A theatre director said she will be forced to sell her childhood home after losing a High Court battle with Worcestershire County Council over her mother’s care bills.

The Court of Appeal yesterday (April 8) ruled against 75-year-old Glen Walford, who had argued that Sunnydene, in Stourport, should not be used to fund her mother Mary’s care costs as she still kept a bedroom and an office there.

Mary Walford, who celebrated her 100th birthday in February, had gone into care back in 2006 with her Glen renting a flat in London.

The county council originally allowed the situation to stand, but changed its mind in March 2012 and wrote to the Miss Walford, saying the Stourport home should be taken into account and used to fund her elderly mum's care.

A two-year judicial review led to the High Court siding with Miss Walford in February 2014 in a landmark ruling but a fresh Court of Appeal verdict has overturned it, meaning the value of the house must be taken into consideration to pay the care fees.

Under the law anyone with capital of more than £21,000 is asked to contribute to their care after an assessment, but property can be disregarded under certain circumstances, like if a partner or relative over 60 lives there, either in 'whole or part'.

Miss Walford's case was that she regarded the Stourport house as her 'family' home, and is also a pensioner herself, but the Court of Appeal has overruled the High Court's stance.

Miss Walford, rents a single bed-sit from a friend in Piccadilly, London, which she uses while working as a theatre director during the week.

She said: "Sunnydene is my home. I have lived there since I was 13. My grandmother’s aunt built the house in the mid-19th century and it was always my intention to retire in the house.

"My car is on the drive, my clothes are in the wardrobe. I pay council tax, the electricity bills and have spent £42,000 renovating it.

"It is quite simply my home and it is going to be sold from underneath me. God knows how many other people will face the same heartache following this ruling."

She added: "What the council fail to understand, or refuse to understand, is that I am freelancer.

"I was brought up a country girl but work in the theatre and you can’t do that in the country which is why I rent a tiny one-bedroom flat from a friend in London.

"It isn’t my home. I get back to Sunnydene as often as I possibly can but I am often away for weeks at a time because of my job. I spend a lot of time in Japan and can be away for six week periods but that is the nature of my work.

"I am now in a position that I will almost certainly have to sell my home to pay for my mother’s care bills which will leave me homeless.

"I already pay a top-up for my mother’s care every week but the council want my money.

"I had hoped this would all be over when the High Court came down on my side in 2012 but the council were determined to win and they have.

"I have no energy or money left to fight them. I am organising my finances now and then I will decide what I will do after that.

"I do not want to go into how much money I have spent fighting this but it has meant I have had to keep on working when I had hoped to retire."

Worcestershire County Council welcomed the decision and a spokesman said: "This was an important legal challenge and we are pleased the Court of Appeal ruled in our favour.

"There are ever increasing demands being made on the public purse and it is important decisions about how public money is used to support individuals are fair and consistent.

"We had to pursue legal action because we believed in this case the council had no legal duty to fund the cost of care."

Experts have warned that the outcome of the bruising battle is likely to reverberate elsewhere.

Charlotte Kelly, an associate at Worcestershire legal firm Kerwoods, said: "This was a very significant judgement and one which will affect many in similar situations.

"This is a very complex area which will affect an increasing number of people.

“The whole care fees issue can be a bit of a nightmare, especially where loved ones are involved and emotions are running high.

"This case was very finely balanced with the Appeal Court judges split two to one."