English Housing Survey 2021 to 2022: social rented sector

Question 1

Introduction and main findings

Accepted Answer

The English Housing Survey (EHS) is a national survey of people’s housing circumstances and the condition and energy efficiency of housing in England. It is one of the longest standing government surveys and was first run in 1967. This report provides the findings from the 2020-21 survey.

The report also presents selected findings from the 2020-21 Local Authority Housing Statistics (LAHS), which are based on data returns from local authorities in England.

Impact of COVID-19 on the English Housing Survey

The 2021-22 English Housing Survey data was collected toward the end of the period of restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This necessitated a change in the established survey mode. Face-to-face interviews were replaced with telephone interviews and internal inspections of properties were replaced with external inspections, where the inspection was restricted to an assessment of the exterior of the dwelling and supplemented by information about the interior of the dwelling the surveyor collected (socially distanced) at the doorstep.

There were also some data we were unable to collect at all, in which case predictive modelled estimates at dwelling level were produced to supplement the ‘external plus’ inspection and indicate whether or not a dwelling: had damp problems; had any Category 1 hazards assessed through the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS); or met the Decent Homes Standard. In these instances, we have been able to model data to provide headline figures for this report. We indicate where this has been done at the beginning of each topic area. Additionally, as interviewers were unable to identify vacant dwellings in the 2020-21 data collection year, and dwelling level data includes two survey years, all dwelling estimates for this report are based on occupied dwellings only.

More information on the impact of COVID-19 on the English Housing Survey and the modelling methodology can be found in Annex 5.5 of the Technical Report.

This report

This report focuses on households within the social rented sector and brings together demographic and financial information collected in the household interview with details of the quality and condition of homes collected in the physical survey to outline the housing circumstances of social housing residents.

Chapter 1 provides an outline of the demographic characteristics of social housing tenants, such as age, region, household type, ethnicity, sex, nationality, religion, disability. The chapter also explores internet access and economic status and looks at overcrowding and under-occupation in the social rented sector.

Chapter 2 explores housing costs and affordability among social renters by looking at income and housing costs, as well as other aspects of affordability, the proportion of income spent on rent and rent arrears. The chapter further examines the method of payment for gas and electric, and the presence of savings among social renters.

Chapter 3 explores housing history and future housing, including house moves, experiences of homelessness, presence on waiting lists, time within the social rented sector and expectations to buy.

Chapter 4 discusses the quality of social rented homes, including the Decent Homes Standard, the presence of Category 1 hazards and damp. The chapter further explores fire safety and energy efficiency.

Main findings

There are 4 million households in the social rented sector, with a higher proportion in housing association homes compared to local authority homes.

Housing association tenants make up around 10% of households (2.5 million households) and local authority tenants make up 6% of households (1.6 million households).

The social rented sector contains a larger proportion of vulnerable groups than private rented and owner occupied sectors.

While the social rented and private rented sectors have similar proportions of households with dependent children (both 31%), there are a greater proportion of lone parents with dependent children in the social rented sector (18%) than in owner occupation (3%) and the private rented sector (12%).
Over half (54%) of social rented households (around 2.2 million households) have a household member with a disability. This is more prevalent than for private renters and owner occupiers (both 30%), despite social renters having a similar age profile to owner occupiers.
Households in the social rented sector are more likely to have experienced homelessness in the past (8%) than either those in the private rented sector (5%) or those in the owner occupied sector (>1%).

The social rented sector has higher levels of overcrowding than both the private rented and owner occupied sectors. This is especially prevalent in multi-family households and those with children, as well as those with an ethnic minority HRP.

In 2021-22 325,000 social rented households were overcrowded, representing 8% of the sector. Overcrowding is more prevalent in the social rented sector than other tenures and was highest in London (16%).
Within the social rented sector, households with two or more families (50%) are the most likely to be overcrowded. Both couples and lone parents with dependent children (23% and 17% respectively) in the social sector are more likely to live in overcrowded accommodation than those in private rented households (14% and 13%) and owner occupied households (3% and 6%).
Overcrowding is higher in social rented households with an ethnic minority HRP (11%) than with a white HRP (6%).

Social renters are less likely to have savings than other tenures, and those with savings tend to have smaller amounts.

Just over a quarter (26%) of social renters have savings, compared to over half of private renters (52%) and 78% of owner occupiers.
Social rented households with dependent children are less likely to have savings (13%) than those without dependent children (32%).
As well as being less likely to have any savings, social renters are less likely to have larger amounts in their savings. Only 2% of social renters have savings of £16,000 and over, while 27% of owner occupiers and 12% of private renters have this amount in savings.

Social renters on average pay less rent per week than private renters, but are more likely to be in arrears.

Social renters pay, on average, £106 per week compared to £209 per week for private renters. Housing association tenants have higher weekly rental costs (£110 per week) than local authority tenants (£100 per week). Social renters in London have a significantly higher weekly rental cost (£141) than social renters in the rest of England (£97).
Three quarters (75%) of social renters find it easy to pay rent. However, younger social renters aged 16-25 are more likely to find it difficult to pay rent (33%) compared to older social renters aged 75 and over (11%).
Social renters (18%) are more likely to be in arrears or have been in arrears in the past year compared to private renters (7%).

Social renters who report greater difficulty with rental costs are more likely to pay for gas and electric using a pre-payment meter, exposing them to higher unit costs for energy.

Within the social rented sector, 38% pay for gas and 40% pay for electricity by pre-payment meter. This is a larger proportion than in the private rented sector, where 19% pay for energy via pre-payment meter.
Social renters who find it very difficult to pay their rent are more likely to pay energy bills by pre-payment (56% for electricity, 50% for gas).
Social renters in arrears are also more likely to pay their bills via pre-payment (55% for both gas and electricity).

Social renters are less likely to expect to buy a home in the future.

Social renters are less likely to expect to buy a home (27%) than private renters (62%). For both tenures, the main reason for not expecting to buy a home is not being able to afford it.

Social renters are less likely to live in non-decent homes, or have a Category 1 Hazard than other tenures, but more likely to suffer from damp than owner occupiers. On average, poor quality social rented dwellings are less expensive to repair.

For social renters, 383,000 (10%) of households are living in non-decent accommodation, and 164,000 (4%) have a HHSRS Category 1 Hazard.
Social rented homes are more likely to have damp (4%) than owner occupied homes (2%) but less likely than private rented homes (11%).
Social rented dwellings tend to cost less on average to make decent (£5,300) than private rented (£8,000) and owner occupied (£8,200) dwellings.

Social renters in high rise flats are more likely to report feeling unsafe in their home from a fire.

Overall, 8% of social rented households agree they do not feel safe at home because a fire may break out. Social renters in flats, particularly high rise purpose built flats (30%) are more likely to feel unsafe. A similar pattern is found with respect to private renters, where 34% of those in high rise flats report not feeling safe from fire (compared to 10% of those in houses or bungalows).
Overall, 96% of social rented homes have a working smoke alarm, although this varies by region, dwelling age, and dwelling type.

Acknowledgments and further queries

Each year the English Housing Survey relies on the contributions of a large number of people and organisations. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) would particularly like to thank the following people and organisations, without whom the 2021-22 survey and this report, would not have been possible: all the households who gave up their time to take part in the survey, The National Centre for Social Research, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and CADS Housing Surveys.

This report was produced by Anamaria Popa, Olivia Cottis-Black and Helena Wilson at The National Centre for Social Research, in collaboration with Joseph Clinton at BRE and Amy Small at DLUHC.

If you have any queries about this report, would like any further information or have suggestions for analyses you would like to see included in future EHS reports, please contact ehs@levellingup.gov.uk.

The responsible analyst for this report is: Chauncey Glass, Housing and Planning Analysis Division, DLUHC. Contact via ehs@levellingup.gov.uk.

Question 2

1.  Profile of social renters

Accepted Answer

This chapter describes the key demographic characteristics of people living in the social rented sector, including those who rent their homes from local authorities and from housing associations. The chapter will report differences between these two groups where significant and interesting to do so. For a more detailed description please refer to the Annex Tables that accompany this chapter and to the English Housing Survey 2021-22 Headline Report.

The social rented sector was the smallest of the three tenures, accounting for 17% of all households in England which equates to around 4 million households in total. To compare, the private rented sector accounted for 19% (4.6 million) households and owner occupiers constituted around 64% (15.6 million) households, Headline Report Table 1.1.

The social rented sector is made up of two groups: in England, 6% (1.6 million households) rented from a local authority and 10% (2.5 million households) rented from a Residential Social Landlord (RSL, also known as Housing Association).

Region

The proportion of social rented households varied across England: in the South East and South West around 13% of households were social housing, increasing to 22% in London and in the North East. London had the highest number of social rented households of any region with a total of 806,000 social rented households, Annex Table 1.1.

Age of household reference person

Social renters (mean age 53 years) were on average older than private renters (41 years). Both of these groups had a lower average age than owner occupiers (57 years). Within the social rented sector, those renting from a local authority and those renting from a Housing Association were on average of the same age (53 years), Annex Table 1.2.

Those aged 65+ were more likely to be in social housing (16%) than in private rented accommodation (6%), Headline Report Annex Table 1.4.

Household type

Among social renters, the most common household type was single person households (43%), followed by lone parents with dependent children (18%) and couples with dependent children (13%), Annex Table 1.4.

Single person households make up 43% of households in social rented sector, but only 30% of owner occupiers and 34% of private renters. Lone parents with dependent children were also more common among social renters (18%), than owners (3%) and private renters (12%). Social renters were less likely to be couples with dependent children (13%) compared to owners (21%) and private renters (19%), Figure 1.1.

Overall, 31% of social rented households had dependent children, similar to the proportion of private rented households (31%) and more than the proportion of owner occupied households (24%), Annex Table 1.5.

Figure 1.1: Household type by tenure 2021-22

^{Base: Full household sample

Notes:

1) excludes non-response cases}

Ethnicity

The majority of households in the social rented sector had a white HRP (81%), Headline Report Annex Table 1.3. Households with an ethnic minority HRP were more prevalent among social renters (19%) than owner occupiers.

Local authority tenants (23%) were more likely to have an ethnic minority HRP than Housing Association tenants (17%). Social renters (9%) are more likely to have a Black HRP than private renters (6%) and owners (1%).

Gender

Social renters were more likely to have a female HRP (57%) than a male HRP (43%). This difference appeared to be driven by social renters aged 25-34 (8% female, 5% male) and those aged 65 and over (16% female, 12% male), Annex Table 1.6. Allocation of social rented homes based on need means those with lower incomes and lone parents are more likely to be eligible for social housing, attributes which are more prevalent among women.

Nationality

The majority of social renters (92%, 3.7 million households) were from the UK or Republic of Ireland. Social renters were more likely than private renters (74%) to be UK Nationals, and less likely than owners (96%), Annex Table 1.7.

Religion

Over half of social renters (51%) identified as Christian, higher than the proportion of private renters (43%) and lower than the proportion of owner occupiers (55%). A further 39% of social renters had no religion, 6% identified as Muslim, and other religions accounted for less than 3% of social renters, Annex Table 1.8.

Long term illness and disability

Over half (54%) of social rented households – around 2.2 million households – had a household member with a long-term illness or disability (referred to here as ‘disability’), Annex Table 1.9.

Disability was more prevalent among social renters (54%) than owners (30%) or private renters (30%). Social renters were almost twice as likely to have a longstanding illness or disability than owners, even though they had a similar age profile.

Among social renters with a long-term illness or disability, the most common disabilities were mobility issues (54% of social renters with a disability), stamina (45%), mental health (40%), and dexterity (34%). Other disabilities, including problems with vision, hearing, and learning difficulties, were each mentioned by 7% to 18% of those with a disability. Among social renters with a disability, 40% mentioned they were suffering with mental health issues, which was similar to private renters (40%) and more than the proportion of owner occupiers (16%) who mentioned mental health, Annex Table 1.10., Figure 1.2.

^{Base: All social renters

Notes:

1) excludes non-response cases

2) totals sum to more than 100% as respondents could select more one answer}

Economic status

Most social renters fell into three main working status groups: full time work (29%), retired (26%) and other inactive (22%). Rates of full-time employment were lower for social renters (29%) than for owners (52%) and private renters (66%). However, rates of part time work among social renters (15%) were higher than for private renters (11%), and owners (8%). Social renters were more likely to be economically inactive for other reasons (22%), such as due to a long-term limiting illness or disability, than private renters (8%) and owners (3%). The proportion of HRPs who were unemployed was also higher among social renters (8%) than owners (1%) and private renters (4%), Annex Table 1.11.

NS-SEC

For social renters, the most common NS-SEC groups were semi-routine occupations (30%), routine occupations (23%) and lower managerial and professional occupations (14%). Social renters were more likely to be in semi-routine or routine occupations than owners (8% semi-routine, 6% routine) or private renters (15% semi-routine, 11% routine). Conversely, social renters were less likely to be in higher or lower managerial and professional occupations than owners (25% higher, 33% lower managerial and professional) or private renters (18% higher, 26% lower managerial and professional), Annex Table 1.12.

ACORN

ACORN is a segmentation tool which categorises the UK’s population into demographic types. ACORN provides a general understanding of the attributes of a neighbourhood by classifying postcodes into a category, group or type.

Social renters were predominantly in two ACORN categories: financially stretched (38%) and urban adversity (49%). These two groups were less common among owners (financially stretched: 18%, urban adversity – 7%) and private renters (financially stretched: 24%, urban adversity: 21%). Annex Table 1.13.

Internet access

Although the majority of social renters (83%) had internet access at home, they were less likely to do so than owners (95%) or private renters (95%). In total, 17% of social rented households, around 700,000 households did not have internet access at home, Headline Report Annex Table 1.3.

Overcrowding and under-occupation

Levels of overcrowding and under-occupation are measured using the bedroom standard. This is essentially the difference between the number of bedrooms needed to avoid undesirable sharing (given the number, the ages and the relationship of the household members) and the number of bedrooms actually available to the household. Overcrowded households are those that are one or more bedrooms below bedroom standard. An under-occupied household is two or more rooms above bedroom standard. See the glossary for more detail.

Overcrowding

In 2021-22, 8% of social rented households (325,000 households) were overcrowded. Of these, 153,000 were local authority households and 173,000 were housing association households, Annex Table 1.14.

Rates of overcrowding among social renters were markedly higher in London compared to other regions, with around 130,000 households (16%) being overcrowded. Outside of London, overcrowding ranged from 5% in the South West to 9% in the South East. In London, the rate of overcrowding in the social rented sector (16%) was significantly higher than in the private rented sector (12%), and both rented sectors were more likely than owners (2%) to experience overcrowding. Less affordability and long waiting lists in social housing and lack of housing in the private renter market may have contributed towards overcrowding rates in London.

In regions outside of London, social renters were more likely than owner occupiers to be in overcrowded accommodation in all regions, except for the North East as this cannot be tested due to small sample size. Social renters were also more likely than private renters to be in overcrowded accommodation in Yorkshire and the Humber, East of England, and South East, but there is no difference in the North West, South West and West Midlands. Annex Table 1.15., Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Overcrowding by tenure and region

^{Base: Full household sample

Notes:

1) excludes non-response cases

2) to safeguard against data disclosure, findings derived from unweighted cell counts of less than 5 and more than 0 are replaced with a “u”

3) overcrowding data are based on three year averages, sample size shown includes three years of data}

Overcrowding in the social rented sector was highest among households with two or more families sharing (50%, 32,000 households) and couples with dependent children (23%, 134,000 households). Couples with dependent children living in social rented accommodation (23%) were more likely to be overcrowded than owner occupiers (3%) or private renters (14%). Similarly, two or more families sharing were more likely to be overcrowded in social rented sector (50%) than owner occupiers (11%) or private renters (20%), Annex Table 1.16.

For two or more families sharing, local authority tenants (66%) were more likely to be overcrowded then housing association tenants (37%). Other household types were similar between local authority tenants and housing association tenants for overcrowding.

Within the social rented sector, 284,000 households (21%) with dependent children were living in overcrowded accommodation. Households with dependent children were more likely to be overcrowded in the social rented sector (21%) than in the private rented sector (13%) and owner occupied sector (3%), Annex Table 1.17., Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.4: Overcrowding by dependent children

^{Base: Full household sample

Note: overcrowding data are based on three year averages, sample size shown includes three years of data}

Within the social rented sector, overcrowding was higher among households with an ethnic minority HRP (11%) than with a white HRP (6%). For households with an ethnic minority HRP, rates of overcrowding were higher among social renters (11%) than owner occupiers (5%), but lower than private renters (21%). However, social rented households with a white HRP were more likely to be overcrowded then all other tenures (6% social renters, 1% owners, 4% private renters). There were no significant differences between local authority and housing association tenants. Annex Table 1.18.

In detached housing there was a higher level of overcrowding within the social sector (10%) compared to owner occupied (<1%) and private renters (2%). There was a similar pattern in semi-detached housing, with 7% of social renters living in overcrowded accommodation compared to owner occupiers (1%) and private renters (4%). Annex Table 1.19, Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.5: Overcrowding by Dwelling Type

^{Base: Full household sample

Notes:

1) excludes non-response cases

2) to safeguard against data disclosure, findings derived from unweighted cell counts of less than 5 and more than 0 are replaced with a “u”

3) overcrowding data are based on three year averages, sample size shown includes three years of data}

Under-occupation

Around 10% of social renters lived in under-occupied accommodation which was just under 408,000 households. A similar proportion of social renters (10%) and private renters (15%) lived in under-occupied accommodation, and both were less likely to live in under-occupied accommodation than owners (53%), Annex Table 1.20.

Compared with owner occupiers, social renters had lower rates of under-occupation in all regions. Social renters were less likely to live in under-occupied accommodation that private renters in the West Midlands (10% and 26% respectively), Yorkshire and Humber (6% and 21% respectively), and the North East (13% of social renters compared to 27% private renters), Annex Table 1.21.

Within the social rented sector, under-occupation was most common in one person households (15%) and couples with no children (27%). Social renters were less likely than owners and private renters to live in underoccupied accommodation in all types of households except for couples with no children that had comparable levels for social and private renters (27% and 22% respectively), Annex Table 1.22.

Social renters with an ethnic minority HRP were less likely to live in underoccupied housing (7%) than owner occupiers (48%) and private renters (12%), Annex Table 1.23.

Social renters in semi-detached (17%) houses were more likely to be under-occupied compared to purpose-built flats (3%). However, semi-detached housing both owned (53%) and privately rented (29%), was more likely to accommodate under-occupied households than social renters (17%), Annex Table 1.25.

Question 3

2.  Housing costs and affordability

Accepted Answer

Tenant income and savings

Social renters tended to have a lower income than owners or private renters. Almost half (47%) of social renters were in the lowest income quintile, the equivalent of 1.9 million households. Social renters were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile than private renters (20%) and owners (13%). Similarly, fewer social renters (4%) had an income in the highest income quintile than private renters (14%) and owners (26%). Both social renters in housing associations and those living in local authority housing had had similar income distributions, Headline Report Annex Table 1.3.

Social renters aged under 35 (49%) were less likely to have an income in the lowest income quintile compared to social renters aged 65 and over (60%). Overall, social renters were more likely to have an income in the lowest income quintile compared to private renters regardless of age, Annex Table 2.1.

Social renters with no dependent children (53%) were more likely to have an income in the lowest income quintile compared to those with dependent children (35%), Annex Table 2.2.

Just over a quarter of social renters (26%) said they had savings, the equivalent of 1 million households, whereas more than half (52%) of private renters were in a similar position. Social renters living in local authorities and those living in housing associations were just as likely to have savings, Figure 2.1, Headline Report Annex Table 1.19.

Figure 2.1 Presence of savings by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.4

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Older social renters aged 65 and over (45%) were more likely to have savings compared to social renters aged under 35 (17%), Annex Table 2.4.

Social renters with dependent children (13%) were less likely to have savings than social renters with no dependent children (32%), Annex Table 2.5. While social renters with dependent children tend to have higher incomes compared to those with no dependent children, they are often required to spend more on rent and childcare associated expenses, thus limiting their capacity to save money.

Social renters were not only less likely to have savings than private renters, but also less likely to have larger amounts of savings. Within the social rented sector, 11% had under £5,000 in savings, 5% had savings estimated between £5,000-£15,999 and only 2% had savings of £16,000 and over. Almost three quarters of social renters said they do not have savings (74%) and 7% did not give a savings amount. Whereas fewer social renters reported higher savings amounts, private renters were as likely to have savings under £5,000 (14%) as savings of £16,000 and over (12%). Overall, social renters (2%) were less likely to have savings over £16,000 compared to private renters (12%), Annex Table 2.6.

Rent

Compared to private renters, social renters had lower rental costs, spending on average £106 per week on rent compared to £209 per week for private renters. Social renters living in housing associations (£110 per week) had higher weekly rental costs than those living in local authority housing (£100 per week), Annex Table 2.8.

Younger social renters aged under 35 had higher weekly rental costs (£110 per week) compared to older social renters aged 65 and over (£99 per week).

The same trend was identified when looking at weekly rental costs by employment. Those working full-time (£109 per week) or part-time (£115 per week) had higher weekly rental costs compared to retired social renters (£98 per week). Social renters who were unemployed had similar weekly rental costs to those in full- and part-time work.

Social renters with dependent children had higher weekly rental costs compared to social renters with no dependent children (£115 per week, respectively £102).

Social renters in London (£141 per week) had a higher weekly rental cost compared to those in the rest of England (£97 per week). Social renters in the North East (£84 per week) had the lowest rental costs compared to all other regions, whilst social renters in the South East had the highest rental costs outside of London (£118 per week).

Housing support

In the social rented sector, 2.3 million households received housing support. More social renters (57%) received housing support than private renters (25%), Annex Table 2.9.

Social renters with dependent children (63%) were more likely to receive housing support compared to social renters with no dependent children (54%).

Social renters who were unemployed (93%) or inactive (89%) were more likely to receive housing support than social renters who worked full-time (14%). Social renters working part-time (59%) were also more likely to receive housing support than those who worked full-time (14%), Annex Table 2.11.

No significant differences could be observed when looking at receipt of housing support by age, Annex Table 2.10.

Social renters received less housing support on average (£86 per week) than private renters (£127 per week). However, the weekly housing cost for social renters after deducting housing support (£20 per week) remained lower on average than for private renters (£70 per week), Headline report Annex Table 1.17, Live Table FA3241.

Mean housing support was higher for those living in housing associations (£89 per week) compared to renters living in local authority housing (£81 per week), Annex Table 2.12.

Social renters in full-time work received the lowest weekly amount of housing support (£50 per week), compared to £87 for part-time workers, £84 for retired social renters, £97 for those in unemployment and £90 for those with other inactive employment status.

Social renters of different ages received similar amounts of housing support.

Proportion of rent covered by housing support

Among social renters in receipt of housing support, 57% received housing support that exactly covered their rent while 43% received housing support which covered part of their rent. The proportion of social renters who received full housing support (57%) was higher than for private renters (20%), Annex Table 2.13.

No significant differences were observed when looking at proportion of rent covered by housing support by household type.

Proportion of income spent on rent

The proportion of income spent on rent is based on household income including benefits. This provides a measure of all the income a household has available and assumes that all household members contribute to the rent.

On average, social renters spent 27% of their household income, including housing support, on rent. This is lower than the proportion of income spent by private renters on rent (33%). Within the social rented sector, housing association tenants tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on rent (28%) compared to renters living in local authority housing (26%), Annex Table 2.14.

Social renters in full-time work tend to spend a lower proportion of their income on rent (18%) compared to social renters who are unemployed (38%), retired (29%), other inactive (31%), or working part-time (28%).

Social renters who are younger (16 to 24 years) and older (75 and over) tend to spend a similar proportion of their income on rent (32% and 28% respectively), whilst social renters aged 35 to 44 tend to spend the lowest proportion of their income on rent compared to all other age categories (24%).

When looking at the proportion of income spent on rent including housing benefit, social renters in London (31%) and the South East (30%) spent the highest proportion of their income on rent compared to any other region in England, Annex Table 2.14.

If housing support were to be excluded, social renters in the South East and London would spend a similar amount, 39% and 43% respectively. While social renters in London spent a higher amount on rent compared to all other regions, social renters in the South East spent a similar amount as social renters in East of England (35%), West Midlands (34%) and the North East (35%), Annex Table 2.15

Most regions (excluding London or the South East) spent a similar proportion on rent, about a quarter of their income including housing support and a third of their income when excluding housing support. The difference in proportion of income spent on rent when excluding benefits demonstrates the importance of housing support to make rental costs more affordable, Annex Table 2.14 and Annex Table 2.15.

Ease of paying rent

Three quarters of social renters said they find it easy or very easy to pay rent (75%). This is similar to the proportion of private renters who said the same (74%), Annex Table 2.16.

Social renters in housing associations and local authority housing were as likely to say they found it easy or very easy to pay rent (74% and 75% respectively).

More young social renters aged 16-24 found it difficult or very difficult to pay their rent (33%) compared to older social renters aged 75 and over (11%).

More social renters living in households as couples with non-dependent children have said they found it easy or very easy to pay their rent (92%) compared to couples with dependent children (76%).

Around a third of social renters living in London (33%) said they found it difficult or very difficult to pay their rent, whereas less than a quarter of social renters living in other regions in England said the same (23%). Private renters and social renters were just as likely to say they found it easy or difficult to pay their rent regardless of region.

Rent arrears

Almost a fifth (18%) of social renters were either in arrears or had been in arrears in the past year, compared to 7% of private renters, Figure 2.2, Annex Table 2.17. This was statistically insignificant from the proportion of social renters in arrears in 2020-21, Headline Report Annex Table 1.14.

Figure 2.2 Whether household was in arrears over the previous 12 months, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all renters

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.17

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Within the social rented sector, lone parents with dependent children were more likely to be in arrears (32%) than couples with dependent children (19%), couples with no children (9%) and social renters living in one person households (14%).

More social renters aged 16 to 24 years said they were in arrears (29%) compared to older social renters aged 75 and over (4%).

Social renters in full-time work (18%) were more likely to be in arrears than those in retirement (4%), but less likely to be in arrears than those who were unemployed (29%).

While the EHS collects data on the proportion of households in arrears, the Local Authority Housing Statistics (LAHS) collect data on the total amount of arrears across local authorities. The LAHS show that the total arrears of current local authority tenants (tenants of properties owned through a Housing Revenue Account only) increased substantially, from £206 million in 2016-17 to £335 million in 2021-22, Figure 2.3. This suggests that, while more people may not be falling into arrears, the amount of arrears they are in has increased. To note, these LAHS figures only cover local authorities with a Housing Revenue Account (which applies to local authorities with more than 200 properties), although this represents over 99% of local authority stock.

Figure 2.3 Amount owed in arrears, 2021-22

^{Base: Local Authority stock within a HRA

Notes:

1) LAHS figures only cover local authorities with a HRA, although this represents over 99% of local authority stock

Source: Local Authority Housing Statistics}

Method of payment for gas and electric

Most social renters paid their gas (46%) and electricity (45%) bills by direct debit. However, private renters were more likely to pay their gas (70%) and electricity (68%) bills by direct debit. A large proportion of social renters paid their gas (38%) and electricity (40%) bills by pre-payment meter, exposing them to higher unit costs for energy, Annex Tables 2.19 and 2.18.

Social renters who found it easy or very easy to pay their rent were more likely to pay their bills via direct debit than pre-payment (49% electricity bill, 51% gas bill). However, most social renters who found it very difficult to pay their rent paid their bills via pre-payment (56% electricity, 50% gas), Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Method of payment for electricity and gas by ease of paying rent, 2021-22

^{Base: all social renters

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.18 and 2.19

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Social renters who had been in arrears in the past year were less likely to pay their gas or electricity bills via direct debit (35% gas, 33% electricity) compared to those who had not been in arrears (49% gas, 48% electricity). Instead, social renters who had been in arrears were more likely to pay their bills via pre-payment (55% for both gas and electricity) compared to those who hadn’t been in arrears, thus increasing their chances to accumulate higher costs with bills, Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5 Method of payment for electricity and gas by whether in arrears, 2021-22

^{Base: all social renters

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

When it comes to paying their electricity and gas bills, more social renters in couples with no children paid their bill via direct debit (59% for both electricity and gas) compared to social renters in one person households (47% electricity, 48% gas), social renters in couples with dependent children (43% electricity, 42% gas) or lone persons sharing with other lone persons (30% electricity, respectively 36% gas).

Question 4

3.  Housing history and future housing

Accepted Answer

Housing moves

Within the social rented sector, there were 210,000 housing moves in the past year. Over half of these (55%) had moved to their current home from another socially rented property. A further 24% had moved from the private rented sector, 17% were new households, and 4% were previously owners, Headline report Annex Table 1.23.

Of households moving out of the social rented sector, 25,000 moved into private rented accommodation, which made up 3% of private renters resident for less than a year.

Social renters were asked if they had considered moving within the past 12 months and their reasons for considering moving, where they could give multiple answers. Over half of social renters had not considered moving within the past 12 months (57% or 2.3 million households). The most common reasons for considering moving that social renters cited were for ‘a larger house/flat’ (14%) or ‘nicer accommodation’ (13%). Other commonly cited reasons were for ‘a better neighbourhood’ (12%) or ‘other reasons’ (11%), Annex Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1.

^{Base: all social renters

Notes:

1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.1

2) totals less than sum of responses as respondents could give more than one response

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

A higher proportion of those without dependent children had not considered moving within the past 12 months (64%) compared to those with dependent children (43%), Annex Table 3.3.

Among social renters, 6% or 254,000 households had considered moving in order to be closer to friends and family. There was no difference between those with and without dependent children.

Main reason for considering a move within the past 12 months

Social renters who gave multiple reasons for considering moving were asked to give their main reason for considering a move. These responses were combined with those who gave a single reason for considering moving for this analysis. Among social renters who had considered moving within the past 12 months, 27% listed ‘to have a larger house or flat’ as their main reason for considering moving. This was followed by ‘some other reason’ (23%), ‘to move to a better neighbourhood’ (15%) and ‘to have nicer accommodation (14%), Annex Table 3.4.

The most common reason social renters with dependent children considered moving within the last 12 months was to get a larger house or flat (46%). More social renters with dependent children wanted to move for a larger house compared to those without dependent children (13%), Annex Table 3.5.

Reasons for moving within the past three years

Social renters who actually moved in the past three years were also asked the reason they moved, and could similarly choose multiple reasons. The most common reason chosen was for ‘some other reason’ (26%). The next most common reasons were to move to a larger house/flat (15%), personal and family reasons (15%) and the previous accommodation being unsuitable (14%), Annex Table 3.6.

Comparing across tenures, social renters were less likely to have moved for job related reasons (3%) than private renters (22%).

Social renters were less likely to have moved for larger accommodation (15%) or a better neighbourhood (13%) than owners (26% and 21% respectively).

A greater proportion of social renters moved because their previous accommodation was unsuitable (14%) compared to both private renters (5%) and owners (3%).

Social renters with dependent children were more likely to have moved in the past three years due to wanting a bigger house or flat (27%) than those without dependent children (4%). For those with no dependent children ‘other reasons’ were most frequently cited as the reason for moving (32%), Annex Table 3.7.

However, social renters with dependent children were less likely to have moved due to wanting a larger house (27%) compared to owners (44%) and private renters (38%). Likewise, a lower proportion of social renters without dependent children (4%) had moved for a larger house than owners (17%) and private renters (12%) without dependent children.

Previous accommodation

Social renters who moved within the previous year were asked why their last tenancy ended and 64% said the main reason was because they wanted it to, Annex Table 3.8.

Experience of homelessness in the last few years

Within the social rented sector, 324,000 households (8%) had experienced homelessness in the past few years. This was higher than the proportion of private renters (5%) and owners (>1%), Annex Table 3.9 and Figure 3.2.

The EHS uses a broad definition of homelessness: respondents were asked to include times where they had to stay in a hostel, temporary accommodation, or with friends or family because they had lost their home and had no accommodation to go to.

Figure 3.2: Whether household has experienced homelessness, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.9

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

One in ten social renters had someone in the household on the social housing waiting list, which was higher than the proportion of private renters (6%) and owners (>1%), Annex Table 3.10.

Of households with someone on the social housing waiting list, social renters tended to be on the waiting list for a shorter time than private renters. The majority of social renters (72%) had been on the waiting list for less than three years, compared to 51% of private renters. Similarly, 20% of social renters with someone on the social housing waiting list had been on the waiting list for five years or longer, compared to 37% of private renters, Annex Table 3.11.

Current accommodation

Length of time in current accommodation

Social renters tended to have been resident in their accommodation for a longer period than private renters, but not as long as owners. Social renters (17%) were more likely than owners (14%) to have been in their current accommodation for fewer than three years, but less likely than private renters (50%), Annex Table 3.12.

Similarly, 48% of social renters had been in their current residence for 10 years or longer, and 24% for 20 years or longer. This was higher than the proportion of private renters (14% and 3% respectively) but lower than the proportion of owners (59% and 38% respectively).

Social renters aged 75 and over were more likely to have been resident in their current accommodation for 10 years or longer (79%) than all other age groups. However, a greater proportion of younger social renters (aged under 45) had been in their accommodation for 10 years and over (19%) compared to younger private renters (5%).

A greater proportion of social renters with dependent children (26%) had been in resident for less than three years compared to those without dependent children (13%). Similarly, a greater proportion of social renters with no dependent children had been in their accommodation for over 10 years (58%), compared to social renters with dependent children (29%), Annex Table 3.13.

For social renters as a whole, the most common length of time in the social rented sector was 10 to 20 years (24%), Annex Table 3.14.

Social renters without dependent children were more likely to have been in the sector for 10 years or more (70%) than those with dependent children (45%), Annex Table 3.15.

Future accommodation

Excluding shared owners, a lower proportion of social renters (27%) expected to one day buy a home in the UK compared to private renters (62%), Annex Table 3.16.

Buying expectation decreased with age. Of the youngest social renters, 75% said they expect to buy a home in the future, whereas this decreased to 19% for those aged 45 to 64.

^{Base: all social renters

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.16

Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

In the social rented sector, a higher proportion of those with dependent children (49%) expected to buy compared to those with no dependent children (16%).

Across all household types social renters were less likely to expect to buy compared to private renters, apart from couples with independent children only and lone parents with independent children. This difference was greatest for couples with no children where 13% of social renters expected to buy compared to 73% of private renters, and for lone persons sharing with others where 33% of social renters compared to 89% of private renters expected to buy.

In the social rented sector, those from an ethnic minority background were more likely to expect to buy in the future (51%) compared to those with a white background (21%). A higher proportion of black social renters (58%) expected to buy in the future compared to social renters with an Asian (43%) or white (21%) background.

Social renters in the lowest two income quintiles were less likely to expect to buy in the future compared to those with higher incomes. Of social renters in the lowest income quintile, 17% expect to buy in the future followed by 28% of social renters in the second income quintile.

There were no differences in the proportion of social renters who expected to buy according to whether they had savings or not. A lower proportion of social renters with savings expected to buy (24%) compared to private renters with savings (71%). The same was true for those without savings, with 28% of social renters with no savings who expected to buy in the future compared to 52% of private renters with no savings.

Length of time expecting to buy

Most social renters who expected to buy in the future, expected to buy within a two to ten-year time period (67%), Annex Table 3.17. Approximately 30% expected to buy in at least two but not more than five years, and 37% expected to buy in five but not more than 10 years.

Social renters tended to expect to buy in a longer time period than private renters. Whilst there was no difference to the proportion of social renters and private renters who expected to buy within a two to ten-year time period, a lower proportion of social renters expected to buy within two years (15%) compared to private renters (28%).

Whether expect to buy current home

Four in ten social renters who expected to buy in the future expected to buy their current home. This was higher than the proportion of private renters (14%), Annex Table 3.18.

Local authority renters who have lived in a public sector tenancy for at least three years have the opportunity to buy their home at a discount through the Right to Buy scheme. Local authority renters were more likely to expect to buy their current home (52%) than those renting from a housing association (33%).

Tenure expectation if not expecting to buy

The vast majority of social renters who did not expect to buy expected to remain in the social rented sector (94%), Annex Table 3.19.

The majority of local authority tenants (90%) expected to remain renting from local authorities. The majority, although a lower proportion, of those renting from housing associations expected to continue renting from housing associations (76%).

The youngest social renters, aged 16 to 24, were less likely to expect to remain in the social rented sector long term (56%) compared to all other age groups (over 90%), Annex Table 3.20.

Of social renters who said they did not expect to buy a home, affordability was the most common reason cited, with 63% saying it would be unlikely they would ever be able to afford it. However, this was also the most common reason for private renters (59%), Annex Table 3.21.

Question 5

4.  Dwelling condition, safety and energy

Accepted Answer

This chapter examines the quality of social rented homes in 2021-22 and how this may vary among different types of households. Several housing quality indicators are examined: the Decent Homes Standard; Category 1 Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) hazards; presence of damp; subjective overheating; working smoke alarms and energy efficiency. It estimates the costs to make non-decent homes meet the Standard and the potential costs to raise minimum energy efficiency standards to at least energy efficiency rating (EER) band C. The chapter also reports on access to open space (private or shared plots for the home). Throughout the chapter comparisons are made with other tenures.

In considering the findings for households, we need to bear in mind that the reasons for differences in the housing quality experienced by households are complex and will reflect the varied housing quality of the dwellings they live in.

Dwelling characteristics

Dwelling type

Across all tenures, the majority of dwellings were houses and bungalows, most commonly semi-detached houses, making up 24% (5.8 million) of the total housing stock, Annex Table 4.1.

Compared with other tenures, the social rented sector had a higher proportion of flats (45%) than owner occupied homes (11%). More specifically, a higher proportions of local authority dwellings (49%) were flats than owner occupied dwellings (11%), private rented (44%) or housing association dwellings (43%), Annex Table 4.2.

The social rented sector (3%) had a lower proportion of converted flats than the private rented sector (14%), but a higher prevalence of low rise purpose built flats (38%) than the private rented (25%) and owner occupied sectors (7%). The social rented sector followed the national trend, with a higher proportion of flats in London (74%) than the rest of England (39%), Annex Table 4.2.

Overall, HRPs aged 16 to 24 years old (54%) were most likely to live in a flat, and this proportion decreased as HRP age increased up to the age of 45 years. Older age groups were equally likely to live in a flat (16 to 18%). Social renters followed a slightly different pattern; the youngest social renters were more likely than all other age groups to live in a flat (72%), but there were fewer differences between all other age groups (37% to 46%), Annex Table 4.3.

Plot type

The English Housing Survey records a number of details relating to the land immediately surrounding a dwelling, referred to as the dwelling’s plot. The plot may be private (exclusive access) or shared. The plot may consist of hard landscaping, soft landscaping, or a combination.

The majority 81% (19.3 million) of dwellings had a private plot, 13% (3.2 million) had a shared plot, while 5% (1.3 million) had neither, Annex Table 4.4.

The social rented sector (63%) was less likely to have a private outdoor space than owner occupied dwellings (91%), but more likely to have a shared plot (29%) than owner occupied (6%) and private rented dwellings (23%).

Although the social rented sector (8%) was almost half as likely than the private rented sector (14%) to have no plot, a notably lower proportion of owner occupied dwellings (2%) had no outdoor space.

Reflecting the higher prevalence of flats in the capital, 39% of social sector dwellings in London had a private plot compared to 68% of dwellings in the rest of England. Social rented (25%) dwellings in London were more likely to have no private or shared outdoor space than the rest of England (4%).

Overall, 72% of social renter couples with dependent children had access to a private plot, although households composed of a couple with independent children (93%) were the most likely to have this feature, Annex Table 4.5.

Dwelling age

Overall, housing association homes tended to be more recently built while the private rented sector had the highest proportion of the oldest homes. Local authority dwellings were most commonly built between 1945 to 1964 (40%), while housing association dwellings were most commonly built post 1990 (30%). Annex Table 4.6, Figure 4.1.

^{Base: all occupied dwellings

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.6

Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

Local authority dwellings (5%) were less likely to have been constructed before 1919 than housing association dwellings (8%), with both social tenures less likely to be of this age than owner occupied (20%) and private rented dwellings (31%).

Quality of homes

Decent Homes Standard

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not possible for EHS surveyors to conduct a full internal inspection of properties in 2021. As a result, 2021 data has been modelled using the 2018 and 2019 surveys as the base data. See the technical notes for more details.

For a dwelling to be considered ‘decent’ under the Decent Homes Standard it must:

meet the statutory minimum standard for housing (the Housing Health and Safety System (HHSRS) since April 2006), homes which contain a Category 1 hazard under the HHSRS are considered non-decent
provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort
be in a reasonable state of repair
have reasonably modern facilities and services

The LAHS figures may differ from the EHS. This is because the EHS measures the decency of the stock across the course of the year, and against a common standard across all tenures, and irrespective of whether it is occupied or the characteristics of the tenant. Landlords, on the other hand, report non-decent dwellings in the LAHS data as of 31 March of every year, and have exemptions in certain cases, in line with the government’s decent homes guidance. For example, homes where tenants have refused improvement work are excluded from LAHS. Also, most local authorities will not conduct a full census of their homes every year, and may be unaware of a non-decent home until the property is vacated or if the tenant raises an issue.

In 2021-22, 3.5 million (14%) households were living in non-decent housing. Both local authority (9%) and housing association (10%) renters were the least likely to live in non-decent homes when compared with owner occupiers (13%), and private renters (23%), Annex Table 4.7.

Among all households, a similar proportion (14%) of households with either a white HRP or a HRP from an ethnic minority lived in a non-decent home. A similar trend was observed for the private sector tenures. However, in the social rented sector households with a white HRP (10%) were more likely to live in a non-decent home than a black HRP (4%), and housing association renters with a white HRP (11%) were more likely to be in a non-decent home than HRPs from an ethnic minority group (5%). There was no significant difference in local authority households with a white HRP (9%) and an ethnic minority HRP (8%).

Social renters in the first (lowest) income quintile (11%) were more likely to be in a non-decent home than those in the second quintile (7%), but there were no differences between other income quintiles.

There was no difference in the likelihood of social renters living in a non-decent home according to whether the household had someone with a long-term illness or disability (10%) or not (9%), or whether in receipt of housing support (10%) or not (8%).

Within the social rented sector, around a quarter (27%) of unemployed HRP local authority renters lived in a non-decent home, significantly higher than those in full-time work (9%), in part-time work (8%), other inactive (7%), or retired (5%). Housing association renters (8%) with an unemployed HRP were significantly less likely to be in a non-decent home than their local authority renting counterparts (27%).

Overall, households who had lived in their home for less than a year (19%), one year (17%) or 30 years or more (16%) were generally more likely to be living in a non-decent home than other households (12% to 15%). However, no differences by length of residence were evident among social renters.

Decent Homes Standard and complaints

Overall, social renters were no more likely to have considered making a complaint if their home was non-decent (32%) than if it was decent (33%). By comparison, private renters were more likely to consider making a complaint if their home was non-decent (23%) than decent (16%), Annex Table 4.8.

Among households that had considered making a complaint, housing association renters were more likely to mention having made a complaint to their landlord or tenant management if their dwelling was decent (87%) than if it was non-decent (67%). This, however, was not the case for social renters as a whole, Annex Table 4.9.

For households that had considered making a complaint, those living in decent homes in the social rented sector (86%) were more likely to mention having made a complaint than the private rented sector (78%), Figure 4.2 summarises the action of renters overall.

Figure 4.2: Complaints, by renters, 2021-22

^{Base: all renters

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Tables 4.8 and 4.9

Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Decent Homes Standard and region

Given that each region’s housing stock profile varies, the quality of housing in each region will partly reflect the disparities in housing quality found among different dwelling characteristics such as dwelling age, dwelling type and tenure. These disparities were explored in the EHS housing quality and condition report, 2020-21.

Within the social rented sector, dwellings in the South West (16%) were the most likely to be non-decent, while the North East (4%) and South East (5%) were the least likely, Annex Table 4.10.

Dwellings in the East Midlands were more likely to be non-decent in housing association dwellings (20%) than in local authority dwellings (6%). This difference was not seen in any other region.

Cost to make decent

In 2021, the overall mean cost for a dwelling to be made decent was £7,800. The social rented sector (£5,300) was less expensive to make decent on average than both owner occupied (£8,200) and private rented dwellings (£8,000), Annex Table 4.11.

There were some variations in average cost among non-decent social rented homes by region. Social rented dwellings the North West (£6,100) had a higher average cost to make decent than those in Yorkshire and the Humber (£5,000), East of England (£4,800), South East (£5,000) and the South West (£4,400).

Although there were no differences in the social rented sector for the mean cost to make decent between houses or bungalows (£5,200) and flats (£5,400), however, when broken down further, we see that high rise purpose built flats (£8,400) have the highest mean cost the to make decent while bungalows (£3,600) have the lowest, Figure 4.3. While the average cost to make decent was similar for both local authority and housing association homes for most dwelling types, there was a difference with regards to medium/large terraced houses (£3,800 and £5,600 respectively).

^{Base: all occupied non-decent dwellings

Notes:

1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.11

2) detached house has been left out of the graph due to a low sample size

Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

HHSRS Category 1 hazards

The HHSRS is a risk-based assessment that identifies hazards in dwellings and evaluates their potential effects on the health and safety of occupants and their visitors, particularly vulnerable people. The most serious hazards are called Category 1 hazards and where these exist in a home, it fails to meet the statutory minimum standard for housing in England. Presence of a Category 1 hazard is the main reason for social housing failing the Decent Homes Standard, meaning that the HHSRS findings tended to mirror those for the prevalence of non-decent homes.

In 2021-22 10% (2.3 million) of all households in England lived with at least one Category 1 hazard. Local authority and housing association renters (both 4%) were less likely to be living in homes with Category 1 hazards than owner occupiers (10%) and private renters (14%), Annex Table 4.12.

Among all households, 10% of households with a white HRP and 8% of households with a HRP from an ethnic minority group lived in homes with a Category 1 hazard. Households with an Asian HRP (10%) or a white HRP (10%) were more likely to live in homes with a Category 1 hazard than those with an HRP from another ethnic minority (5%).

The findings differed slightly for social renters. Households with an Asian HRP (11%) were more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard than households with a black HRP (2%), but there was no significant difference between other ethnic group, Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: HHSRS Category 1 hazards, by ethnicity of HRP, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households

Notes:

1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.12

2) to safeguard against data disclosure, the percentage for social renters ‘other’ is not shown due to a low sample

Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Mirroring the findings for non-decency, there was no difference for social renters in the likelihood of living in a home with a Category 1 hazard according to whether the household had someone with a long-term illness or disability or not (both 4%) or according to whether housing support was received or not (both 4%).

There was no difference in the prevalence of Category 1 hazards for social renters across the different income quintiles.

Damp

In 2021-22, 4% (930,000) of all households experienced damp in their home. Although a smaller proportion of social renters had damp (4%, 180,000 households) than private renters (11%, 490,000 households), owner occupiers were least likely to have a damp problem (2%, 260,000 households), Annex Table 4.13.

Social renting couples with dependent children (7%) and couples with independent children only (15%) were more likely to have damp than their counterparts who were owner occupiers (2% and 1% respectively).

Overall, households with a black HRP (9%) were more likely to have damp problems compared with households with an Asian HRP (3%), a white HRP (4%) and a HRP of another ethnicity (3%). Among social renters however, households with a white HRP (4%) and households with an ethnic minority HRP (6%) were equally likely to have damp.

Households with higher incomes were less likely to have damp in their home. Regardless of tenure, households in income quintiles 4 (3%) and 5 (highest incomes) (2%) were less likely to have damp present than those in quintiles 1, 2 and 3 (all 5%).

While social renters were more likely to have damp than private renters and owner occupiers this was not the case for every income band. Only social renters in the first and second (3% and 4% respectively) quintiles were less likely to have damp than their private renting counterparts (16% and 10%).

Similar to non-decency, the prevalence of damp in homes was higher in households where the HRP was unemployed (8%) compared with households where the HRP was in full-time work (4%) or retired (2%). When examined by tenure, households in the social sector with a retired HRP (1%) were less likely to have damp in their homes compared with households with an HRP in full-time work (5%), part-time work (6%) and other inactive (5%), Figure 4.5.

^{Base: all households

Notes:

1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.13

2) full-time education has been left out of the graph due to a low sample size

Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Overheating

To explore subjective overheating, households were asked whether any part of their home got uncomfortably hot, even when the heating was turned off and the windows were open.

In total 9% of households reported overheating in their home. Social renters (7%) were less likely to report overheating than owner occupiers (10%), Annex Table 4.14.

There was little variation among social renters in the prevalence of reported overheating. However, social renters with a white HRP (7%) were more likely to report overheating than households with a black HRPs (4%).

Fire safety

Smoke alarms by region and dwelling characteristics

This analysis is focused on whether households reported having at least one working smoke alarm in their home. In 2021-22, social renters were most likely to have at least one working smoke alarm (96%), compared with 93% of both owner occupiers and private renters, Annex Table 4.15.

A higher proportion of social renters with at least one working smoke alarm lived in the North East (99%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (99%) than in the North West (96%) and London (93%).

The oldest social rented homes were generally less likely to have a working smoke alarm. Social renters living in homes built before 1919 were less likely to have at least one working smoke alarm (92%) than those living in homes built between 1919 to 1944 (99%), 1981 to 1990 (99%) and post 1990 (99%), Annex Table 4.16.

Social renters living in medium/large terrace houses were more likely to have at least one working smoke alarm (99%) than households living in converted flats (90%) and low rise purpose built flats (97%).

Within the social sector, housing association renters were more likely to report at least one working smoke alarm in flats (98%) than local authority renters (95%).

Feeling safe from fire by region, household and dwelling characteristics

In the interview survey, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement, “I do not feel safe at home because I fear that a fire may break out”. For ease of reading, this statement will also be reported as ‘feeling safe from a fire’ in the following analysis.

In the social rented sector, 329,000 households (8%) agreed that they did not feel safe from a fire, Annex Table 4.17.

Social renters who felt unsafe from a fire more commonly lived in the West Midlands (13%) and London (10%) compared with the North West (5%) and the South West (3%), Figure 4.6.

^{Base: all social rented sector households

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.17

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

There was little variation among social renters in the responses on feeling safe from a fire by household characteristics but there were variations by tenure.

Overall, social renters (8%) were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they did not feel safe at home because they fear that a fire may break out than both private renters (5%) and owner occupiers (3%).

Compared with owner occupiers, social renters in most age groups were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they did not feel safe at home from a fire. In addition, social renters where the HRP was aged 25 to 34 were twice as likely to (strongly or tend to) agree with the statement compared with private renters of the same age, (10% versus 5%), Annex Table 4.18.

Social renters with a white HRP (8%) were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they did not feel safe from a fire compared with their private renting (4%) and owner occupier counterparts (3%). Ethnic minority HRPs living in the social rented sector (11%) and private rented sector (10%) were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they did not feel safe from a fire compared with ethnic minority HRPs living in the owner occupier sector (4%), Annex Table 4.19 and Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7: Households that agreed with the statement ‘I do not feel safe at home because I fear that a fire may break out’, by ethnicity of household reference person, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.19

Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

With regards to household type, social renters in one person households (8%) and couples with dependent children (11%) were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they did not feel safe at home from a fire compared with owner occupiers (4% and 3% respectively) and private renters (4% and 5% respectively) of the same household group. Social renters were also more likely to report feeling unsafe from fire (8%) than the owner occupiers (3%) if the household comprised of couples with no children, Annex Table 4.20.

When considering difference by dwelling types, within the social rented sector only, renters living in flats (13%) were nearly twice as likely than respondents in houses and bungalows (7%) to feel unsafe in their homes due to fear of a fire breaking out. In addition, social renters living in high rise purpose built flats were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they felt unsafe in their homes from fire (30%) compared with those living in low rise purpose built flats (11%) and most other house types, Annex Table 4.21.

Looking across tenures, social renters living in low rise purpose built flats (11%) were more likely to feel unsafe from fire than owner occupier households living in low rise purpose built flats (6%).

Energy efficiency

The EHS uses the Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) to monitor the energy efficiency of homes, through the calculation of a SAP energy efficiency rating (EER). The EER is also converted into an A to G banding system, where band A represents high energy efficiency and band G represents low energy efficiency. The EER is the primary rating presented on an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

SAP rating

In 2021, the mean SAP rating in the homes of all households was 66. Social renters had a higher average rating (70 points) than owner occupiers (66) and private renters (65), Annex Table 4.22.

Social renters in London (71 SAP points) lived in homes with a greater mean SAP rating than social renters living in the rest of England (70). More specifically, social renters in the East of England, London and South East (all 71) lived in homes with a higher average rating than those living in Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands and West Midlands (all 69).

Generally, there was no difference between the SAP rating of local authority and housing association households with the exception of homes located in the East of England and in London, where housing association renters lived in homes with a higher rating (both 72 SAP points) than local authority renters (both 70).

Reflecting the overall tenure trends, most social rented dwelling types had a higher SAP rating than owner occupied or private rented dwellings. However, in the case of high rise purpose built flats, both owner occupiers (77 SAP points) and private renters (74) had a higher mean rating than social renters (70), Annex Table 4.23, Figure 4.8.

Flats occupied by social renters (71 SAP points) had a higher mean SAP rating than houses or bungalows (69). Within the sector, housing association renters (70) had a greater average rating for houses or bungalows than local authority renters (68).

Figure 4.8: Mean SAP rating, by dwelling type, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.23

Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Energy efficiency rating

Households across all tenures were most likely to live in homes with an energy efficiency rating (EER) of bands A to C (47%), closely followed by band D (43%), with bands E to G (10%) the least likely. Reflecting the higher energy efficiency within the social stock, around two thirds of social renters lived in homes with bands A to C in 2021 (69%) compared with less than half of private renters (44%) and owner occupiers (43%). Social renters were less likely to live in homes with an EER band of E to G (3%) than private renters (14%), Annex table 4.24.

In London there was no difference between tenures in the proportion of households living in homes with an EER band between E to G. However, in the rest of England social renters (3%) were less likely to have homes with an EER band between E to G than owner occupiers (11%), with both these types of households less likely the live in such homes than the private renters (16%).

Average cost to improve EER to band C

This section looks at the cost of improving dwellings with an EER band D or lower to an EER band of at least C. The Government has set an aspiration for as many homes as possible to be EER Band C by 2035 where practical, cost-effective, and affordable.

For all households with an EER band D or lower, the most common amount needed to improve homes to an EER band of at least C was between £5,000 and £9,999 (45%), Annex Table 4.25.

In general, average cost to improve to EER band C was higher for owner occupiers and private renters C compared with social renters. For example, owner occupiers (10%) and private renters (5%) were more likely to require £15,000 or more to improve their homes to an EER band of C compared with just 2% of social renters, Figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9: Cost to make band C, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households in dwellings able to be improved to a Band C

Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.25

Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Question 6

Technical notes

Accepted Answer

Results for the sections of this report on households, are presented for ‘2021-22’ and are based on fieldwork carried out between May 2021 and March 2022 on a sample of 9,752 households. Throughout the report, this is referred to as the ‘full household sample’.

Results in the section of this report on dwellings, which relate to the physical dwelling, are presented for ‘2021’ and are based on fieldwork carried out between July 2020 and March 2022. The sample comprises 10,572 occupied dwellings only where a physical inspection was carried out. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the sample does not include vacant dwellings, where in previous years it did. Throughout the report, this is referred to as the ‘dwelling sample’.

The reliability of the results of sample surveys, including the English Housing Survey, is positively related to the unweighted sample size. Results based on small sample sizes should therefore be treated as indicative only because inference about the national picture cannot be drawn. To alert readers to those results, percentages based on a row or column total with unweighted total sample size of less than 30 are italicised. To safeguard against data disclosure, the cell contents of cells where the cell count is less than 5 are replaced with a “u”.

Where comparative statements have been made in the text, these have been significance tested to a 95% confidence level. This means we are 95% confident that the statements we are making are true.

Additional annex tables, including the data underlying the figures and charts in this report are published on the English Housing Survey page alongside many supplementary live tables, which are updated each year but are too numerous to include in our reports.

A more thorough description of the English Housing Survey methodology is provided in the Technical Report which is published annually. The 2021-22 Technical Report includes further details of the impact the COVID-19 on the 2020-21 survey. A full account of data quality procedures followed to collect and analyse English Housing Survey data can be found in the Quality Report, which is also updated and published annually.

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England