one, and on what basis? Why are care fees left entirely unregulated? Was the means-test ever tested for fairness on the elderly people who must complete it? And on an island whose financial reputation rests on the legitimacy of trusts and estate planning, why does the scheme reach back to pull transferred property and lifetime gifts into the calculation against its own residents? Who, ultimately, is answerable for these decisions?
What we're calling for
We are not asking to scrap the scheme. We are asking to make it fair: protect the family home with a legal negative-equity guarantee; unfreeze the disregard; stop charging interest on care islanders have already paid a tax to receive; regulate the cost of care; make the assessment humane; and tell islanders who made these choices and why.
How you can help
Add your support to show the strength of feeling behind these asks. Share your experience if you or your family have been through this scheme — anonymously if you prefer. Every account becomes part of the evidence base we will put directly to government. The more of us who speak openly about what this system actually does, the harder it becomes for those responsible to claim it is working as intended.
NEW FINDINGS FROM THE STATES OF JERSEY 2025 ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
I promised I would keep sharing what I find. The States of Jersey published their 2025 Annual Report and Accounts last month. I have now been through the full 288 pages. Here is what it reveals about the Long-Term Care Fund — and some of it changes the picture significantly from what we knew before. As always, everything below is drawn directly from the published official accounts. Page references are available for anyone who wants to verify. --- THE FUND IS NOW IN DEFICIT Let me start with the number that matters most. In 2025, the Long-Term Care Fund received £90.5 million in total income — £49.5 million from taxpayer LTC contributions, £39.5 million from the States Grant, and £1.1 million from investment returns. In the same year, the fund paid out £93.2 million in benefits — £72.8 million in LTC Benefit and £20.4 million in LTC Support — plus administrative costs on top. The fund spent more than it received. Benefits grew by 12% in a single year. Income grew by just 5%. The result: the fund balance fell from £46.7 million at the end of 2024 to £41.5 million at the end of 2025. A loss of £5.2 million in twelve months. The fund that islanders have been paying into since 2015 is now shrinking. Every year. And the gap between what comes in and what goes out is widening. --- BUT THAT £41.5 MILLION IS NOT WHAT IT APPEARS This is the finding that I think most people will not have seen, and it changes how we should understand the fund's position. Included within that £41.5 million fund balance is £7.3 million in what the accounts describe as "loans secured by real property." These are the Property Bonds — the debts secured against the homes of people receiving long-term care. That £7.3 million is counted as an asset of the fund. On paper, it makes the fund look healthier than it is. But here is the reality. That money is not cash. It is not available to pay anyone's care costs tomorrow. It is locked up in legal charges against family homes that will not be sold until the person in care dies, or their surviving partner dies, or the home is otherwise disposed of. That could be years from now. It could be decades. If you strip out the bonds — if you look at what the fund can actually use to pay benefits — the real usable balance is approximately £34 million. At the current rate of deficit, the fund's usable reserves could be exhausted within six to seven years. --- THE PROPERTY BOND BOOK HAS GROWN BY 563% IN THREE YEARS When the Comptroller and Auditor General reviewed the LTC Fund in 2022, the total value of all outstanding Property Bonds was £1.1 million across 40 bonds. I cited this figure in my earlier posts. The 2025 Annual Report shows the total is now £7.3 million. That is a 563% increase in approximately three years. I want to be clear about what this means. More families than ever are having their homes used as security for care costs. More homes are carrying legal charges registered at the Public Registry. More families are watching debt accumulate against the property they spent their lives paying for. And every pound of that £7.3 million is accruing compound interest at 4.25% per year — Bank of England Base Rate plus 0.5% — with no legal cap on how high the total can grow, and no negative equity protection equivalent to what exists in UK law. In my earlier posts I said the interest income from bonds was approximately £47,000 per year based on the C&AG's figures. I need to update that. Based on the current bond book of £7.3 million, the annual interest income is now approximately £310,000. I want to be transparent about that correction. It is still a relatively small amount against a fund receiving £90 million a year in income — but it is no longer the negligible figure I previously cited. What has not changed is the fundamental point: compound interest is being charged on the care of vulnerable people, secured against their homes, with no negative equity protection in law. The bond book has grown sixfold. The exposure is increasing. And the legislation has not been updated. --- CLAIMANT NUMBERS ARE STILL RISING — FAST At the end of 2025, there were 1,726 active LTC claims. At the end of 2024, there were 1,548. That is an increase of 178 claimants — 11.5% — in a single year, on an island where the population is broadly static. The report itself explains this as being driven by "increasing numbers of claimants, with more claimants with higher care needs." More people are entering the system. And those entering need more intensive — and more expensive — care. This is the trend that is driving the fund into deficit. It was not anticipated by the actuarial review. And there is nothing in the current system that slows it down. --- THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY REGULATED HOME CARE RATES — BUT NOT CARE HOME FEES Buried in the performance section of the report is a detail that I think deserves much more attention than it has received. The report states that the government has completed the "embedding" of a "standard, fair, Domiciliary Care hourly rate" for people receiving LTC support in their own homes. The stated purpose is to ensure "consistent allocation of LTC benefit funding" and to help grow "a sustainable domiciliary care market." Read that again carefully. The government has set a standard rate for home care. It has regulated what providers can charge for care delivered in a person's home. But it has not done the same for residential care homes. Care homes remain free to charge whatever they want above the standard rate. The gap between what the LTC scheme pays and what the home charges falls on the individual — either from savings or onto the Property Bond. This is the gap that erodes the £419,000 asset protection the scheme is supposed to provide. The government cannot argue that fee regulation is impractical or impossible. They have already done it for home care. The question is why they have chosen not to extend it to residential care — where the financial impact on families is far greater. --- THE STATES GRANT — A REMINDER OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS The States Grant to the LTC Fund in 2025 was £39.5 million. This is presented as the government's contribution to the scheme. But as I have explained in previous posts, this is not new money. This is approximately the amount the government was already spending on long-term care through the Income Support system before the LTC scheme existed. It was simply transferred into the new fund. The government would have spent this money regardless. The genuinely new money — the money that exists only because islanders pay the dedicated LTC levy — is the £49.5 million in taxpayer contributions. That is 55% of the fund's income. So when the government proposes raising the LTC contribution from 1.5% to 2.5%, it is asking islanders to increase their share of the funding by 67% — while the government's own share (the grant) has increased by just 6% year on year. --- PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER Here is the full picture as it stands today, based on the government's own published accounts. The fund received £90.5 million and paid out over £93 million. It is in deficit. The fund balance is £41.5 million — but £7.3 million of that is locked in Property Bonds that cannot be accessed until homes are sold. The real usable balance is approximately £34 million. The Property Bond book has grown from £1.1 million to £7.3 million in three years. More families than ever are carrying debt against their homes for the cost of care. Claimant numbers rose 11.5% in a single year. The trend was not anticipated by the actuaries and shows no sign of slowing. The government has regulated home care rates but has not regulated residential care home fees — despite this being the area where unregulated pricing directly erodes the asset protection the scheme promises. The asset protection threshold of £419,000 has still not been updated since 2014 — despite the average two-bedroom flat now being valued at £510,000. Island homeowners are being asked to accept compound interest on the Property Bond at 4.25%, with no negative equity protection, while the fund that charges them that interest is itself running out of money. And the government's proposed solution is to increase the levy on islanders by 67% — while a review is underway that could simultaneously tighten eligibility or reduce benefits. I do not think this is acceptable. And I do not think most islanders know it is happening. --- WHAT I AM ASKING FOR I have now written to the Minister for Social Security raising these issues. I have shared my findings with local media. And I will continue to share everything I find here, openly and transparently. If I get something wrong, I will correct it — as I have already done in this thread when others have pointed out errors. Getting the facts right matters more to me than being right. But the facts as they stand — drawn from the government's own published accounts — paint a picture of a fund in trouble, a bond book that is growing, and a system that places its heaviest burdens on the people who have contributed the most and can afford to fight back the least. If you have been through this system, are going through it now, or are concerned about what it might mean for your family in the future — please keep sharing your experiences. The more people who understand how this system actually works, the harder it becomes to leave it unchanged. Thank you to everyone who has engaged with this. When I started looking into this, it was because one person I love needed help. The response from this community has shown me that the problem is far bigger than one family.