**7. Who will pay?**

According to the Chartered Institute of Housing, "For many older people, being able to live independently at home, or in a homely setting, for as long as possible can be hugely beneficial for both physical and mental health, and local connections to family, friends and community can help to reduce social isolation and loneliness.

*Perspective Chapter: Is Expecting Older People to Downsize to Help Solve the Nation's Housing… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108047*

This can also reduce the need for more costly interventions such as a stay in hospital or a move to residential care" [30].

But who should foot the bill for this?

There is, of course, the perfectly sensible argument that many of those in houses that need to be repaired or adapted could very well afford to pay for the work. Agreed, some can, but not all… 67% of those currently living in "pensioner poverty" in the UK are owner-occupiers [31]. They are "asset rich and cash poor": owning their own home (which in many cases has spiralled in value since they purchased it) but struggling to afford to heat, repair, adapt and maintain it.

Making access to equity release type loans more flexible and competitive could be one part of the solution, allowing older homeowners to release and live on part of the value of their home. Another would be to adequately fund "handy man" care and repair services that can carry out the small but vital jobs that make homes safer and more accessible: sadly, many councils have seen this this as one area where economies can be made.

Care & Repair England research shows that 300 people can be helped by a handyperson for the same cost as one place in a care home for a year [32]. This really exemplifies the principle of "investing to save" as many of those whose move into care can be delayed will rely on some measure of local authority funding. It is perhaps symbolic that Care & Repair England itself recently closed (April 2022) after 36 years because it could no longer secure funding for its work. As it said in its statement on closure: "Despite the strong evidence and data about the connections between ageing, disadvantage, poor housing and health, effective policies, funding and action to tackle non-decent homes are all notable by their absence" [33].

Alongside that, providing better mechanisms for the 76% of older people (aged 55 and over) who own their own homes [34] to move to more appropriate housing could enable more to fund their own future. But why not accelerate that process and incentivise older people in homes that are too large for them to downsize? Better still, provide funds that would enable retirement living developers to incorporate more affordable homes in their projects… something that is also a big barrier for many.
