Paid to Care for Mum? Rogers v Wills and Why Your LPA Should Say What You Want

Bern Rogers looked after her mother, Sheila, at home in Bristol for about two and a half years. As Sheila's dementia developed, she needed watching day and night. She insisted that her daughter should be "paid properly" for the care [38]. No price was ever agreed. After Sheila died, the family fell apart over it. Bern was prosecuted for theft and acquitted. Then she sued her brother Andrew, as executor of their mother's estate, and the High Court awarded her £127,500 plus interest [Q61].

Sheila had made Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs), appointing Bern and Andrew to act jointly [44]. The family discussed paying Bern many times, including in writing, but never settled a figure. Nothing in the judgments suggests that her LPAs said anything about paying for her care. Without an agreed price, a promise made in 2017 was only resolved in court years later, after a criminal trial and a civil claim with separate trials on liability and on the amount.

An LPA lets you record "preferences" and "instructions": what you want your attorneys to think about, and what they must do. These can record your wishes about your care and how it is paid for. They do not, on their own, fix a fee or remove the conflict that arises when a family member is both your carer and your attorney. That needs a separate care arrangement, and sometimes the court's approval. Getting the pieces to fit is why it is worth having a solicitor check your LPA before you sign. Capacity Vault, the company behind Make a Will, offers LPAs online with a solicitor check before you sign.

This is Rogers v Wills, a case in the Business and Property Courts in Bristol. HHJ Paul Matthews decided liability on 6 June 2025 in [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch), and costs on 7 July 2025 in [2025] EWHC 1711 (Ch). District Judge Wales decided the amount on 25 August 2026 in [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch).

1. What Happened

A widow living alone

Sheila Wills (her given name was Ursula) had nine children with her husband John. Six survived them both [1] [3]. After John died in December 2012, Sheila lived on her own in the family home in Southrepps, Norfolk [27]. On 4 December 2015 she made a professionally drawn will. It appointed her son Andrew as executor and divided her residuary estate equally between her surviving children [4].

"Paid properly"

By her 90th birthday in August 2017, Sheila was becoming lonely and forgetful [28]. In September she was found wandering in the road, confused [31]. Her daughter Maryanne took her to stay with Bern, her eldest surviving child, in Bristol, as a stop-gap [3] [32]. Bern had worked as an auxiliary nurse and begun nurse training, and her husband Jon is a retired GP [Q31].

Maryanne suggested Sheila give Bern £50 a week. Bern took four payments, then gave the £200 back [33]. In late October 2017, Bern took Sheila home to Norfolk, and had arranged to meet a home care company so that carers could come in. Sheila did not want live-in carers. She asked to go back to Bristol with Bern [37].

The judge found that Sheila insisted her return would be on terms that she "wanted to pay her way", and that Bern would be "paid properly" for looking after her. Bern agreed. "There was no discussion as to the amount that would be paid" [38]. Shortly afterwards Sheila told Jon: "I don't want charity. You must make sure that [the claimant] is paid for looking after me" [38].

Two and a half years of care

Sheila was diagnosed with vascular dementia in September 2018 [68]. She also had a painful rectal prolapse, eye conditions, skin cancers, angina and incontinence [60] [Q41]. The quantum judge accepted that she needed continuous supervision, so Bern and Jon could not both leave the house [Q33]. Their only regular weekly break was a volunteer's visit of an hour and a half on Tuesday evenings [Q34].

Payment was discussed in writing. In early 2018 Andrew messaged Bern: "You also need to be compensated for mum living with you" [42]. In August 2019 he wrote: "We (you and me) really need to sort out Mum's method of financing her care for the time she is with you" [85]. Bern replied that she was putting together an invoice [85]. But no price was agreed.

After Sheila died

Sheila fell on the stairs on 2 April 2020 and fractured several ribs [105] [106]. She died on 19 April 2020, aged 92 [3] [Q5]. Shortly before her death, Bern and Andrew spoke by phone. The judge found that Andrew said "Just take it", or words to that effect, about payment for the care, but honestly no longer remembers saying it [122].

Over the following weeks, Bern transferred £100,000 from her mother's accounts to her own [129]. By then Sheila's LPAs had ended: an LPA usually ends when the donor dies. Her siblings accused Bern of theft. She was prosecuted, and in October 2022 a jury at Bristol Crown Court found her not guilty [161].

The money did not stay with Bern. In June 2021, after Andrew complained to the bank, Lloyds recovered it from Bern's bank and recredited Sheila's accounts, adding £7,259.10 interest and £1,000 compensation [155]. So the £127,500 award is not on top of the £100,000.

2. The Law

Did Sheila have capacity to make a contract?

The judge assessed Sheila's capacity by reference to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [168]. These rules mattered:

• Capacity is presumed. "A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity" (section 1(2)) [168].
• The test is about the decision. A person is unable to make a decision if they cannot understand the relevant information, retain it, use or weigh it, or communicate their decision (section 3(1)) [168].
• A diagnosis is not enough. Lack of capacity cannot be established "merely by reference to" a condition that might lead others to make unjustified assumptions (section 2(3)) [168].
• Capacity is decision-specific and can fluctuate. Someone may be able to make one decision but not another, or be able to decide on one day but not the next [169] [170].

The judge added that making an LPA does not, by itself, tell you anything about a person's capacity later on. To be valid, the donor must have capacity when they make it. "It is not even evidence of, let alone proves, a lack of capacity" [172].

Can family members make a binding contract?

A contract needs an intention to create legal relations. People often assume family arrangements never have that intention. The judge said: "This is wrong. It is always a question on the evidence available" [177]. In Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, a wife could not enforce her husband's promise of a monthly allowance, but that turned on its own facts [178] to [181]. Families do make binding arrangements, such as employing a relative in the family business or lending money [182].

Intention is judged objectively, by what a person's words and conduct would convey to a reasonable person [242].

Can there be a contract with no price agreed?

Yes. In the judge's words, despite the apparent vagueness, "a contract for a 'reasonable' price is a perfectly good contract" [173]. Where it is clear that work was to be paid for, the law implies a reasonable sum [174]. For a contract for services between two private individuals, like this one, section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 says so directly. (Contracts between a business and a consumer are covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 instead.)

"Where, under a relevant contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge." What is a reasonable charge "is a question of fact".

The judge set this out at [175].

Unjust enrichment, as a fallback

Bern also claimed in unjust enrichment, in case there was no contract. Broadly, the court asks whether someone has been enriched, at the claimant's expense, in circumstances the law treats as unjust, and whether there is any defence [186] [189]. The dispute was over whether the enrichment was "unjust". The judge discussed two possible reasons: "failure of basis" and "free acceptance", where someone accepts a benefit they could have refused, knowing it was expected to be paid for [192] to [236] [244].

How do you value a reasonable charge for care?

The quantum judge rejected the approach used for unpaid family care in personal injury cases. "This is not a case of gratuitous care." It was a claim for a debt under a contract, so no deduction was made for tax and National Insurance [Q11] [Q12]. The starting point "is likely to be a comparison of the probable cost of obtaining the same or a similar service in the market place" [Q17].

3. Applying the Law to the Facts

The liability trial: there was a contract

HHJ Matthews found "that in October 2017 the claimant and her mother entered into a contract for her to be cared for at the claimant's home for a reasonable price" [238]. He gave four reasons.

• Sheila had capacity. She had made a professionally drawn will and LPAs, discussed her health with doctors, and made her own purchases. Her later dementia diagnosis did not mean she lacked capacity in October 2017. The judge was "very far from satisfied" that she did [239].
• She intended a legal relationship. "Sheila was a lady who knew she had sufficient resources, who did not want charity, and wanted to be looked after properly." If a care home or professional carers had done the work, nobody would doubt the intention to pay. "This was not a short-term family or social treat" [240].
• All the elements of a contract were there. "Although no specific price was fixed, it was plainly a contract for services at a reasonable price", and Sheila's estate was liable to pay it [241].
• The objective test pointed the same way. Even if Sheila privately had no such intention, her words and conduct would have conveyed it [242].

If he was wrong about the contract, the judge would have held the estate liable in unjust enrichment instead, on the basis of free acceptance [244]. He said the case "cries out for mediation rather than litigation" [248].

Andrew was ordered to pay Bern's costs of the liability trial, with £75,685.50 on account [C21]. The judge stressed that this is Andrew's personal liability, because "the deceased's 'estate' is not a person in law". Whether Andrew can recover the costs from the estate was a separate question he did not decide [C22] [C23].

The quantum trial: £150 a day

Bern claimed £150 a day for 900 days, £135,000 in total [Q6]. Andrew proposed £17,195.88, based on local government care workers' pay for two to three hours a day, less 20% for income tax and National Insurance [Q7].

District Judge Wales accepted that Bern cared for Sheila for 900 days. But the contract began on or around 2 November 2017, so it covered 850 of them [Q29] [Q30]. The nearest commercial comparison was a live-in carer, available around the clock [Q45].

Care-cost evidence considered by the court	Cost
24-hour home care (Home Instead)	About £218,450 over 850 days [Q46]
Six hours of home care a day (Home Instead)	About £153,000 over 850 days [Q47]
Fully managed live-in care	£1,080 a week, about £154 a day [Q48]
A Bristol nursing home	About £5,200 a month, or £171 a day [Q50]
Bern's claim	£150 a day, including board, lodging and travel. Averaged over 24 hours, that is £6.25 an hour [Q55]

These are the figures the court had for the years of care, not current prices. The home care figures did not include household expenses, food or travel [Q49].

The judge found the claim "materially below the likely market cost of comparable commercial care", while fairly reflecting that Bern was not a regulated care business [Q59]. He awarded £150 a day for 850 days: "judgment in the sum of £127,500, plus interest" [Q61]. He also said Bern will probably have to pay tax on it, although that was not for the court to decide [Q11].

Appeals

As at 26 October 2026: according to an article by Bern's barrister, Andrew applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the liability decision, and that application was unsuccessful. The BBC has reported that the estate intends to appeal the amount. We have not found a published judgment on any appeal against the amount.

4. What This Means for You

Every family that cares for someone at home can take something from this case. The court did not decide it on whether anyone behaved well or badly: "The moral position of any of the parties or their siblings is simply irrelevant" [2]. It decided it on what could be proved. Sheila's agreement was binding. But the price was never agreed, and putting a figure on it took a second trial.

Agree the care arrangement in writing, while you can

According to Bern, her mother "would tell anyone that would listen that she wanted to make sure that I sorted out money for her care". The family discussed payment in messages, but no figure was ever agreed. The judge noted that the dispute might have been avoided with a little more communication, and that "it is a real tragedy" [123].

A written care agreement, made while the person has capacity, can say who is caring, what is included, what they will be paid, and when that will be reviewed. It can provide much clearer evidence than family memories of a conversation, as long as those terms are actually agreed.

Use your LPAs to support that arrangement

There are two types of Lasting Power of Attorney, and they do different jobs.

• Property and financial affairs. This covers your money, including paying for your care. You can choose to let your attorneys use it as soon as it is registered, with your permission, or only once you lack capacity.
• Health and welfare. This covers decisions about your care, such as where you live. Your attorneys "can only begin to act once you lose mental capacity".

Both forms have a section for preferences and instructions. The Office of the Public Guardian explains the difference:

• Preferences are "what you'd like all your attorneys to think about when they make decisions for you. Your attorneys don't have to follow them but should bear them in mind."
• Instructions "tell your attorneys what they must do when acting on your behalf."

Your attorneys must act in your best interests. That means considering "the person's past and present wishes and feelings (and, in particular, any relevant written statement made by him when he had capacity)" (section 4(6)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005). A preference saying where and by whom you want to be cared for, and that you want family carers to be paid fairly, records those wishes. It does not, by itself, set a fee or decide who is entitled to be paid.

Paying someone for caring for you is also different from paying an attorney for acting as your attorney. If you want your attorneys paid a fee for that role, "you must write this in your instructions. If you don't, your attorney can't be paid."

Why the wording needs a solicitor's check

This is an area where drafting mistakes can cause problems. The Office of the Public Guardian warns that an instruction requiring your attorney to use your money to benefit someone else "is likely to be ineffective because it may conflict with the attorney's obligation to act in your best interests". It suggests a preference instead.

Paying for your own care is a different matter. A property and financial affairs attorney "will usually have authority to make payments to a third-party providing care for the donor". The difficulty comes when the carer is also your attorney, as Bern was. The Office of the Public Guardian says that where "the attorney is also the person providing care a conflict of interest arises as attorneys are not allowed to take advantage of their position. Where this occurs, the attorney will be required to apply to the Court of Protection for authorisation." The same can apply where an attorney pays someone closely connected to them, such as a spouse or child.

It also matters how your attorneys act. Bern and Andrew were appointed jointly [44]. Attorneys appointed jointly "must always make all decisions together", and if they cannot agree, "the decision can't be made". That is a lot to ask of two siblings deciding whether one of them should be paid.

None of this means you should not appoint your carer as an attorney. It means the choices fit together: your care arrangement, who your attorneys are, how they act, and what your preferences say. A solicitor's check cannot give the court's authorisation where it is needed. It can point out where your choices could cause difficulties later, while it is still easy to change them.

Conclusion

Sheila wanted to stay with her family, and she wanted her daughter paid for looking after her. She got the first. The second took a criminal trial and a civil claim with two trials before a court put a figure on it, and the estate has said it will appeal the amount. A close family was split along the way. Sheila's agreement was binding. What was missing was an agreed price, written down, that everyone could see.

If you would like to be cared for by family, agree the arrangement in writing while you can, including how much the carer will be paid. Then make Lasting Powers of Attorney that support it, using the preferences section to record your wishes about your care and how it is paid for. Have the wording checked by a solicitor, because some instructions do not work, and a carer who is also an attorney faces rules that are easy to trip over.

Capacity Vault, the company behind Make a Will, lets you make your LPAs online, with a solicitor checking your answers and documents before you sign. To learn more first, read our guides on Lasting Powers of Attorney, the five duties of an attorney and whether an attorney can make gifts.

We do not act in contested inheritance claims. If you are thinking of bringing or defending one, the Law Society's Find a Solicitor service can point you to a specialist.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. If you would like advice on a will or LPAs that take account of family care, please get in touch.

Sources

• Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch) on Find Case Law, The National Archives. The liability judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews, 6 June 2025. The source of paragraph numbers without a prefix.
• Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1367 (Ch) on BAILII
• Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1711 (Ch) on Find Case Law, The National Archives. The costs judgment, 7 July 2025. The source of paragraph numbers marked "C".
• Rogers v Wills [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch) on Find Case Law, The National Archives. The quantum judgment of District Judge Wales, 25 August 2026. The source of paragraph numbers marked "Q".
• Rogers v Wills [2026] EWHC 2231 (Ch) on BAILII
• Mental Capacity Act 2005, section 1 on legislation.gov.uk
• Mental Capacity Act 2005, section 2 on legislation.gov.uk
• Mental Capacity Act 2005, section 3 on legislation.gov.uk
• Mental Capacity Act 2005, section 4 on legislation.gov.uk
• Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, section 15 on legislation.gov.uk
• Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, section 12 on legislation.gov.uk. Excludes contracts covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 48 on legislation.gov.uk. Contracts for a trader to supply a service to a consumer.
• LP12: Make and register your lasting power of attorney, Office of the Public Guardian. The source of the quotations on preferences, instructions, attorneys' fees, when each type of LPA can be used, and attorneys acting jointly.
• SD14: OPG's approach to family care payments, Office of the Public Guardian, updated 22 September 2026. The source of the quotations on payments for care and attorneys who are also carers.
• When a lasting power of attorney ends, GOV.UK. "Usually it ends because the donor has died."
• Commercial care costs amongst family members, Ben Haseldine, 4KBW, 25 August 2026. The source for the unsuccessful application for permission to appeal the liability judgment.
• Daughter wins £127k claim for caring for mum at home, BBC News. The source for Bern's quotation about her mother and the estate's intention to appeal the amount.
• Find a Solicitor, The Law Society