If the pensioner cashed that in they would be rich. If the property that has skyrocketed in value since they bought it 30 or more years ago is still needed for them to live in (as is most likely the case), then they are not rich on that basis alone, no.
This is true, many pensioners no doubt consider themselves to be asset rich/cash poor. Most I suspect want to pass on their 'assets' to their families and hope not to have to release assets to obtain cash funds, e.g. by downsizing or other such methods, before they 'pop-their-clogs'.
Government often interferes with such plans,
@Red in STL identified, e.g. Margaret Thatcher's selling of council houses was intended to produce a nation of stake holders, the down side was the loss of council houses. Gordon Brown's actions on Pensions spawned the increase in using houses as investments rather than homes.
'The road to hell' is paved with good intentions. More thought has to be given by governments to basic needs, especially facing the future problems of, mass migration, control/depletion of natural resources, and the ever present threat of climate changes.
I hope that this government goes for the longer term and sets out at least a ten year strategy on housing, NHS, education, control of natural resources and links this to the economic growth needed to support it against the back ground of climate changes. Using its once in a lifetime massive commons majority to take through, force through if necessary, all that is needed to action this strategy.
We may never get another chance, 'to do the right thing'.