Research and analysis

EHS Briefing: Modelling a revised Decent Homes Standard for consultation

Published 2 July 2025

Applies to England

1. Summary

The government is consulting (2 July to 10 September 2025) on a proposal to update the Decent Homes Standard (DHS), which currently sets a minimum housing quality standard for all registered providers of social housing. The government also proposes to extend the standard to cover private rented sector dwellings. This reflects the considerable challenges facing our existing, ageing housing stock, with the aim of driving significant quality improvements over time. These reforms will benefit tenants and wider society through the links that housing quality has with health, employment, crime, environmental and wellbeing outcomes.

To inform development of the revised standard for consultation, MHCLG:

• commissioned the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to analyse English Housing Survey (EHS) physical survey data from 2019 to understand how the condition of the current stock of rental properties compares to the updated and extended Decent Homes Standard that the government is consulting on, and the potential cost of bringing homes up to the revised standard; and
• undertook further analysis of BRE data and the housing quality data contained in the EHS

The key findings of this work are covered in this statistical publication. They have informed the Impact Assessment that accompanies the government’s consultation. The Impact Assessment sets out the government’s full assessment of the cost and benefits of its proposal, concluding that it should deliver significant net benefits to both tenants and wider society.

2. Main findings

• Regulations relating to rental housing quality have evolved over time. While, in the short term, this has been followed by a rise in the proportion of properties classified as non-decent (reflecting the new, higher standard), rising standards have been followed by subsequent improvements in housing quality. For example, when the DHS was updated in 2006, the proportion of properties classified as non-decent rose from 27% (on the 2001 standard) to 35% (on the 2006 standard). Based on the most recent data, the proportion of non-decent dwellings in England in 2023 was 15% based on the 2006 standard.
• A similar pattern is expected under the government’s proposed reforms. While most social rented sector (SRS) properties already meet the new DHS proposal, those classified as non-decent would be expected to rise from 12% under the old standard to 40% under the revised standard for consultation. For the private rented sector (PRS), the equivalent increase would be 23% to 47%. The associated Impact Assessment estimates full compliance would mean housing conditions improve for 2.4-2.5 million households in the PRS and 1.7 million households in the SRS, overall benefiting more than 9 million individuals.
• Poor housing quality is not felt equally across society. Some groups are more likely to benefit from these reforms than others. Those more likely to be benefit include younger households in the SRS, older households and those with a long-term illness or disability in the PRS and economically vulnerable households across both tenures. These differences reflect both variation in the housing tenure of different groups, as well as variation in those facing poor housing conditions within tenure types.
• The total cost of meeting the standard will ultimately reflect both the cost of upgrades to meet the revised standard and actions required for landlords not currently meeting obligations. The additional compliance costs associated with moving to a new, higher standard are estimated in 2019 prices at £836 million for the SRS and £2.4 billion in the PRS.
• There will be significant cost variation at the dwelling level, depending on the current condition of the property and the steps needed to bring it up to standard. Despite many dwellings failing the revised standard for consultation, only a small proportion of these will face an additional cost, i.e. a cost above and beyond existing obligations. In the PRS, the median additional compliance cost, where an additional cost is faced, is £5,240, though these additional costs are only faced by 7% of all PRS dwellings. In the SRS, the median additional compliance cost would be £3,439, faced by only 6% of all SRS dwellings. Across both sectors, a majority of dwellings will face no costs as they would already pass the revised standard. Of the small proportion that do face additional costs, these are generally small costs.
• The most common reason for not meeting the updated standard is Criterion B (disrepair) in both sectors. For 81% of SRS properties that fail and 71% of PRS properties, only one criterion would need remediation.

3. Introduction

The government is proposing to update the Decent Homes Standard, which currently applies to the social rented sector, in addition to introducing it to the private rented sector. In developing this proposal, it has relied on the English Housing Survey to understand housing quality in the rented sectors and the potential impact of moving to an updated standard of decency.

The government has published an Impact Assessment considering the overall costs and benefits of these proposals. It concludes that, while the updated standard will introduce additional compliance costs of £2.7bn-£2.8bn to the private rented sector and £1.2bn-£1.3bn to the social rented sector (2025 prices, 2026 present value), there are significant economic and societal benefits for both applying an updated standard and improving landlord compliance with existing standards.

This release provides further detail on the data we have used to understand prevalence of poor housing quality and the remediation costs, which were used to produce the Impact Assessment. It uses data from the English Housing Survey (EHS), 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. In 2023-24, the EHS estimated that 3.8 million dwellings (15%) in England, across all tenures, did not meet the Decent Homes Standard ^{[footnote 1]}.

To assess the potential impact of an update to the Decent Homes Standard, MHCLG commissioned the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to analyse EHS physical data from 2019, calculating whether dwellings would pass or fail a revised standard for consultation. BRE independently determined total and ‘additional’ costs by adapting their cost models to differentiate between new components of the revised standard and existing obligations by landlords. 2018-19 and 2019-20 data were used for modelling since, at the time, these were the most recent two years that physical surveys took place in full, with data collected in 2020, 2021 and 2022 affected by restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See technical guidance on the EHS, including the effects of COVID-19 on the survey.

Most of the proposed updates to the Decent Homes Standard could be accurately measured through existing variables within the EHS. Some updates required proxy variables to make reasoned estimates, and others were not possible to model at all (see Annex C).

This analysis accompanies an interim Impact Assessment and consultation, which contains further information on the wider costs and benefits of the revised standard for consultation. Figures presented in this briefing note are in 2019 prices, so do not match the year-adjusted prices within the Impact Assessment and consultation.

Each year, the English Housing Survey relies on the contributions of a large number of people and organisations. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) would particularly like to thank the following people and organisations without whom the underlying data from the 2018-19 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.

The responsible analyst for this report is: Alistair Rice, Data, Analysis, Statistics and Surveys Division, MHCLG. Contact via ehs@communities.gov.uk.

4. Changing housing conditions

Since it was first run in 1967, the quality of housing stock in England has been measured through the English Housing Survey. The EHS has informed housing policies, which in turn have led to significant improvements in the quality of the English Housing Stock. For example, following the 1967 survey, ‘Intermediate Grants’ were made available to homeowners to help fund basic missing amenities. In 1967, 25% of homes lacked a basic amenity (a bath or shower, an indoor WC, a wash basin, or hot and cold water at three points). 2.5 million English homes (19%) did not have access to an indoor WC in 1967. By 1991, the number of homes lacking a basic amenity had fallen to 1%, helped in part by access to these grants and informed by data from the EHS.  

The EHS has been used to monitor and inform the many changes to housing standards in the over 55 years since the first survey in 1967. Since 2001, the DHS has played a key role in setting a minimum quality standard that all registered providers of social housing must meet regarding the physical condition of their homes. In 2001, 33% of dwellings in England failed the Standard as originally set. The standard was updated in 2006, at which point 35% of English homes were considered non decent according to the new definition (higher than 27% under the original definition). Since then, levels of non-decency on the 2006 measure fell to 15% in 2023.

Significant gaps in housing quality remain, particularly in the private rented sector, where the DHS is not currently the regulatory standard. Additionally, it has been almost two decades since the Standard was updated to reflect more recent products, technology and intelligence that underpins our understanding of housing quality. To that end, the government is proposing to update the DHS and has relied on the EHS to inform these updates to ensure the recommended revisions are evidence-based and their impact is thoroughly understood.

Figure 1. Changing housing conditions, 1967 to 2023

^{Base: all dwellings}

^Notes:

^{1) Housing Act 1957, Housing Act 1985 and Local Government and Housing Act 1989}

^{2) ‘unfit’ refers to unfit for human habitation}

^{3) The 2001 DHS was retroactively applied to 1996 data to estimate how many homes would have failed the standard in 1996}

^Sources:

^{1) 1967: National House Condition Survey of England and Wales}

^{2) 1971-2006: English House Condition Survey}

^{3) 2011 onwards: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

5. Updates to the Decent Homes Standard

All landlords are subject to legislation to ensure the quality of the homes they let^{[footnote 2]}. These include the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its amendment, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, as well as the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Housing Act 2004.

In addition, the Decent Homes Standard is a technical standard that has applied to the social rented sector since 2001, with an update in 2006. Social landlords are obligated to act if dwellings fall below the prescribed standard.

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

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

While the existing standard does not currently apply to the private rented sector, local authorities have a duty to take appropriate enforcement action under the Housing Act 2004 if they identify hazards in any dwelling at the most dangerous ‘Category 1’ level, and a power if they identify hazards at category 2 level.

The following changes have been proposed and modelled here as updates to the existing standard^{[footnote 3]}:

• update the definition of disrepair in Criterion B by removing age requirements and updating failure thresholds
• update the list of building components within Criterion B, e.g. addition of fire alarm systems, damp proof courses
• remove age requirements for kitchens and bathrooms, and require dwellings to have at least 3 of the 4 remaining modern facilities and services in Criterion C
• update thermal comfort requirements (Criterion D), to focus on providing a heating system sufficient to heat the whole home and removing specific insulation requirements
• introduce a minimum damp and mould standard (Criterion E)

The above changes have been modelled as applying to both the social rented and private rented sectors. Disrepair of shared outdoor spaces (boundary walls, curtilage, pathways and steps, external lighting, bin stores) has been modelled as only applicable to the social rented sector.

Given timelines and data limitations, the proposed revised standard that appears in the consultation could not be modelled in its entirety.

Some disrepair elements (Criterion B) were excluded in deriving total and additional costs, though these have been included in failure rates following MHCLG analysis of BRE data. The Impact Assessment sets out where costs and benefits will occur outside the scope of modelling using the EHS and discusses the total cost of the standard alongside its cost above existing obligations.

Additionally, the update to the Decent Homes Standard proposed by the government contains other changes to Criterion C which were not possible to model here due to limitations in EHS data:

• introduce minimum home security measures
• require window restrictors
• require suitable floor coverings at the start of every tenancy

In particular, the requirement of suitable floor coverings at the start of every tenancy cannot be measured precisely through the English Housing Survey because surveyors will not inspect all dwellings on the first day of a tenancy.

Further details on the modelling approaches taken are available in Annex C.

6. Prevalence of decent and non-decent dwellings

It was not possible to model all elements of the revised standard for consultation using data from the English Housing Survey. Elements including floor coverings at the start of tenancy, window restrictors, and minimum security measures are not included in any of the below analysis or modelled costs. We do not know the degree to which dwellings would fail under these unmodelled criteria, or the extent of the overlap with other criteria. As a result, these figures will likely underestimate the prevalence of non-decency and its associated costs.

Further detail is provided in Annex C.

Under the existing Decent Homes Standard, 12% of dwellings in the social rented sector in England in 2019 were non-decent (504,000). When applying the revised standard for consultation, this value increases to 40% (1.6 million dwellings). Dwellings rented from local authorities (41%, 656,000) had a very similar likelihood as dwellings rented from housing associations (39%, 982,000) to fail the revised standard for consultation (Figure 2, Annex Table 1.1).

The private rented sector saw a similar rise in overall prevalence. Under the existing Decent Homes Standard, 23% of dwellings in the private rented sector in England in 2019 were non-decent (1.1 million), which increased to 47% (2.2 million) upon application of the revised standard for consultation (Figure 2, Annex Table 1.1).

Figure 2. Rented sector dwellings failing the existing and revised standard for consultation

^{Base: all dwellings}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full dwelling sample}

6.1 Geographical variation

Under the existing standard, social rented dwellings in the East of England (7%) and the North West (10%) showed a lower rate of non-decency than social rented dwellings in London (15%) and the South West (17%).

With the revised standard for consultation, rates of failure in the East of England remained significantly lower (32%) than many other regions (40-42%) (Figure 3, Annex Table 1.3).

Figure 3. Social rented sector dwellings not meeting the existing and revised standard for consultation, by region

^{Base: all dwellings}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full dwelling sample}

Under the existing standard, private rented dwellings in London (18%) and the South East (17%) showed a lower rate of non-decency than private rented dwellings in the North West (26%), Yorkshire and the Humber (34%), the South West (26%) and the East of England (26%). Additionally, rates of non-decency in Yorkshire and the Humber (34%) were higher than in the East Midlands (24%) and the West Midlands (23%).

With the revised standard for consultation, London (38%) and the South East (40%) continued to have lower rates of non-decency than all regions in the North (52-60%) (Figure 4, Annex Table 1.3).

Figure 4. Private rented sector dwellings not meeting the existing and revised standard for consultation, by region

^{Base: all dwellings}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full dwelling sample}

6.2 Reasons for failing the Standard

Under the revised standard for consultation, 81% of social rented sector dwellings that failed did so on one criterion, with the remaining dwellings failing on multiple criteria. This was lower in the private rented sector, where 71% of dwellings that failed did so on one criterion (Figure 5, Annex Table 1.2).

Figure 5. Number of criteria failed in revised standard for consultation (non-decent dwellings only) by tenure

^{Base: all non-decent dwellings}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full dwelling sample}

Within the social rented sector, housing association dwellings (9%) were more likely than local authority dwellings (5%) to fail the thermal comfort criterion under the revised standard.

Dwellings in the social and private rented sectors were equally likely to fail on modernisation (Criterion C) though, within the social rented sector, housing association dwellings (1%) were less likely to fail Criterion C than local authority dwellings (2%).

Under the existing standard, failures due to having Category 1 hazards (Criterion A) were the most common in both the social and private rented sectors (5% and 13% respectively). With the updated standard, the most common reason to fail was the presence of disrepair.

Levels of disrepair under the new definition were statistically similar between the social rented sector and private rented sector (31% and 33% respectively) (Annex Table 1.1).

Under the current standard, certain components must be both old and in disrepair to fail the DHS. Proposals for the new Standard remove the necessity for a component to be ‘old’ for it to fail due to disrepair. Alongside the other updates, this removal of age as a requirement for components to fail will partially drive the observed increase in prevalence for disrepair.

Figure 6. Social rented sector dwellings not meeting the existing and revised standard for consultation, by criteria failed

^{Base: all dwellings}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full dwelling sample}

Figure 7. Private rented sector dwellings not meeting the existing and revised standard for consultation, by criteria failed

^{Base: all dwellings}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full dwelling sample}

Within Criterion B (disrepair), the highest rates of failure in the private rented sector were for roof features, i.e. rainwater goods and stacks, needing repair (15%), window disrepair (9%), and internal door disrepair (9%). In the social rented sector, these components also had high failure rates (9%, 7% and 10% respectively). Additionally, in the social rented sector, 10% of dwellings failed on repair of external paths, a component not included in the revised standard for consultation for the private rented sector (Annex Table 1.4).

7. Costs to make decent

All costs in this note use 2019 prices from the English Housing Survey. In addition to costs of remediating individual components, the modelled estimates for costs also include i) preliminary costs to cover items required before the work can commence e.g. site hut, security fencing, ii) access costs to cover costs for scaffolding, cradles and other equipment needed to work safely at height, and iii) uplifts or economies of scale (for example, if certain equipment or expenses are required to remediate multiple faults) that are calculated differently for the ‘required expenditure’.

To understand the overall cost-benefit of the revised standard for consultation, users are recommended to review the Impact Assessment.

The introduction of the revised standard for consultation will overlap with the existing obligations landlords have in regard to housing quality. In the associated Impact Assessment, costs related to existing obligations are removed to more precisely represent the additional compliance costs of the new standard. Costs relating to existing housing quality requirements are ones that landlords should already be meeting. The Impact Assessment also expresses costs in 2025 prices, rather than the original 2019 prices used in the BRE data that underpins the analysis in this note. 

A considerable proportion of the total costs of full compliance with the revised standard would be the result of existing requirements such as the current Decent Homes Standard and from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, rather than costs specifically introduced by the proposed new standard. Further details are provided within the Impact Assessment and Technical Note for this release. Where landlords are not currently fulfilling their existing obligations to their tenants, they will generally face greater costs to bring their properties up to the revised standard on which the government is consulting.

The costs generated by the introduction of a revised standard for consultation vary significantly across non-decent dwellings. The costs presented in this publication are one-off estimates (rather than recurring) and, in practice, are likely to be spread across several years. They also only relate to the size and condition of the housing stock as of 2019 – they do not account for any changes in the future. The related Impact Assessment provides a complete assessment of the costs and benefits in economic terms.

Definitions

Total cost = the full cost of remediating dwellings up the revised standard for consultation, including existing obligations

Additional cost = the cost of remediating dwellings up the revised standard for consultation above and beyond existing obligations

The total costs (in 2019 prices) modelled by BRE and provided to MHCLG are given in Annex Table 1.5 and discussed further within the Impact Assessment. Both the total and additional costs do not fully represent the proposed standard, though they are the most complete costings that can be derived at this stage.

• Costs relating to floor coverings, window restrictors and minimum security measures could not be assessed through EHS data, though they are explored within the Impact Assessment.
• Some elements of disrepair^{[footnote 4]} are not costed here, though MHCLG analysis of BRE data has allowed us to reflect them in the overall failure rates. We expect that the exclusion of these disrepair elements will have a minimal impact on the additional costs. However, we do expect that the total costs in Annex Table 1.5 are an underestimate because of these exclusions. Further analysis will be undertaken for the final Impact Assessment.

When we look at the additional compliance costs of the proposed standard for consultation, the costs for the social rented sector and private rented sector are £0.8 billion and £2.4 billion in 2019 prices respectively (Annex Table 1.5). These additional costs are used within the Impact Assessment, with further adjustment for price years, discounting, and the proposed implementation periods, as they reflect solely the additional cost of implementing the revised standard.

The median additional cost per affected dwelling to meet the revised standard for consultation is £3,439 in the social rented sector and £5,240 in the private rented sector. These are lower than the mean values of £3,640 and £7,114 respectively (Annex Table 1.5). These medians may be a slight overestimate due to the exclusion of some low-cost elements of disrepair in the modelling.

These additional costs are faced by a minority of dwellings in both rental sectors (569,000 dwellings in total), relating to 6% of dwellings in the SRS (230,000 dwellings) and 7% of dwellings in the PRS (339,000 dwellings) (Annex Table 1.6). Where they exist, they are most likely to be at the lower end of the cost distribution, as shown in Figure 8.

These findings reflect the fact that, while the revised standard for consultation introduces costs to many dwellings, the majority of these dwellings have a low cost to remediate, with only a small minority of homes having larger costs. The expanded scope generally introduces many small additional costs, rather than introducing large individual dwelling costs.

Figure 8. Distribution of the additional cost to meet the revised standard for consultation, across dwellings which face an additional cost.

^{Base: all dwellings which face an additional cost under the revised standard for consultation}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full dwelling sample}

 

8. Household effects

The demographic makeup of households who live in dwellings that fail the existing standard differed from those that failed the revised standard for consultation. The below analysis explores how the scope of the revised standard for consultation may disproportionately affect some demographic groups.

8.1 Social rented sector

Households in social rented sector dwellings had different likelihoods of living in dwellings that failed the revised standard for consultation:

• those with a household reference person (HRP) aged 16-29 (44%) were more likely to fail than those with a HRP over 65 (32%)
• those with an ethnic minority HRP (46%) were more likely to fail than those with a white HRP (38%)
• those with a male HRP (42%) were more likely to fail than those with a female HRP (37%)
• those with a HRP who was unemployed (50%) were more likely to fail than those in work (41%)

These differences for age, ethnicity, sex, and employment status were not observed under the existing standard in the social rented sector. No statistically significant differences were observed under the revised standard for consultation for whether the household received housing support or not (Annex Table 1.7).

The differences for age of HRP emerge from the expansion of Criterion B (disrepair), with a higher likelihood of living in a dwelling with disrepair for HRPs aged 16-29 (36%) compared to HRPs aged over 65 (23%) (Annex Table 1.8).

Some differences that were present under the existing standard no longer exist upon application of the revised standard for consultation. For example, in 2019, social rented households were more likely to live in dwellings that fail the existing standard if they did not contain a person with a disability or long-term illness (14%) compared to households which did (10%). Under the revised standard for consultation, this difference was not present.

Similarly, social rented households living in rural dwellings (31%) were more likely than households in urban dwellings (11%) to fail the existing standard. This divergence was not observed under the revised standard for consultation (Annex Table 1.8). 

Figure 9. Demographic differences under the revised standard for consultation in the social rented sector

^{Base: all households}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full household sample}

8.2 Private rented sector

PRS households with particular demographic characteristics had different likelihoods of living in dwellings that failed the revised standard for consultation:

• those with a HRP aged over 65 (53%) were more likely to fail than those with a HRP aged 16-29 (43%)
• those with an ethnic minority HRP (53%) were more likely to fail than those with a white HRP (47%)
• those with someone in the household with a disability or long-term illness (54%) were more likely to fail than those in a household without (45%)
• those with a HRP who was unemployed (75%) were more likely to fail than those in work (45%)
• those with someone receiving housing support (58%) were more likely to fail than those who didn’t (45%)
• those who lived in a rural setting (61%) were more likely to fail than those in an urban setting (47%)

Notably, the relationships for age of HRP were reversed between the social rented sector and private rented sector. This may reflect the different sector profiles, with HRPs in the private rented sector generally more likely to be younger and male (Live Table FA3101). The differences observed for age, employment, housing support and urban/rural areas also occurred under the existing standard (Annex Table 1.7).

Having someone in the household with a disability or long-term illness is associated with a higher likelihood of the dwelling being considered non-decent under the revised standard for consultation in the private, but not the social, rented sector. This was also true for private renters living in dwellings failing on the updated definition of disrepair (41% with a disability/long-term illness vs 30% without).

This relationship was observed alongside the fact that households in the private rented sector in 2019 were less likely to contain someone with a disability or long-term illness (27%) than households in the social rented sector (53%)^{[footnote 5]}.

The divergence in likelihood of failing the revised standard for consultation between dwellings in urban and rural settings was only statistically significant in the private rented sector, and not in the social rented sector. Rural dwellings in the private rented sector were also more likely to fail on the updated definition of disrepair then urban dwellings (43% vs 33%).

Figure 10. Demographic differences under the revised standard for consultation in the private rented sector

^{Base: all households}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full household sample}

8.3 Dependent children

Households in the private rented sector had a similar likelihood of living in a dwelling considered non-decent under the revised standard for consultation, regardless of whether they had dependent children or not. This differed from the existing standard, where households without dependent children were more likely to living in a dwelling that failed the current standard (25%) than those households with dependent children (20%).

However, households without dependent children in the social rented sectors were less likely to be in a non-decent home (38%) or a home with disrepair (29%) than households with dependent children (42% non-decent, 33% with disrepair).

In 2019, there were 12.2 million dependent children^{[footnote 6]} living in England represented in the EHS, of which 3.1 million lived in the private rented sector and 2.7 million lived in the social rented sector. Using the existing standard, 682,000 children in the private rented sector and 303,000 children in the social rented sector lived in non-decent housing in 2019.

If the revised standard for consultation was applied, 1.5 million children in the private rented sector (47% of dependent children in the sector) and 1.1 million children in the social rented sector (43% of dependent children in the sector) would be living in a non-decent home and would benefit from landlords seeking to meet the new standard.

In the social rented sector, poor quality under existing standards refer to the existing Decent Homes Standard, plus urgent disrepair as covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In total, 933,000 dependent children (35%) in the social rented sector were living in dwellings already considered as poor quality under existing standards.  

Dwellings that would be newly considered poor quality according to the revised standard for consultation include a further 197,000 (7%) dependent children. A small proportion of dependent children (14,000, 1%) are living in dwellings that the existing standard considered poor quality, but the revised standard for consultation would not ^{[footnote 7]}.

In the private rented sector, poor quality under existing standards refer to the requirement to not have Category 1 hazards present, plus urgent disrepair as covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In total, 1.1 million dependent children (36%) in the private rented sector were living in dwellings already considered poor quality under existing standards.

Dwellings that would be newly considered poor quality according to the Decent Homes Standard update would include a further 340,000 (11%) dependent children. 

Figure 11. Number of dependent children in good and poor quality dwellings (under revised standard for consultation)

^{Base: all households}

^{Source: English Housing Survey 2019, full household sample}

9. Links to related publications

• Consultation
• Impact Assessment

1. English Housing Survey 2023 to 2024: headline findings on housing quality and energy efficiency. ↩

2. Housing conditions in the private rented sector (England). ↩

3. A decent home: definition and guidance. ↩

4. Fire safety signage, internal doors, mechanical ventilation, rainwater goods, balustrades, handrails, stair treads, door entry systems, curtilage (SRS only), external pathways and steps (SRS only), external lighting (SRS only), bin stores (SRS only). ↩

5. English Housing Survey 2018 to 2019: headline report - Households tables, tab 1.3. ↩

6. In the EHS, a dependent child is defined as any child in the household aged under 16 years, or aged 16 to 18 years if they are in full time education up to A-Level or equivalent. ↩

7. This can occur due to the dropping of some components, e.g., failures on kitchen or bathroom age. This would apply to those living in the SRS. In the PRS, this cannot occur. ↩