National statistics

English Housing Survey 2021 to 2022: housing quality and condition

Published 13 July 2023

Applies to England

Introduction and main findings

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 2021-22 survey.

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 examines households that live in poor quality housing using three metrics: whether homes meet the Decent Homes Standard, have HHSRS Category 1 hazards, or have problems with damp. The three chapters will explore how each of these measures, in turn, vary by household characteristics: the presence of dependent children, older people, and someone with a long-term illness or disability in the household, the ethnicity and employment status of the HRP, whether the household is in receipt of housing support, and if the household is overcrowded.

It will then investigate if the households’ general well-being and satisfaction with their home varied by whether the home was non-decent, had a Category 1 hazard, or damp, although the analysis is unable to determine any causal relationship between well-being, satisfaction, and each indicator of poor housing.

Lastly, within each chapter, the housing quality measure will be examined by the energy efficiency of the home.

In considering the findings of this report, 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. The EHS 2020 to 2021 Housing Quality and Condition report explores how the prevalence of non-decency, Category 1 hazards, and damp varied by dwelling type, dwelling age, and tenure, and provides context for the findings in this report.

Main findings

There are 3.5 million households in England living in a home that fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard. 2.3 million households are living in a home with at least one Category 1 hazard and 935,000 households are living in a home with damp problems.

• An estimated 14% of households (3.5 million) live in a home that fails the Decent Homes Standard. Meanwhile, 10% of households (2.3 million) live in a home with a Category 1 hazard present.
• Damp is less prevalent, with 4% of households (935,000) living in a home with a damp problem.

Households in the private rented sector are more likely to live in poor quality housing than social renting and owner occupied households.

• Almost one quarter of private rented households (23%) live in a home that fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard, a higher proportion than owner occupiers (13%), local authority renters (9%), and housing association renters (10%).
• Private rented households (14%) are more likely to live in a home with at least one Category 1 hazard, compared with owner occupiers (10%), local authority renters (4%), and housing association renters (4%).
• Damp is most prevalent in the homes of private renters, with 11% of households living in a home with a damp problem, compared with 2% of owner occupiers, 5% of local authority renters, and 4% of housing association renters.

Overcrowded households are more likely to fail the Decent Homes Standard, have a HHSRS Category 1 hazard and have damp problems than households that are not overcrowded.

• Over one in five (21%) overcrowded households do not meet the Decent Homes Standard. This is compared to 15% of households that do not live in overcrowded conditions.
• Approximately 14% of overcrowded households live in a home with a Category 1 Hazard under the HHSRS. This is compared with 9% of households that are not overcrowded.
• One in 10 (10%) overcrowded households live in a home with a damp problem. This is higher than households that are not overcrowded, where 4% lived in a home with a damp problem. Relatedly, households with dependent children are more likely to live in a home with damp problems – 398,000 or 6% of households with dependent children live in a home with damp problems, compared with 3% of households without dependent children.

Households living in poor quality housing are less satisfied with their home than other households.

• While most households report high levels of satisfaction with their home, a higher proportion are satisfied with their home if it meets the Decent Homes Standard (89%) than if it does not (82%).
• Similarly, households are more likely to be satisfied with their accommodation if there are no Category 1 hazards present (89%) than if there are any present (84%).
• Households living in homes without a damp problem are more satisfied with their accommodation (89%) than homes with damp present (72%).

There is a strong relationship between energy efficiency and housing quality, and over half of homes with poor energy efficiency do not meet the Decent Homes Standard.

• In 2021-22, 57% of households (1.3 million) living in a home with an energy efficiency rating (EER) of E to G did not meet the Decent Homes Standard. For homes with an EER A to C, and EER D, the proportion that did not meet the Decent Homes Standard was 5% and 15% respectively.

Acknowledgements 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, NatCen Social Research, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and CADS Housing Surveys.

This report was produced by Molly Mackay and Emma Munkley at BRE in collaboration with NatCen Social Research and 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: Winona Shaw, Housing and Planning Analysis Division, DLUHC. Contact via ehs@levellingup.gov.uk.

1. Decent Homes Standard

This chapter will examine the prevalence of non-decent homes in England. It will also report on the average cost to make non-decent homes meet the Standard.

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 Rating 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

In 2021-22, 14% or 3.5 million households lived in homes that failed the Decent Homes Standard. A much greater proportion of private renters lived in non-decent homes (23%, 1.0 million) than those living in all other tenures. Households renting from local authorities (9%, 142,000) and housing associations (10%, 242,000) were less likely to live in a non-decent home when compared with owner occupiers (13%, 2.0 million) and private renters. This relationship was often evident when analysed by household groups, Annex Table 1.1.

Household characteristics

Two main patterns were evident when analysing the prevalence of non-decent housing by different types of households. The first related to tenure. Generally, private rented households were more likely to live in a non-decent home, irrespective of household characteristics. Social renters were typically the least likely to live in a non-decent home.

Second, having no dependent children present in the household or having an unemployed HRP were the only factors that showed an increased likelihood of living in a non-decent home. For all other characteristics (HRP age, ethnicity, long-term illness, housing support receipt or overcrowding) there was no obvious relationship with non-decency.

Children in household

Overall, 815,000 households with dependent children (12% of all households with dependent children) lived in a non-decent home. Households with no dependent children (15%, 2.6 million) were more likely to be living in a home that failed the Decent Homes Standard, Annex Table 1.1.

This pattern was the same for homeowners (14% of households with no dependent children compared with 10% of households with dependent children were living in non-decent homes), and housing association renters (12% with no dependent children compared with 7% with dependent children were living in non-decent homes), Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Non-decent homes, by dependent children in the household and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes:
1) error bars are at a 95% confidence level
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Overall, private renters with dependent children were more likely to be living in a non-decent home (22%, 311,000) than households with dependent children in all other tenures. When looking at owner occupier households, 10% of households with dependent children (394,000) were living in a home that failed the Decent Homes Standard.

Older people in household

Among older households with a HRP aged 65 or over, 984,000 (14%) lived in a non-decent home. Older households were, however, no more or less likely to live in a non-decent home than younger households (also 14%), Annex Table 1.1.

This lack of relationship was not evident across all tenures. Local authority renters with an older HRP (5%) were less likely to live in a home that failed the Standard than those without an older HRP (10%).

Older local authority renters were the least likely to live in a non-decent home than older HRPs in other tenures.

Ethnicity

Across all tenures there was no difference in the likelihood of living in a non-decent home based on ethnicity of the HRP. Overall, 14% of households with either a white HRP (3.1 million) or a HRP from an ethnic minority (391,000) lived in a non-decent home, Annex Table 1.1.

Generally, social renters with a white HRP (10%) were more likely to live in a non-decent home than social renting households with ethnic minority HRPs (7%). More specifically, households with a white HRP were more likely to live in non-decent housing than those with a black HRP (4%).

Furthermore, housing association renters with a white HRP (11%) were more likely to be in a non-decent home than HRPs that were from an ethnic minority group (5%), Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Non-decent homes, by ethnicity of HRP and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Among private renters, 22% of households with a black HRP were living in non-decent homes, compared with 4% of social renters. Furthermore, a higher proportion of private renters with a HRP of another ethnic minority (22%) or a white HRP (24%) were living in non-decent homes than their social renting counterparts (6% and 10%, respectively).

Long-term illness and disability

Overall, 1.3 million households with someone who has a long-term illness or disability lived in a non-decent home (15%). These households were equally likely to live in a home that failed the Standard than those without someone with a long-term illness or disability, Annex Table 1.1.

For private renters, however, a higher proportion of households with someone with a long-term illness or disability were in non-decent homes (27%, 387,000) when compared with households with no-one with a long-term illness or disability (21%). This relationship was not seen within any other tenure.

When comparing the likelihood of households containing someone who had long-term illness or disability across tenures, the patterns follow those of overall non-decency. Private renters were the most likely to be living in a non-decent home (27%), followed by owners (14%), with the two social renting tenures the least likely (9% to 10%).

Employment status

Overall, households with an unemployed HRP were more likely to live in a non-decent home (23%) than those working full time (14%), working part time (15%), retired (14%), or of other inactive status (12%), Annex Table 1.1, Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Non-decent homes, by employment status of HRP, all households, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

For owner occupiers and housing association renters, employment status did not affect the likelihood of living in a non-decent home, however, this was not the case for private and local authority renters.

Unemployed (39%) and retired (31%) private renting HRPs were more likely to be living in a non-decent home than those working full time (20%) or of another inactive employment status (17%).

Among local authority renters, unemployed HRPs (27%) were more likely to live in a non-decent home than those that were working full time (9%) or part time (8%), those of other inactive status (7%), or retired (5%).

Local authority renters with an unemployed HRP were more likely to be living in a non-decent home (27%) than those renting from a housing association (8%).

Receipt of housing support

In 2021-22, 573,000 private and social rented households in receipt of housing support lived in a non-decent home. There was no difference in the likelihood of living in a non-decent home according to whether a household was in receipt of housing support. For all private and social rented households in receipt of housing support, 16% lived in a home which failed the decent homes standard, as did 17% of those that were not in receipt, Annex Table 1.1.

As was evident with the overall patterns of non-decency by tenure, private renters were more likely to be living in non-decent homes than both social renting tenures whether in receipt of housing support or not.

Overcrowding

In 2021-22, 21% of overcrowded households (156,000) lived in a home that failed the Decent Homes Standard. Overall, overcrowded households were more likely to be living in a non-decent home than households that were not overcrowded (15%, 3.4 million), Annex Table 1.2.

Among private renters, 27% of households that were overcrowded were in non-decent homes, as were 23% of owners. Private renters that were overcrowded were more likely to live in a non-decent home than overcrowded local authority renters and housing association renters (both 15%).

Well-being

In the EHS, well-being is measured using the following four measures of personal well-being:

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? Referred to as ‘life satisfaction’
• Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? Referred to as ‘life is worthwhile’
• Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? Referred to as ‘happiness’
• Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? Referred to as ‘anxiety’

For each of these questions, respondents are asked to give their answers on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘completely’. This report uses the mean average scores within respondent groups.

For all households, those in a non-decent home gave lower average scores for life satisfaction and life is worthwhile than those in decent homes. However, this was not the case for average happiness and anxiety which did not vary with decency.

Social renters consistently scored ‘worse’ against the well-being measures than private renters and owner occupiers, irrespective of if they were in a decent or non-decent home, Annex Table 1.3.

Life satisfaction

Overall, households in decent homes had a greater life satisfaction score (7.4) than those living in a non-decent home (7.2), Annex Table 1.3.

This was not the case for every tenure. Owners (7.7) and private renters (7.2) in decent homes were more satisfied with life than their counterparts in non-decent homes (7.4 and 6.8, respectively). However, social renters had the same average satisfaction with life score whether they were living in a decent or non-decent home (both 6.8).

Life is worthwhile

Overall, households living in decent homes recorded a higher average score for life is worthwhile than households living in non-decent homes, with mean scores of 7.7 and 7.6, respectively. This relationship was also evident for homeowners but not renters. Homeowners in decent homes scored this measure 7.9 on average, while those in non-decent homes scored this lower at 7.7, Annex Table 1.3.

Happiness

Overall, whether a home met the Decent Homes Standard had no impact on the average happiness score of the HRP. In non-decent homes, HRPs gave a mean score of 7.3, and in decent homes the average was 7.4. This was also evident within each tenure, Annex Table 1.3.

All households that were renting a home that failed the Decent Homes Standard had similar average levels of happiness, ranging from 6.8 to 7.1. Owners living in non-decent homes were happier on average (7.4) than both social renting tenures (both 6.8).

Anxiety

Findings for levels of anxiety were similar to those found for happiness. The average households score was similar irrespective of whether they lived in a non-decent home (3.1) or in a decent home (3.0). This was also the case for each tenure, Annex Table 1.3.

Following closely the findings for happiness, owners living in non-decent homes were also less anxious (2.9) than private renters (3.4) and local authority renters (4.1).

Satisfaction with home

Overall, household satisfaction with their accommodation and their housing services did vary by Decent Homes status. However, satisfaction with repairs/maintenance did not vary according to whether the home was decent or not.

Satisfaction with current accommodation

For all tenures, a higher proportion of households were satisfied with their home if it was decent (89%) than if it was non-decent (82%). This was evident for homeowners (95% living in decent homes compared with 90% living in non-decent homes), private renters (82% and 73%, respectively), and housing association renters (77% and 64%, respectively), Annex Table 1.4, Figure 1.4.

There was a different pattern for local authority renters where those living in a decent home (75%) were no more likely to be satisfied with their accommodation than those living in a non-decent home (74%).

In addition, all households in non-decent homes were generally more dissatisfied with their home (12%) than those living in decent homes (7%). When examined by tenure, this relationship was only evident among homeowners and households renting from housing associations. For both of these tenures, households were approximately twice as likely to be dissatisfied in their home if it was non-decent than if it was decent.

Figure 1.4: Satisfaction with accommodation, by Decent Homes Standard and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes:
1) excludes non-responses
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.4
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance

Among all renters and leasehold owners, satisfaction with repairs and maintenance did not vary according to whether the household lived in a non-decent home or not. However, private renters were more likely to be satisfied with the repairs and maintenance provided if their home was decent (76%) than if their home was non-decent (66%), Annex Table 1.5.

The proportions households who expressed dissatisfaction with their repairs and maintenance also did not vary with the Decent Homes status.

Satisfaction with housing services

Overall, households were more likely to be satisfied with their housing services if their home was decent (72%) than if it was non-decent (67%). This finding was seen only for private renters (79% of decent homes compared with 72% of non-decent homes) and housing association renters (71% of decent homes compared with 60% of non-decent homes), Annex Table 1.6.

However, households were no more likely to be dissatisfied with their housing services if their home was decent or non-decent.

Energy efficiency

Overall, households whose homes were less energy efficient were more likely to live in a non-decent home. In 2021-22, there were 2.4 million households living in a home with an energy efficiency rating (EER) E to G. Of these, over half (57%, 1.3 million households) lived in homes that failed the Decent Homes Standard, Annex Table 1.7.

This is higher than households with an energy efficiency rating (EER) of A to C, or D, where 5% and 15% of these households respectively, failed the Decent Homes Standard.

The vast majority of homes within the lowest EER (roughly equivalent to bands F and G) will be categorised as having a HHSRS Category 1 excess cold hazard and so consequently will fail the Decent Homes Standard.

The relationship of poor energy efficiency associated with a higher likelihood of non-decency was also apparent when looking at different tenures, Figure 1.5.

Among renters living in a home with an Energy Efficiency Rating of E to G, 72% of housing association renters, 70% of local authority renters and 69% of private renters lived in a home that failed the Decent Homes standard, Annex Table 1.8.

Figure 1.5: Non-decent homes, by energy efficiency rating band and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.8
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Cost to make decent

The EHS reports an estimated cost of all work needed to bring a dwelling up to the Decent Homes Standard. The total cost to make decent for all households living in non-decent homes was £27.2 billion. On average, it would cost £7,854 to bring a non-decent home up to the Standard, Annex Table 1.9.

The average cost was typically much lower for social rented households than those in other tenures. The mean cost for private renters (£8,056) and owner occupied households (£8,238) was significantly higher than for local authority (£5,271) and housing association renters (£5,267).

2. 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, then it fails to meet the statutory minimum standard for housing in England.

As the presence of any Category 1 hazard is the most common reason for a dwelling to fail the Decent Homes Standard, it is not surprising that the main findings for this chapter largely mirror those reported in Chapter 1.

In 2021-22, 2.3 million households (10%) lived in a home with at least one Category 1 hazard present. Private rented households (14%) were more likely to be living in homes with a Category 1 hazard than all other tenures. Local authority and housing association (4% respectively) renters were the least likely to be living in homes with Category 1 hazards, compared with private renters and owner occupiers (10%), Annex Table 2.1.

Household characteristics

Generally, private renters (14%) were most likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard present, regardless of household characteristics, whereas housing association renters were least likely (4%). Overall, ethnicity and employment status were factors that had an impact on the likelihood of living with a Category 1 hazard, but there was no clear relationship with age, long-term sickness or disability, or the receipt of housing support, Annex Table 2.1.

Children in household

Overall, 581,000 households with dependent children (9%) lived in a home with a Category 1 hazard present. Households without dependent children (10%) were just as likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard present, Annex Table 2.1.

However, as with the prevalence of non-decency, private renters with dependent children (15%) were more likely to live in homes with at least one Category 1 hazard present, compared with all other tenures with dependent children in the household.

Owner occupiers with dependent children (8%) were also more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard compared with housing association renters with dependent children (4%).

Older people in household

Within older households – those with a HRP aged 65 or over – 633,000 (9%) had a Category 1 hazard present in their home. However, as seen with non-decency, the presence of an older person in a household had no impact on the likelihood of living in a home with a Category 1 hazard present, Annex Table 2.1.

Older private rented households (21%) were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in their homes compared with younger private rented households (14%). Mirroring the relationship for non-decency, older private rented households were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in their homes than all other tenures. Older owner occupier households (9%) were also more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present than older local authority (2%) and housing association (4%) households.

Ethnicity

Among households with a white HRP, 10% (2.1 million) lived in a home with a Category 1 hazard, a similar proportion to households with a HRP from an ethnic minority (8%, 215,000 households), Annex Table 2.1.

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

Private renters with a white HRP (16%) were twice as likely to live in homes with a Category 1 hazard present than private renters with a HRP from an ethnic minority (8%), Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Category 1 hazard, by ethnicity of HRP and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes:
1) error bars are at a 95% confidence level
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Long-term illness and disability

Overall, 816,000 households (10%) with someone who has a long-term illness or disability lived in a home with a Category 1 hazard present, Annex Table 2.1.

Similarly to the findings for non-decent homes, in 2021-22 there was a higher proportion of private renters (18%) with someone in the household with a long-term illness or disability living with at least one Category 1 hazard, than private renters with no-one with a long-term illness or disability (13%). When comparing across tenures, private renters with someone who had a long-term illness or disability in the household were most likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard (18%), followed by owner occupiers (10%), local authority renters (5%) and housing association renters (3%), Figure 2.2.

Furthermore, owner occupiers with someone with a long-term illness or disability were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present than local authority and housing association renters.

Figure 2.2: Category 1 hazard, by anyone in household with a long-term illness or disability and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes:
1) excludes non-responses
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Employment status

Overall, households with an unemployed HRP (16%) were more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard than households working full time (10%), working part time (9%), retired (9%), or other inactive status (7%), Annex Table 2.1.

Generally aligned with patterns for non-decency, private rented households with an unemployed HRP (33%) were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in their home compared with those with a private renting HRP working full time (11%) or part time (15%), or of another inactive employment status (14%).

Receipt of housing support

Across the rented tenures, there was no difference in the likelihood of having a Category 1 hazard present regardless of whether a household was in receipt of housing support. For households in receipt of housing support, 9% (339,000 households) lived in a home with a Category 1 hazard, while 10% (475,000) of households not in receipt had a Category 1 hazard present, Annex Table 2.1.

Looking within tenure, private renters in receipt of support (19%) were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present than those who were not receiving support (12%). Private renters in receipt of support were also more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present compared with local authority and housing association renters (4% respectively) in receipt of housing support.

Overcrowding

As seen with the prevalence of non-decency, households were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in their home if they were overcrowded. Overall, 14% of overcrowded households (107,000) had a Category 1 hazard present in their home, compared with 9% of households that were not overcrowded (2.2 million), Annex Table 2.2.

Well-being

Regardless of the presence of a Category 1 hazard, owner occupiers typically had higher average well-being scores compared with all other tenures (or a lower average score for anxiousness).

Life satisfaction

Overall, households without any Category 1 hazards in their home had a greater life satisfaction score (7.4) than those living with a Category 1 hazard (7.2), Annex Table 2.3.

Looking at breakdowns by tenure, private renters without any Category 1 hazards in their homes had higher average life satisfaction scores (7.2) compared with private renters who lived in homes with a Category 1 hazard present (6.7).

Owners without any hazards present (7.6) had a greater life satisfaction than all other tenures. Owners with a Category 1 hazard present in their home still had a greater life satisfaction score (7.5) compared with private renters (6.7) and local authority renters (6.7) who also had a Category 1 hazard in their home.

Life is worthwhile

Overall, there was no difference in the proportion of households that believed life was worthwhile, irrespective of whether they had a Category 1 hazard present in their homes or not.

Happiness

Across all tenures, the happiness levels households reported did not vary by the presence of a Category 1 hazard. Households without a Category 1 hazard had an average score of 7.4 and those with a Category 1 hazard had an average score of 7.4, Annex Table 2.3.

Anxiety

Reported feelings of anxiety did not vary by the presence of a Category 1 hazard in the home. Those with Category 1 hazards present had an average score of 2.9 and those without had an average score of 3.0.

Satisfaction with home

While household satisfaction with their accommodation did vary by the presence of Category 1 hazard, satisfaction with repairs/maintenance and housing services did not vary with this housing quality measure.

Satisfaction with current accommodation

Similar to patterns of non-decency, overall, all households were more likely to be satisfied with their accommodation if there were no Category 1 hazards present (89%) than if there were any present (84%). This was also the case for both owner occupiers and private renters: 94% of owners without Category 1 hazards in their home were satisfied compared with 91% of homes with Category 1 hazards, and 81% of private renters without Category 1 hazards in their home were satisfied compared with 74% of homes with Category 1 hazards, Annex Table 2.4.

Owner occupiers (6%) and private renters (19%) were also more likely to be dissatisfied with their home if there was a Category 1 hazard present than if there were none. No difference was observed among social renters.

Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance

Generally, households’ satisfaction with their repairs and maintenance did not vary according to whether they had a Category 1 hazard in their home.

Where households had a Category 1 hazard, satisfaction was similar among tenures.

Satisfaction with housing services

Mirroring the findings for non-decent homes, a household’s satisfaction with their housing services did not vary by the presence of a Category 1 hazard.

No tenure was more likely to be satisfied than any other if the home had a Category 1 hazard. However, private renters (78%) without a Category 1 hazard present were most likely to be satisfied with their housing services compared with social renters (69% to 70%) and owner occupiers (55%), Annex Tables 2.6.

Energy efficiency

There is a strong relationship between the energy efficiency of homes and the presence of a Category 1 hazard. This is because the vast majority of homes within the lowest EER (roughly equivalent to bands F and G) will be categorised as having a HHSRS Category 1 excess cold hazard. In 2021-22, households living in homes with an EER of E to G were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard (44%) compared with homes with an EER of A to C (3%) and an EER of D (9%), Annex Table 2.7.

Owner occupiers in homes with the poorest energy efficiency (an EER of E to G) had a higher proportion of Category 1 hazards (41%) compared with owner occupiers with an EER of A to C (3%) or D (8%).

The same relationship can also be seen for private renters; of those living in a home with an EER of E to G, 54% had a Category 1 hazard. This is compared with 3% living in a home rated A to C and 13% with an EER of D.

Similarly, for housing association renters, 30% of those living in a home with an EER of E to G had a category 1 hazard, whereas only 2% were A to C and 5% had an EER of D.

Looking at households living in a home with poor energy efficiency (EER of E to G) over half of private renters had a Category 1 hazard (54%), higher than owner occupiers (41%) and housing association renters (30%). Moreover, private renters with an EER of D (13%) had a higher proportion of Category 1 hazards than all other tenures with this band, Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Category 1 hazard, by energy efficiency rating band and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.7
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

3. Damp

In the English Housing Survey, a home is considered to have damp/a problem with damp if the surveyor records damp which is significant enough to be taken into consideration when making their HHSRS assessments. Therefore, minor issues of damp are not recorded and, for consistency, would not be part of the modelled data.

In 2021-22, 935,000 households, or 4%, lived in a home with damp present. Overall, damp was most prevalent in the homes of private renters, with 11% (493,000) of households having a damp problem. In comparison, 2% (263,000) of owner occupiers, 5% (72,000) of local authority renters, and 4% (106,000) of housing association renters were estimated to have damp, Annex Table 3.1.

Household characteristics

For all households, the prevalence of damp in homes did not vary with ethnicity, long-term illness, or receipt of housing support. However, there were variations by household type, age, employment and overcrowding status.

Children in household

Although households with dependent children present were more likely to live in decent home and equally likely to live with a Category 1 hazard than those without dependent children, they were more likely to be living in a home suffering from a dampness problem.

Overall, 398,000 households with dependent children lived in a home suffering from a dampness problem (6%); a higher proportion compared with households without dependent children (3%, 537,000), Annex Table 3.1.

Private renters with dependent children (15%) were more likely to have damp present in their homes compared with those without dependent children (9%). The same was also evident for local authority renters (8% with dependent children compared with 3% without), Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Damp, by dependent children in the household and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Owners with dependent children were the least likely group to have damp present in their homes (2%) compared with their counterparts in all other tenures, with private renters with dependent children the most likely (15%).

Older people in household

Overall, households with a younger HRP (5%, 825,000) were more likely to live in homes with damp present compared with households with an older HRP aged 65 years or over (2%, 109,000). However, no differences were evident for each tenure, Annex Table 3.1.

Ethnicity

Overall, households with a black HRP (9%, 53,000) were more likely to have damp problems in their home than households with an Asian HRP (3%, 43,000), a white HRP (4%, 811,000), and a HRP of another ethnicity (3%, 28,000), Annex Table 3.1.

Long-term illness and disability

Overall, 368,000 households containing a member that had a long-term illness or disability lived in a home with a damp problem (4%). These households were no more or less likely to live in a home with damp than households that contained no-one with a long-term illness or disability, Annex Table 3.1.

Broadly, findings for the relationship between long term illness or disability and damp closely followed those for non-decency. Private renters with someone who has a long-term illness or disability were more likely to have damp present in their home (15%) than those without (9%). This group also had a higher prevalence of damp when compared with other tenures. For both social renting tenures, 4% of households containing someone with a long-term illness or disability lived in a home with damp, as did 1% of owner occupiers with a household member with a long-term illness or disability.

Employment status

Similar to non-decency, the prevalence of damp in homes was generally higher for households where the HRP was unemployed. Unemployed HRPs (8%) and HRPs who were otherwise economically inactive were the most likely to live in a home with damp (6%), compared with those working full-time (4%) and those that were retired (2%), Figure 3.2. Households with a HRP who worked full-time, or part-time (6%) were more likely to be living in a damp home than those with a retired HRP, Annex Table 3.1.

Figure 3.2: Damp, by employment status, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

There was a similar pattern among social renters. Households with a retired HRP (1%) were less likely to have damp in their homes compared with households with an unemployed HRP (7%), a HRP in part-time work (6%), full-time work (5%), or other inactive (5%).

Private renters had less varied prevalence of damp by employment status. Private renting HRPs in part-time work (16%) were more likely to have damp present in their homes compared with those in full-time work (9%).

Receipt of housing support

In 2021-22, 305,000 households receiving housing support lived in a home with damp problems. As was seen for non-decency, there was no overall difference found between households in receipt of housing support (8%) and those not in receipt (7%). However, the prevalence of damp among private renters in receipt of housing support (15%) was greater compared with those not in receipt (9%), Annex Table 3.1.

Private renters in receipt of housing support also had a higher prevalence of damp than both local authority and housing association renters that were in receipt of support (both 5%).

Overcrowding

Following the findings observed for non-decency, or homes with Category 1 hazards, the prevalence of damp varied with the overcrowding status of the household. Overall, households that were overcrowded (10%, 74,000) were more likely to have damp present in the home compared with those that were not overcrowded (4%, 851,000), Annex Table 3.2.

It was only among housing association renters that this finding was also evident. Of overcrowded housing association renters, 12% had damp present in their home compared with 4% of housing association renters that were not overcrowded.

Well-being

Overall, the average well-being score did not vary by the presence of damp. This differs from the findings for non-decency, where life satisfaction and ‘life is worthwhile’ scores were lower among households in non-decent homes. As with findings observed for the other housing quality measures, owner occupiers and private renters scored more positively on average than the social renters against each of the well-being measures.

Life satisfaction

Overall, the mean satisfaction with life as scored by the HRP did not change with the presence of damp in the home. For homes with damp present, the mean score was 7.2, for homes where damp was not present this was 7.4. There was also no difference within each tenure, Annex Table 3.3.

Owner occupiers generally had higher satisfaction with life than private or social renters. This is also evident if there was damp present in the home (7.7), when compared with private renters (7.0) and local authority renters (6.2). Owners also had higher life satisfaction on average than households of all other tenures when there was no damp in the home.

Life is worthwhile

Average scores for ‘life is worthwhile’ also did not vary by the presence of damp in the home. A mean score of 7.5 was reported by households who did not have damp problems, and a score of 7.7 for households with no damp. This relationship was also evident for each of the tenures, Annex Table 3.3.

In a similar pattern as scores for life satisfaction, owner occupiers typically gave higher scores regardless of whether there was a dampness problem in their home or not. Among households with damp in their home, owners found life more worthwhile on average (8.0) than private renters (7.4). Owners also had the highest score for ‘life is worthwhile’ if there was no damp present in the home (7.9), compared with private renters (7.6), local authority renters (7.3), and housing association renters (7.4). Furthermore, private renters scored higher than housing association and local authority renters if there was no damp present.

Happiness

Similar to the findings for non-decency, there was no difference overall, and for each tenure, in how happy a household reported feeling whether there was damp in the home or not. Overall, the average score for happiness was 7.2 if there was damp present in the home, and 7.4 if there was no damp present, Annex Table 3.3.

Anxiety

Results for anxiety mirror those seen for the ‘happiness’ well-being measure. Household levels of anxiety did not change if there was damp in the home or not. This relationship was also observed within each tenure. Overall, average feelings of anxiety were scored at 3.2 if there was damp present in the home, and 3.0 if damp was not present, Annex Table 3.3.

There was no difference seen by tenure for the average anxiety scores regardless of whether there was damp present in the home.

Satisfaction with home

For all tenures, the proportion of households expressing satisfaction with their current accommodation was lower for those living with dampness problems. However, generally, reported household satisfaction with repair and maintenance or housing services did not vary by whether damp was present.

Satisfaction with current accommodation

Results for damp were again similar to those for Decent Homes and Category 1 Hazards, as overall households in homes without a dampness problem were more satisfied with their accommodation (89%) than homes with damp present (72%), Annex Table 3.4.

When analysed by tenure, this was only seen for private renters, 82% of those with damp not present in the home were satisfied compared with 64% of those in homes with a damp problem.

Additionally, private renters were more likely to be dissatisfied with their accommodation if there was damp present (21%) than if there was no damp (12%). The same pattern was observed of owners, 10% of those with damp present in their home were dissatisfied compared with 4% of those without a damp problem.

Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance

Mirroring that seen with the Decent Homes Standard, private renters were more likely to be satisfied with the repairs and maintenance they were provided if their home did not have a dampness problem (75%) than if their home had damp present (65%). However, the proportion of all households expressing satisfaction with their repairs and maintenance did not differ whether the home had damp present (64%) or not (67%), Annex Table 3.5.

Satisfaction with housing services

The proportion of owner occupiers and private renters reporting satisfaction with their housing services did not vary with the presence of damp in the home.

However, for local authority renters, households were more likely to be satisfied if they did not have a dampness problem in their home (71%) than if they did have damp (45%).

Similarly, local authority renters were more likely to be dissatisfied if there was damp in their home (45%) than if there wasn’t (18%), Annex Table 3.6.

Local authority renters were less likely to be satisfied with their housing services if they had damp in their home (45%) than private renters (72%) and housing association renters (75%).

Energy efficiency

As with non-decency and Category 1 hazards, there is a strong relationship between the energy efficiency of homes and the presence of damp. Households living in the least energy efficient homes were also most likely to be experiencing dampness problems in their home. Overall, households living in homes with an EER of E to G were more likely to have damp (13%) compared with homes with an EER of A to C (2%) and an EER of D (4%), Annex Table 3.7.

This pattern can also be seen by tenure. Private renters living in a home with an EER of E to G (29%) were more likely to experience damp in their homes than those with an EER of D (13%) and an EER of A to C (3%). Similarly, owner occupiers with homes of EER E to G were more likely to have damp present (6%) than those with homes with an EER of D (2%), Figure 3.3.

A greater proportion of social renters living in a home with an EER of E to G (20%) were suffering with damp problems than those in homes achieving EERs A to C (3%) or D (7%).

Figure 3.3: Damp, by energy efficiency rating band and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.7
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

When comparing the prevalence of damp between tenures, there was a much higher proportion of private renters whose home had an EER of E to G (29%) with damp than owners (6%) within the same EER band.

Technical notes

Results for the sections of English Housing Survey reports 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 for sections of EHS reports 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’.

In this report on the living conditions of households, the household data is paired with physical data, but weighted to households. Fieldwork was carried out between July 2020 and March 2022. As the data are weighted to households, we refer to the year of data similarly, as 2021-22.

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 2021-22 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.