National statistics

English Housing Survey 2021 to 2022: private rented sector

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.

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 the private rented sector and is split in four chapters. The first chapter gives an overview of households in the private rented sector, including demographic characteristics and levels of overcrowding and under-occupation.

The second chapter focuses on housing costs and affordability in the private rented sector, including rent, income, the proportion of income spent on rent, as well as savings, methods of energy payments, difficulty paying rent and receipt of housing support.

The third chapter examines housing histories and aspirations to buy, including time spent in current accommodation and in current tenure, reasons previous tenancies ended, and histories of homelessness.

Finally, the fourth chapter focuses on the private rented housing stock, and presents findings about decency, safety and energy efficiency in the private rented sector.

Main findings

The private rented sector is the second largest tenure, with roughly 4.6 million households representing nearly one fifth (19%) of households in England. It is a sector characterised by diversity. Compared to other tenures, the sector is younger and more ethnically and nationally diverse.

• The average age of a Household Reference Person (HRP) in the private rented sector is 41, compared to 53 years in the social rented sector and 57 years for owner occupiers.
• The private rented sector houses the highest proportion of non-UK nationals (74% of HRPs in the private rented sector are from the UK, compared to 92% of social renters and 96% of owner occupiers).
• Nearly a quarter of private rented households (23%) have ethnic minority HRPs, compared to 19% of social renters, and 8% of owner occupiers.

Private renters continue to spend a higher proportion of their household income on rent compared to those in other tenures. This is particularly the case for private renters in the lowest two income quintiles, of which seven in 10 spend above 30% on rent.

• On average, private renters spend 33% of their income on rent. This is higher than for social renters, who spend about 27%, and for mortgagors, who spend 22% of their income on mortgage. This includes any housing support received.
• Average proportion of household income spent on rent is higher for those who live in London (41%) or the South East (36%), for those who receive housing support (39%), are retired (44%) or otherwise economically inactive (45%) and unemployed (58%) private renters, as well as households with a HRP under age 25 (44%).
• For those in the bottom two income quintiles (or the 40% of renters with the lowest incomes) 71% spend more than 30% of their income on rent.

Nearly three quarters of all private renting households say it is easy to pay rent, though certain groups – those living in London, those receiving housing support, those in part time work, and those with children, in particular – find it more difficult.

• 74% of private renters say they find it easy to pay rent; 26% said they find it difficult.
• Households with certain characteristics are more likely to report difficulty paying rent. Specifically, 36% of those living in London report difficulty compared to 23% in the rest of England. 46% of receiving housing support reported difficulty paying rent, along with 39% of renters in part time work and 32% of renters who had children.

Direct debit is the most common means by which private renters pay their energy bills, however those who were been behind on rent in the last year are more likely than those who were not to pay their energy using a pre-payment meter.

• More than half (54%) of private renters pay their gas bills by direct debit and 66% use direct debit to pay for electricity. This is higher than for social renters (40% and 46% respectively).
• Private renters who were in rental arrears over the previous 12 months are more likely to pay gas bills by pre-payment method (35%) compared to those without a period of rental arrears (14%).

On average, private renters had spent less time in their current home than those in other tenures, though nearly a third of private renters had been in the tenure for a decade or more.

• Private renters had been in their current home for an average of 4.4 years. Social renters had been in their home nearly three times as long (12.7 years) and owner occupiers 4 times as long (17.6 years).
• Nearly a third of private renters (32%) had been renting in the sector for a decade or more. 39% had been in the sector for 3 to 9 years, and 29% had been in the sector for two years or less.

Most private renters ended their last tenancy because they wanted to move. A small minority say they were evicted or asked to leave by their landlord.

• The most common reason a household said their last tenancy ended was because they wanted to move (77%).
• Less common reasons included the end of a fixed period tenancy (11%), mutual agreement with the landlord (10%), they were evicted or asked to leave by their landlord/agent (4%), due to a poor relationship with the landlord (3%) or the tenancy was part of a job that ended (2%).

The majority of private renters eventually expect to buy a home, though most did not expect to buy in the next few years. Younger private renters are more likely to expect to buy than older private renters.

• 62% of private renters – about 2.8 million households – eventually plan to buy a home in the UK. 28% of these think they will purchase in the next two years, though purchase periods of two to five years (37%) or five or more years (35%) are more common.
• Buying intention declines with age – renters in the 16-24 age band are more likely to say they would eventually buy (85%) than those aged 45-64 (42%), those aged 65 to 74 (16%) or those aged 75 or older (7%).

Homes in the private rented sector are more likely than homes in other sectors to fail the Decent Homes Standard. This is the case in nearly all regions.

• 23% or 990,000 occupied private rented sector dwellings are estimated to fail the Decent Homes Standard. This is a higher proportion than in the social rented sector (10% or 380,000 dwellings) and in the owner occupied sector (13% or 2 million dwellings).
• A significantly higher proportion of private rented sector dwellings are estimated to fail the decent homes standard in nearly all regions. The starkest disparity appears in Yorkshire and the Humber, where 38% of private rented sector homes are estimated to fail, compared to 18% of owner occupied homes and 10% of social rented homes.

In 2021, 14% of private rented sector homes were estimated to be unsafe according to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Dwellings where the household was in receipt of housing support are more likely to contain a hazard than those not receiving support.

• 14% of private rented sector homes, or 615,000 occupied dwellings, are estimated to contain a Category 1 hazard according to the HHSRS. This is higher than for social rented (4%) or owner occupied (10%) dwellings.
• Households in the private rented sector in receipt of housing support are more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard (19%) compared to those not in receipt of support (12%).

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 Victoria Ratti, Amy Dyer and Melanie Doyle at The National Centre for Social Research, in collaboration with Stuart Trager at BRE and Chauncey Glass 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.

1. Profile of private renters

This chapter provides a demographic profile of private renters and also covers measures of overcrowding and under-occupation in the private rented sector.

In 2021-22 there were approximately 4.6 million households within the private rented sector, representing 19% of all households in England. This is similar to previous years, Headline Report Table 1.1.

The private rented sector in 2021-22 was larger than the social rented sector (17%, or 4 million households), but smaller than the owner-occupied sector (64%, or 15.6 million households).

London had a higher proportion of private renters (29%) compared to the rest of England (17%). In London, there were just over 1 million private renters, 806,000 social renters, and 1.8 million owner occupiers, Annex Table 1.2.

Characteristics of private renters

Age of household reference person

The age distribution of private renters is based on the age of the Household Reference Person (HRP). The average age of private renters in 2021-22 was 41 years old, which was the youngest average age across all tenures. Average age of a HRP in the social rented sector was 53 years, and 57 years for owner occupiers, Annex Table 1.3.

The most common age group within the private rented sector was those 25 to 34, which made up a third (33%) of private renters. While the proportion of private renters decreased with each age band, the opposite trend was seen for owner occupiers, Annex Table 1.4.

The least common age group among private renters was 65+ (9%), while 65+ was the most common group among both social renters (28%) and owner occupiers (36%).

Within the 16 to 24 band, private renting was the most common tenure (making up 64% of all 16-24 year old HRPs, compared to 14% being owner occupiers). Within the 75 + band, owner occupiers made up the majority (80%, compared to 4% private renters), Live Table FA1201.

Economic activity

HRPs in the private rented sector were more likely to be full-time employed in 2021-22 than in 2020-21. More than three quarters of private renters were in either full-time (66%) or part-time (11%) work in 2021-22 (in comparison to 58% working full-time and 15% working part-time in 2020-21). Just under one in ten (8%) were in the other inactive group, 7% being retired, 4% were unemployed, and 4% in full-time education, Annex Table 1.5 2021-22. This is likely related to the end of the furlough scheme in September 2021 (those on furlough were considered part time employed in the survey).

Ethnicity

While HRPs who privately rent were predominantly white (77%), the sector also had the highest proportion of ethnic minorities relative to other tenures (23%, compared to 19% among social renters, and 8% among owner occupiers), Annex Table 1.6.

Income

There were significantly more private renters among the lowest two income quintiles (41%) than there were among the highest two income quintiles (34%). The tendency toward lower income quintiles is similar to that of social renters, where three quarters (75%) of tenants were among the lowest two income quintiles, but dissimilar to owner occupiers, where half (49%) of owners were among the highest two income quintiles, Annex Table 1.7.

Household type

The most common household compositions for private renters were one-person households (34%), followed by couples with no children (22%) and couples with dependent children (19%), Annex Table 1.8.

The private rented sector had a significantly lower proportion of one-person households than the social rented sector (43%).

Nationality of HRP

The private rented sector in 2021-22 had the lowest proportion of British and Republic of Ireland (ROI) HRPs compared to all other tenures, Annex Table 1.9.

Nearly three quarters (74%) of private renters were from the UK and RoI, compared to 92% of social renters, and 96% of owner occupiers.

Conversely, the private rented sector had the highest proportion of HRPs from the EU (14%), compared to just 3% of social renters and 2% of owner occupiers.

Similarly, HRPs that were neither British/Irish or European nationality were more likely to be privately renting (12%) than to be either social renting (5%) or own their homes (1%), Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Nationality of HRP by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data is presented in Annex Table 1.9
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Gender and sexual orientation of HRP

Over half of all HRPs in private rented households in 2021-22 were male (58%). This was similar among owner occupiers (61% male), However, in the social rented sector, most HRPs were female (57%), Annex Table 1.11.

Most private renters (93%) identified as heterosexual. Though, people who identified as LGB+ were more likely to rent privately (7%) than to be social renters (3%) or owner occupiers (3%), Annex Table, 1.12.

Religion

Just under half (46%, or 2.1 million) of all private renters in 2021-22 considered themselves to have no religion: this was significantly higher than the proportion of both social renters (39%) and owner occupiers (39%) with no religion, Annex Table 1.13.

Christianity was the most common religion among all tenure types, with 43% of private renters following the religion.

Muslims made up 5% of the private rented sector – this proportion was similar among social renters (6%), but greater than the proportion of Muslim owner occupiers (2%).

Other religions were less common, with 2% of private renters following Hinduism, and only 1% following Judaism.

National Statistics Socio-economic Classification

For socio-economic group, the English Housing Survey uses the eight-class version of the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC).

The most common socio-economic group among the private rented sector was lower managerial and professional occupations (26%). This position was less common among social renters (14%), but more common among owner occupiers (33%), Annex Table 1.14.

The least frequent socio-economic groups in the PRS were small employers and own account workers (11%), routine occupations (11%) and lower supervisory and technical occupations (6%).

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.

The proportion of private renters in each ACORN category were fairly evenly distributed - with 24% being financially stretched, 23% in comfortable communities, 21% in rising prosperity, and 21% in urban adversity, though only 12% of all private renters were in the affluent achievers category, Annex Table 1.15, Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 ACORN category by Tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes:
1) underlying data is presented in Annex Table 1.15
2) figures don’t add up to 100%. ‘Not private households’ ACORN category not presented due to low sample sizes
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Overcrowding and Under-occupation

Levels of overcrowding and under-occupation in the EHS are measured using the bedroom standard. This is the difference between the number of bedrooms needed to avoid undesirable sharing (given the number, ages and 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 further information.

Overcrowding by tenure

On average, 5% of privately rented households were overcrowded over the past three years. This represents 237,000 households, Annex Table 1.16.

This figure compares to just 1% of owner-occupied accommodation and 8% of social rented accommodation.

Overcrowding by tenure and region

The private rented sector in London was the region with the highest proportion of overcrowding among private renters (with an average of 12%). Overcrowding in London was also high for social renters at 16% of households, Annex Table 1.17.

Overcrowding by tenure and dependent children

Within the private rented sector, 13% of households with dependent children were living in overcrowded accommodation, compared to just 1% of households without dependent children, Annex Table 1.18.

Overcrowding for households with dependent children was less common in the private rented sector than the social rented sector (13% of private renter households experienced overcrowding in comparison to 21% of social renter households), Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Overcrowding by tenure and dependent children, 2021-22

^{Base: all overcrowded households
Notes:
1) underlying data is presented in Annex Table 1.18
2) overcrowding based on average of three years data combined
Source: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Overcrowding by number of rooms available

The measure of number of rooms available includes all rooms in the household that have four walls or permanent partitions which go up to the ceiling, as well as rooms sublet to other people or shared with people who are not in the household. It excludes halls, landings and alcoves, and rooms solely used for business.

As is expected, overcrowding was more common among private renting households with fewer rooms available to the household (9% of overcrowded private renting households had only 1 to 2 rooms available, compared to 3% having 7 or more available). Annex Table 1.19.

Overcrowding by tenure and ethnicity

Private renting tenants experiencing overcrowding were more likely to be from ethnic minority groups than white. Just over one in ten (11%) ethnic minority households were overcrowded, compared to 4% households with a white HRP, Annex Table 1.20.

Under-occupation by tenure

15% of privately rented accommodation was under-occupied in 2021-22. This was higher than the proportion of households experiencing under-occupation in social rented accommodation (10%), but lower than the proportion for owner occupied accommodation (53%), Annex Table 1.21.

Under-occupation by tenure and region

Under-occupation among private renters was most prevalent in the North East (27%), followed by the West Midlands (26%), Yorkshire and the Humber (21%), and the East Midlands (20%), Annex Table 1.22.

London had the lowest proportion of under-occupation in the private rented sector at 11%. This proportion is significantly lower than under-occupation rates among owner occupiers in London (46%).

Under-occupation by tenure and dependent children

Within the private rented sector, 6% of households with dependent children were living in under-occupied accommodation, compared to 19% of households that did not have dependent children, Annex Table 1.23.

Private rented households with dependent children were less likely to experience under-occupation than owner occupiers with dependent children (28%), but more likely to experience it than social renters (1%).

Under-occupation by tenure and number of rooms available

Over half (53%) of private renters experiencing under-occupation had seven or more rooms available to them in their household. This compares to 42% of under-occupied social renters and 81% of under-occupied owners having the same number of rooms available, Annex Table 1.24.

Under-occupation by tenure and ethnicity

In 2021-22, 15% of white private renters lived in under-occupied accommodation, a similar proportion to ethnic minorities private renters (12%), Annex Table 1.25.

2. Housing costs and affordability

Income

Private renters tended to be spread out more evenly across income quintiles than either owner occupiers or social renters. The largest proportion of private renters (25%) were in the middle (third) income quintile. Private renters were least likely to be in the highest income quintile, with only 14% in this income quintile, Figure 2.1, Annex Table 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Distribution of income quintiles by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data is presented in Annex Table 2.1
Source: English Housing Survey}

In terms of region, there was a higher proportion of private renters in the highest income quintile in London (29%) compared to the rest of England (9%). London also had a lower proportion of private renters in the bottom income quintile (12%) compared to the rest of England (22%). There were a higher proportion of private renters in the bottom quintile in the north of England (34% North East, 31% Yorkshire & Humber, 29% North West) compared to the South East (16%), the East of England (17%) and the South West (19%).

Private rented households in receipt of housing support were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile (47%), though less likely than those in receipt of housing support in the social rented sector (66%), Annex Table 2.2

Unsurprisingly, private renters working full-time were more likely (19%) than those of other economic statuses to be in the highest income quintile. The majority (76%) of private renters who were unemployed were in the lowest income quintile. Similarly, most private renters who were either retired or economically inactive (60% and 59%, respectively) were also in the lowest income quintile, Annex Table 2.3.

Older private renters were the most likely to be in the lowest income quintile. More than half (52%) of those aged 65 to 74 and 45% of those aged 75+ were in the lowest income quintile. A quarter (25%) of those aged 45-64 were in the lowest income quintile and this was comparable to the proportion of people aged 16 to 24 in the same income category (19%). The proportion of private renters in the bottom income quintile was smallest for those aged 25 to 34 (13%) and 35 to 44 (12%), although these were not significantly different from the proportion of private renters aged 16 to 24 in the same income quintile, Annex Table 2.4.

Rent

Private renters had a higher weekly rent (mean £209; median £173) than social renters (mean £106, median £97) but had comparable weekly housing costs to mortgagors who spent on average £204 (median £154) per week on mortgage payments, Annex Table 2.5.

Private renters in London spent the most on rent, with an average of £353 pounds per week (median £330). In comparison, private renters in the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber East Midlands, West Midlands and the South West spent less than half of those in London on rent, with average weekly rents between £127 and £167. Social rent (mean £141, median £125) and mortgages (mean £336, median £277) were also the highest in London.

Private renters not receiving housing support spent more on weekly rent than those receiving housing support. Those not receiving housing support spent an average of £213 (median £173) per week on rent and those receiving housing support spent £197 (median £160) per week.

Private renters in full-time education spent an average of £247 (median £230) per week on rent. Private renters in full-time work and part-time work spent an average of £216 (median £179) and £214 (median £168) per week, respectively. Private renters in full-time work had higher housing costs (mean £216, median £179) than both mortgagors in full time work (mean £201, median £160) or social renters (mean £109, median £101) in full-time work.

People aged 65 and over had the lowest weekly rent, spending an average of £169 (median £143) per week (65-74) and £151 (median £135) per week for those 75+.

Weekly rent generally increased in line with income. Average weekly rent for private renters increased from £159 (median £137) per week for those in the bottom income quintile to £315 (median £287) for those in the top income quintile.

Proportion of income spent on housing

The proportion of income spent on rent is based on household income including housing support. For private renters, this best represents the total income available, as private rented households are more likely than other tenures to be shared households with multiple, unrelated adults contributing to the household income and sharing rental costs.

Private renters spent, on average, a third of their income on rent (33%), more than social renters who spent an average of 27%, and more than the proportion of income mortgagors paid for their mortgage (22%), Annex Table 2.6.

The proportion of income that private renters spent on rent ranged from 26% in the North East to 41% in London, Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Proportion of income spent on rent by region, 2021-22

^{Base: all private renters
Note: underlying data is presented in Annex Table 2.6
Source: English Housing Survey}

Private renters in receipt of housing support spent an average of 39% of their income on rent. If housing support was excluded from the amount, the proportion would increase to 59% of their income. This was higher than the proportion spent by social renters both when the housing support was included (31%) and excluded (45%), Annex Tables 2.6 and 2.7.

Private renters in full-time work spent a lower average proportion of their income on rent (25%) compared to part-time workers (39%), retired private renters (44%), other economically inactive (45%) and unemployed private renters who spent on average more than half of their income on rent (58%). Those in full-time education had the highest income to rent ratio with an average of 82% of their income spent on rent, Annex Table 2.6.

Younger private renters (16-24 years old) and those of retirement age (65 to 74 and 75+) spent more of their income on rent (44%, 40% and 39%, respectively) compared to those aged 25 to 34 (30%) and those aged 35-44 (29%), Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Proportion of income spent on rent by age group, 2021-22

^{Base: all private renters
Note: underlying data is presented in Annex Table 2.6
Source: English Housing Survey}

Private renters in the lowest income quintile were more likely to spend a higher proportion of income on rent: those on the lowest quintile spent more than half of their income on rent (58%) compared to 17% of income spent on rent by those in the highest income quintile. The pattern was similar for social renters. Those in the lowest income quintile spent 37% of their income on rent, whereas those in the highest income quintile spent only 8% of their income on rent, Annex Tables 2.6, Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Proportion of income spent on rent by income quintiles, 2021-22

^{Base: all private renters
Note: underlying data is presented in Annex Table 2.6
Source: English Housing Survey}

Private renters with no dependent children spent a higher proportion of their income on rent (34%), compared to those with dependent children (31%), Annex Table 2.6.

40/30 ratio

The 40/30 ratio is a measure of affordability that shows the proportion of households in the bottom two income quintiles – the lowest 40% – who spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The underlying assumption is that households with a higher income that spend more than 30% on rent can more easily do so, as they have a higher residual income for other living costs. This is not necessarily the case for households with low income. The 40/30 ratio therefore provides an indication of the extent to which high housing costs may cause households financial stress.

The majority (71%) of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles spent 30% or more of their income on rent. This group represents approximately 1.3 million private rented households with low income and high rental costs. Compared to other tenures, more private renters in the bottom two income quintiles spent 30% or more of their income on rent. The percentage dropped to 45% for social renters and 40% for mortgagors, Annex Table 2.8.

In terms of regional variation, there was a stark difference between the proportion of people on low incomes spending more than 30% of their income on rent in London (96%) and the rest of England (between 49% and 89% across all other regions). There were also noticeable differences between the North East, where fewer than half (49%) of private renters in the bottom income quintiles spent more than 30% on rent and the South East and East of England where the proportions were 76% and 89% respectively.

Most (76%) private renters in the bottom two income quintiles and receiving housing support, spent more than 30% of their income on rent. The proportion was lower (66%) for private renters in the lowest income quintiles and not receiving housing support. By comparison, there were fewer social renters in the bottom two income quintiles spending more than 30% of their income on rent: 49% of those receiving housing support and 38% of those not receiving housing support spent more than 30% of their income on rent.

Private renters in the bottom two income quintiles in full-time employment were the least likely (55%) to spend 30% or more of their income on rent compared to those of other economic statuses. Private renters in full-time employment were more likely to spend more than 30% of their income on rent compared to social renters in full-time employment (21%).

Most (78%) of the youngest private renters (16-24) in the bottom two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on rent. For the other age groups the proportion gradually increased with age, ranging from 60% of those aged 25-34 to 84% of those aged 65-74 (the apparent decrease to 76% for those aged 75+ was not significant).

Receipt of housing support

Receipt of housing support is recorded in each household if either or both of the HRP or their partner receive housing support, though this section describes receipt based on the characteristics of the HRP only. This is important to note in order to explain why certain households who would otherwise be ineligible, such as those with HRPs in full-time education, appear to receive housing support.

One in four (25%) private rented households reported received housing support in 2021-22. This is lower than the proportion of social renters (57%), Annex Table 2.9.

The region with the highest proportion of privately rented households receiving housing support was the North West (32%). Although this proportion was comparable to most of the other regions, it was significantly higher than the proportion of households receiving housing support in the East of England (21%) and South West (20%).

Private renters with HRPs in full-time education and full-time work were least likely to receive housing support (10% and 11% respectively). The majority of private rented households with unemployed HRPs received housing benefit (58%). ‘Other inactive’ private renters were the most likely to receive housing support (71%). A high proportion (61%) of households where the HRP was in part-time work also received housing support.

Private renters under the age of 35 were less likely to receive housing support than private renters in older age groups: 19% of those aged 16-24 and 20% of those aged 25-34 received housing support. In all other age groups, the proportion of people receiving housing support was similar: around 30%.

Whereas 15% of private renters with no dependent children were in receipt of housing support, 47% of those with children were in receipt of housing support. Lone parents with dependent children were more likely (73%) to be in receipt of housing support than couples with dependent children (31%) who were in turn more likely to receive housing support than couples with no dependent children (7%).

Ease of paying rent

Almost three in four private renters said they found it easy to pay rent (74%), whereas over a quarter (26%), or the equivalent of 1.1 million private rented households in England, found it difficult, Annex Table 2.10.

The proportion of private renters who found it difficult to pay their rent varied between regions, from 9% of private renters in the North East to 36% in London.

Private renters in receipt of housing support reported more difficulty paying their rent than those not receiving housing support. Of private renters who received housing support, 46% found it difficult to pay their rent (476,000 households). Of those who did not receive support, 20% found it difficult (643,000 households).

Almost 2 in 5 private renters in part-time work said they found it difficult to pay rent (39%); this was comparable to the proportion of unemployed private renters (32%) and those who were other inactive (33%) who found it difficult to keep up with rent payments. On the other hand, fewer than 1 in 4 (23%) private renters in full-time work found it difficult to pay rent.

Private renters in the lowest two income quintiles found it more difficult to pay rent (34% and 35%), compared to those in the highest income quintile (13%).

Private renters with no dependent children (24%) were less likely to say they found it difficult to keep up with rent payments than those with dependent children (31%).

Arrears

Fewer than one in ten (7%) of private renters were either currently in arrears (3%) or had been in arrears in the last year (4%), Annex Table 2.11.

Private renters in receipt of housing support were more likely than those not receiving housing support to be currently in arrears (5% vs 2%) and to have been in arrears in the past year (9% vs 3%).

Private renters in the bottom income quintile were more likely to currently be in arrears (5%) or to have been in arrears in the last year (8%) compared to those on the highest income quintile (1% had been in arrears in the last year).

Private renters with at least one dependent child were more likely to have been in arrears in the last year (8%) than those without any dependent children (3%).

Method of payment for gas and electric

Direct debit was the most common energy payment method for private renters, with over half (54%) of private renters using this method to pay for gas and two thirds (66%) using direct debit to pay for electricity; Direct debit was the most common payment method regardless of whether people found it easy or difficult to keep up with rent payments, Annex Table 2.12 and Annex Table 2.13

The proportion of people paying by direct debit was higher among private renters for both gas (54%) and electricity (66%) compared to social renters (40% and 46% for gas and electricity, respectively). Conversely, a higher proportion of social renters (33%) paid for gas by pre-payment methods compared to private renters (15%), as well as for electricity (39% of social renters and 18% of private renters).

The proportion of private renters who paid for mains gas using pre-payment methods was higher for those currently in rent arrears (35%) or who had been in rent arrears in the last year (36%) compared to those not currently in arrears (14%), Annex Table 2.14. A similar pattern was seen for electricity payments: the proportion of private renters paying for electricity using pre-payment methods was higher for those currently in arrears (50%) or those who had been in arrears in the past year (44%) compared to those not in arrears in the past year (17%), Annex Table 2.15.

Savings

More than half (52%) of private renters had savings. Private renters were more likely to have savings compared to social renters (26%), but less likely compared to owner occupiers (78%), Annex Table 2.16.

The proportion of private renters with savings varied by region and ranged from 37% in Yorkshire and the Humber to 65% in the South West.

Private renters not receiving housing support were more likely to have savings (64%) compared to those who did receive housing support (15%).

Private renters in full-time education (72%), retired private renters (64%) and those in full-time work (59%) were more likely to have savings, compared to unemployed and other inactive renters (17%, 23%, respectively), who were least likely to have savings.

Private renters aged 35 to 44 and those aged 45 to 64 were the least likely to have savings, with fewer than half (42% and 45%, respectively) saying they did.

Couples with no dependent children (67%) were more likely to have savings compared to those with dependent children (44%) and lone parents with dependent children (23%).

Presence of lodgers and casual sub-lettings

Fewer than 1% of the private renters in England had lodgers paying rent in their accommodation (approximately 17,000 households), Annex Table 2.17.

A small proportion (3%) of private renters reported sub-letting their accommodation on a casual basis (approximately 129,000 households). This was similar to the proportion of social renters that did the same (3%) and owners (2%), Annex Table 2.18.

3. Housing history and future housing aspirations

Current accommodation and tenure

Length of time in current home, by age and tenure

Private renters were resident in their current home for less time than other tenures. The average (mean) length of residence for private renters (4.4 years) was shorter than for social renters (12.7 years) or owners (17.6 years), Annex Table 3.2.

Average length of residence among private renters has increased slightly over the past 10 years from 3.8 years in 2011-12 to 4.4 years in 2021-22, Headline Report Annex Table 1.22.

Private renters were more likely than those in other tenures to have been resident in their current home for less than a year. More than a fifth (21%) of private renters lived in their current home for less than one year, compared with 5% of social renters and 4% of owners, Annex Table 3.1.

Younger private renters were more likely than older groups to have lived in their current home for a short time: 54% of those with a HRP aged 16 to 24 had lived in their current home for less than a year, compared with 24% of those aged 25 to 34 and 5-6% aged 65 and over.

Length of time in private rented sector

More than two thirds (68%) of private renters had been renting privately for less than 10 years, and just under a third (32%) for ten years or more, Annex Table 3.3.

Not surprisingly, those aged 16 to 24 were more likely than older groups to have been in the sector for a short time: 65% of 16 to 24 year olds had been private renters for two years or less, compared with 38% of those aged 25 to 34, and 9-20% of those aged 35 and over.

Longer periods in the private rented sector were most common in the 65 to 74 age group: 62% of those aged 65 to 74 had been private renters for 10 years or more, compared with 44-49% of other renters aged 35 and over. The proportion of those renting for 10 years or more was lower for HRPs aged 25 to 34 (13%) although this may reflect the age range as younger adults in this cohort were less likely to have been living independently 10 years ago.

Housing moves

Housing moves were more common among private renters than other tenures, with private renters more likely than owners or social renters to have moved in the past year, Annex Table 3.1.

Overall, 955,000 private rented households (21%) had lived in their current home for less than a year. The majority of this group of private renters (65%) had moved within tenure from other private rented accommodation. Housing moves within the private rented sector accounted for 620,000 household moves in the past year, Headline Report Annex Table 1.23.

New households formed within the private rented sector accounted for a further 23% of moves in the private rented sector – around 219,000 household moves.

The remaining household moves involved people moving from owner occupied (10%) or social rented (3%) accommodation into private rented accommodation and were less common, Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Household moves, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: household reference persons resident less than a year
Notes:
1) underlying data are presented in Headline Report Annex Table 1.23
2) a small number of cases with inconsistent responses have been omitted
3) survey cannot identify the number of households which have ended
4) u indicates sample size too small for reliable estimate
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

End of tenancy

Why last private rented tenancy ended

Among those who moved within the private rented sector, the majority (77%) had ended a tenancy because they wanted to move, Annex Table 3.4.

Other less common reasons were that the tenancy was for a fixed period (11%), or that the tenancy had ended by mutual agreement with the landlord (10%). A small minority (4%) were evicted or asked to leave, left due to a poor relationship with the landlord (3%) or were in accommodation tied to a job that had ended (2%), Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Reasons why last tenancy ended, two-year analysis, 2020-22

^{Base: all private renters with a previous private rented tenancy that ended in the past 12 months
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.4
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Type of tenancy

Assured shorthold tenancies were the most common tenancy, accounting for 73% of private rented tenancies, Annex Table 3.5. Other tenancies were mentioned less often including ‘other’ types of tenancy (11%), another type of assured letting (7%), a letting that went with the job of someone in the household (4%) or a letting in the landlord’s own home (3%).

Length of initial fixed term of tenancy

Among private renters with assured shorthold tenancies, the most common initial fixed term was 12 months (60%), followed by 6 months (28%). Longer 18 month tenancies were relatively rare, accounting for 2% of assured shorthold tenancies, and other lengths of tenancy were mentioned by 10% although the tenancy period is unknown, Annex Table 3.6.

Tenancy refusal

One in ten (10%) private renters – around 109,000 households – said they had been refused a tenancy in the past 12 months because they received benefits, Annex Table 3.9.

Homelessness and waiting lists

Experience of homelessness in the last few years

In the EHS, respondents are asked if they had experienced homelessness in the past few years using a broad definition of homelessness that included times where they had to ‘stay in a hostel, in temporary accommodation or with friends and family because [they] had lost [their] home or had no accommodation to go to’.

One fifth (5%) of private renters – around 210,000 households – had experienced homelessness in the past few years, Annex Table 3.10. Private renters were less likely than social renters (9%) to have experienced homelessness and more likely than owner occupiers (less than 1%).

Whether contacted the council

The majority (71%) of private renters who experienced homelessness had contacted the council for help, Annex Table 3.11.

Whether hosted homeless person in the past 12 months

Overall, 3% of private renters – around 118,000 households – had someone stay with them in the past year because the person was homeless. The proportion was similar for social renters (3%) and owners (2%), Annex Table 3.12.

Gender of the homeless person staying with the household was insignificantly different and those staying with private renters were as likely to be male (59%) as female (41%) and included a range of ages, with 84% aged between 16 and 44, Annex Tables 3.13 and 3.14.

Private renters on social housing waiting list

Around 255,000 private rented households had someone on a social housing waiting list. Private renters (6%) were less likely than social renters (10%) to have someone in the household on a social housing waiting list, but more likely than owner occupiers (less than 1%), Annex Table 3.15.

Among private renters on a social housing waiting list, 20% had been on a waiting list for 5 to 10 years, and 21% for 10 year or more, Annex Table 3.16.

Buying expectations

Buying expectations among private renters

Overall, 62% of private renters – around 2.8 million households – planned to buy a home in the UK in the future. Private renters were more likely than social renters (27%) to plan to buy a home, Annex Table 3.17. The remaining 38% of private renters – around 1.7 million households – did not plan to buy.

Although 28% (761,000 households) of private renters planned to buy within the next 2 years, the majority planned to buy in the longer term. More than a third (37%) planned to buy in 2 to 5 years, and 35% in 5 years or more, Annex Table 3.18.

Since 2008-09, the proportion of private renters planning to buy a home in the UK has varied over time between 56% in 2018-19 and 62% in 2021-22, Headline Report Annex Table 1.21.

Buying expectations, by region

The proportion of private renters planning to buy varied by region, ranging from 51% in Yorkshire and the Humber, to 68% in both London and the South East, Annex Table 3.19 and Figure 3.23. Buying expectations in Yorkshire and the Humber (51%) were lower than in London (68%), South East (68%), and South West (64%). No other comparisons were statistically significant, which may partly reflect sample size.

The number of private rented households planning to buy ranged from 98,000 in the North East (the smallest region) to 700,000 in London: around one quarter of private renters who planned to buy lived in London, although it is worth noting that not all may intend to buy there, Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Proportion and number of renters who expect to buy, by region and tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all renters
Notes:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.19
2) excludes a small number of renters who already own
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Characteristics of those expecting to buy

Buying expectation among private renters declined with age from 85% aged 16 to 24, to 42% aged 45 to 64, and to 7% of those aged 75 and over, Annex Table 3.20.

Among private renters, ethnic minority households (72%) were more likely than white households (59%) to plan to buy in future.

Buying expectations increased with increasing income, from 32% of private renters in the first (lowest) income quintile to 80% in the fourth quintile and 77% in the fifth (highest) quintile.

Private renters with savings (71%) were also more likely to plan to buy than those with no savings (52%). Among those with no savings just over half (52%) planned to buy a home in the UK in future: this may reflect age, with younger renters planning to save and buy a home in the longer term.

Barriers to ownership among private renters

For private renters who did not plan to buy, the most common barrier to home ownership was being ‘unlikely to afford it’ (72%), Annex Table 3.21. This was also the key barrier for social renters (76%) and private and social renters were equally likely to see affordability as a barrier.

Other reasons were less common. Some private renters also mentioned liking their current home (16%), other reasons (15%), preferring the flexibility of renting (13%), not wanting the commitment (10%) or debt (9%) associated with buying a home, and not having a secure job (8%).

Affordability was seen as the main barrier to ownership for private renters in all age groups, with 64% to 74% of each age group giving this reason, Annex Table 3.22.

Private renters with an ethnic minority household reference person (75%) and those with a white household reference person (71%) were equally likely to see affordability as a barrier, Annex Table 3.23.

The proportion who viewed affordability as a barrier varied across income quintile, from 84% of private renters in the first (lowest) income quintile, to 73% in the second quintile, and 41% in the fifth (highest) quintile, Annex Table 3.24. Those in the lowest income quintile were more likely than any other quintile to see affordability as a barrier. Private renters in the first (lowest) income quintile (12%) were also more likely so see lack of job security as a barrier than those in the fifth (highest) quintile (2%).

Private renters with no savings were more likely to see affordability and lack of job security as a barrier than those with savings, Annex Table 3.25. Affordability was seen as barrier by 61% of private renters with savings and by 79% without savings, while lack of job security was seen as a barrier by 3% of private renters with savings and 12% of those without savings, Annex Table 3.24. Private renters with savings (21%) were also more likely than those without (11%) to report ‘other’ reasons for not moving not specified here.

4. Dwelling condition, energy efficiency and local area

This section describes the quality of private rented homes in 2021-22 occupied by different household groups.

In 2021-22, due to COVID-19 restrictions, it was not possible to collect all the raw data required to derive key housing quality variables. As such, predictive modelled estimates, at occupied dwelling level, were produced to indicate whether or not a dwelling: met the Decent Homes Standard; had any Category 1 hazards assessed through the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) or had damp problems (see Annex 5.5 of the Technical report for more details). 

Dwelling age and type

The private rented stock tends to be older than owner-occupied and social rented dwellings and mainly comprised of terraced houses and purpose-built flats, Headline report Annex Table 2.1. The main differences between private rented homes and those in other tenures were:

• the proportion of converted flats was higher among private rented homes (14%) than in the social rented (3%) and owner-occupied homes (2%).
• the proportion of purpose-built flats was also higher among private rented homes (25% low rise and 5% high rise) than in owner occupied homes (7% low rise and 1% high rise) but lower compared with social rented homes (38% low rise and 5% high rise).
• around a third (31%) of private rented homes were constructed before 1919, compared with 20% of owner occupied and 7% of social rented homes.

Decent Homes Standard and cost to make decent

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

• meet the statutory minimum standard for housing under the HHSRS. Homes with a Category 1 hazard under the HHSRS are considered non-decent
• be in a reasonable state of repair
• have reasonably modern facilities and services
• provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort

In 2021, homes in the private rented sector were more likely to fail the Decent Homes Standard (23%, 990,000 dwellings) than homes in all other tenures. The social rented sector had the lowest proportion of non-decent homes (10%, 380,000 dwellings) and 13% (2 million dwellings) of owner occupied homes failed to meet the Standard, Annex Table 4.1.

At a regional level, the prevalence of non-decent dwellings tended to be higher across all regions in the private rented sector compared with other tenures (owner occupied and social rented dwellings), Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Non-decent homes by region, all tenures, 2021

^{Base: all occupied dwellings
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.1
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

Private rented homes were more likely to be non-decent than owner-occupied homes in all regions except the East Midlands, East of England and the North East where the differences were not significant. Additionally, in all regions except the North East (where the difference was insignificant), private rented homes were more likely to be non-decent compared with social rented dwellings.

Household characteristics

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. Irrespective of their household characteristics, private renters were more likely to live in a non-decent home than social renters.

Age of HRP

Among private renters, no age group was more likely to live in a non-decent home.

Looking at tenure comparisons, across all HRP age groups, private renters were more likely to live in a non-decent home (19% to 33%) compared with owner-occupiers (10% to 15%) and social renters (7% to 12%), Annex Table 4.2.

Receipt of housing support

In 2021, there was no significant difference among private renters as to whether their home met the Standard according to whether the household received housing support or not.

The prevalence of households in non-decent homes was greater among private renters receiving housing support (26%) compared with their social renting counterparts (10%). Similarly, a little over a fifth (22%) of private renters not in receipt of housing support lived in non-decent accommodation, compared with 8% social renters not in receipt of support, Annex Table 4.3.

Ethnicity

There were some differences in the likelihood of living in a non-decent home according to the ethnicity of the HRP among private renters and between tenures.

Looking at private renters only, white HRP households were more likely to live in non-decent homes (24%) than Asian (15%) HRP households.

Private renters with a white HRP (24%) were also more likely to live in non-decent homes than owner-occupiers with a white HRP (13%). Except for Asian HRP households who were privately renting, private renters, were more likely to live in a non-decent home than those in the social sector for HRPs irrespective of their ethnicity.

Children in household

Within the private rented sector, the likelihood of living in a non-decent home was similar among households with or without dependent children.

Private renters were more likely to live in non-decent homes than households in all other tenures, irrespective of whether they had dependent children in the household.

Cost to make decent

The EHS reports an estimated cost of all work needed to bring a non decent home up to the Decent Homes Standard. In 2021, on average, it would cost £8,056 to make a non-decent home in the private rented sector meet the Standard. This was similar to the average for an owner occupied non-decent home, £8,238, whereas social rented homes had the lowest average cost, £5,269, Annex Table 4.4.

Housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS)

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.

In 2021, 14% (615,000) of private rented dwellings contained at least one Category 1 hazard. This was a higher proportion compared with owner occupied (10%, 1.5 million) and social rented (4%, 162,000) dwellings, Annex Table 4.1.

As the most common reason for private rented homes failing the Decent Homes Standard was the presence of any Category 1 hazard, it is not surprising that the tenure and regional disparities for the prevalence of Category 1 hazards were similar to those found for non-decent homes.

Notably, there was a higher prevalence of Category 1 hazards among private rented homes in the Yorkshire and the Humber (31%), North West (21%), West Midlands (21%) and London (6%) regions compared with owner-occupied homes in those regions (2% to 14%). Compared with social rented homes, private rented homes were more likely to have Category 1 Hazards across all regions except in the North East and London.

Looking at private rented homes only, Category 1 hazards were generally more prevalent in the Yorkshire and the Humber region (31%) than all other regions except the North West (21%), East Midlands (22%) and West Midlands (21%). Conversely, London (6%) had the lowest prevalence of these hazards than all other regions except for the North East (5%) and South East (7%).

Household characteristics

As with the Decent Homes Standard, households in the private rented sector were more likely to live in homes with a Category 1 hazard, regardless of household characteristics. Households in the social rented sector were typically the least likely. Overall, these findings largely mirror those found for non-decent homes.

Age of HRP

Across most HRP age groups, private renters were more likely to live in homes with a Category 1 hazard when compared with households in the social rented sector.

Overall, private renters were more likely than social renters of the same age to live in non-decent homes. However, except for households where the HRP was aged 16 to 24 or 45 to 64 years old, private renters across all other HRP age groups were more likely to live in homes with a Category 1 hazard than owner occupiers of the same age.

Receipt of housing support

Within the private rented sector, households in receipt of housing support (19%) were more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard than those not in receipt of housing support (12%), Annex Table 4.5.

Private renters in receipt of housing support (19%) were more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard than social renters in receipt of support (4%). The same trend was seen for households who did not receive any housing benefits, Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Category 1 Hazards by receipt of housing support, by renters, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.5
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Ethnicity

Among private renters, there was a higher prevalence of white (16%) HRP households living in homes with Category 1 Hazards than households with an Asian (6%) or HRPs with an ‘other’ (5%) ethnicity.

Private renters with a white HRP were more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 Hazard (16%) when compared with white HRP owner occupiers (10%) and social renters (4%).

Children in household

Although there was no significant difference between private renters who had dependent children and those who did not as to whether they live in a home with a Category 1 hazard, private renters with dependent children (15%) were more likely to live in homes with such hazards than their counterparts who were homeowners (8%) or social renters (4%).

Private renters were also more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard if they had no dependent children in the household (14%) when compared with all other tenures (4% to 10%).

Damp

In the English Housing Survey, a home is considered to have damp or 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.

Private rented homes were more likely to have damp than all other tenures. Almost 11% (465,000 dwellings) of private rented homes had dampness compared with 4% (177,000 dwellings) of social rented homes and 2% (262,000 dwellings) of owner occupied homes, Annex Table 4.1.

When examined at a regional level, private renters in the Yorkshire and the Humber (23%), East Midlands (20%), South West (11%), North West (10%) and East of England (8%) were more likely to live in homes with damp than owner-occupiers in those same regions (1% to 3%).

When compared with the social rented sector however, the private rented sector had a higher prevalence of homes with damp in all regions except the North East, North West and London.

Household characteristics

Similar to the findings found for non-decent homes and Category 1 hazards, households in the private rented sector were generally more likely to live in homes with damp present than those in all other tenures, regardless of household characteristics.

Age of HRP

Among private renters, the age of the HRP did not have an impact on the likelihood of living in a home with a damp problem.

Private renters aged 35 to 74 years old were more likely to live in a damp home (8% to 13%) when compared with owner-occupiers (2% to 3%). In addition, private renters aged 25 to 34 (11%) and 45 to 64 (13%) had a higher likelihood of living in a damp home when compared with social renters (5% to 6%), Annex Table 4.2.

Receipt of housing support

Among private renters only, households in receipt of housing support (15%) were more likely to have damp in their homes than households who did not receive housing support (9%), Annex Table 4.6.

Private renters in receipt of housing support (15%) had a higher likelihood of living in a home with damp present than social renters (5%) also in receipt of housing support. This trend was also evident among households who did not receive housing support, Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Presence of damp by receipt of housing support, by renters, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.6
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Ethnicity

Among private renters, there were no significant differences in the likelihood of living in a home with a damp problem according to the ethnicity of the HRP.

Private renters with a white HRP (12%) were more likely to live in a home with damp present compared with households with a white HRP across all other tenures (2% owner occupiers and 4% social renters).

Children in household

Within the private rented sector only, households with dependent children (15%) had a higher likelihood of living in a damp home than households without dependent children (9%).

Households in the private rented sector that had dependent children (15%) were more likely to live in homes with damp present compared with households with dependent children across all other tenures (2% owner occupied and 7% social rented). Private renters without dependent children (9%) were also more likely to have damp present than other tenures (1% to 3%).

Local area – deprivation

Overall, as with owner occupiers, the distribution of private renters across the deprivation deciles, was more evenly spread compared with social renters who were notably more likely to live in the most deprived areas, Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Most and least deprived areas, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.7
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Private rented homes were more relatively evenly distributed across each decile of deprivation, although around one in ten (10%) of private renters lived in the most deprived 10% of areas with 6% living in the least deprived 10% of areas, Annex Table 4.7.

When compared with other tenures, private renters (10%) were more likely to live in the most deprived 10% of areas than owner occupiers (5%) but less likely to live in these areas than social renters (24%).

Conversely, private renters (6%) were less likely than owner occupiers (13%) to live in the least deprived 10% of areas and more likely to live in these areas than social renters (1%).

Energy Efficiency

The English Housing Survey (EHS) uses the Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP 2012) 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).

In 2021, most private renters lived in homes with an EER band of A to C (44%, 2 million) followed closely by band D (42%, 1.9 million). The remaining 14% (623,000) lived in homes with an EER band of E to G, Annex Table 4.9.

At a regional level, London (61%) had a higher proportion of private rented homes rated A to C than all other regions, likely reflecting the higher proportion of flats in the capital. Relatedly, private rented homes in London (6%) had a lower likelihood of being rated E to G than homes in all other regions except the North East (3%), Annex Table 4.8.

Similar proportions of private renters and owner occupiers lived in homes rated A to C, though private renters (14%), were more likely to live in the least energy efficient homes rated E to G than owner occupiers (10%). Private renters generally lived in poorer performing homes compared with social renters. Over one in ten homes in the private rented sector had an EER of E to G (14%) compared with just 3% of the social rented sector.

Private rented homes built before 1919 (25%) and between 1945 and 1964 (12%) had a markedly higher proportion of homes rated E to G than social rented dwellings built at the same time (9% and 5%, respectively), Annex Table 4.11, Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: EER bands by dwelling type, private rented sector, 2021

^{Base: all dwellings in the private rented sector
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.11
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

The most energy efficient dwellings rated A to C within the private rented sector were purpose built high rise flats (86%) with bungalows the least likely to be rated in these EER bands (11%), Figure 4.5.

Household characteristics

Among private renters, there were differences in the proportions of households living in the most energy efficient homes by household characteristics, though, as with other measures of housing quality, private renters were less likely to live in the most energy efficient homes irrespective of household characteristics.

Age of HRP

Within the private rented sector, households with an HRP aged 16 to 24 were more likely to live in A to C rated home (54%) than households with a HRP aged 45 or over (30% to 40%), Annex Table 4.9.

There was a lower proportion of private renters living in homes rated A to C and a higher proportion living in homes rated E to G than social renters for all HRP age groups.

Income

Within the private rented sector, households in the 5th (highest) income quintile of earners (55%) were more likely to live in dwellings rated A to C than the lowest 3 quintiles of earners (38% to 44%).

Across all income ranges, social renters were more likely to live in homes rated A to C than private renters, Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6: EER bands by income, private renters, 2021-22

^{Base: all households in the private rented sector
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.9
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Household type

Private renters were generally less likely to live in a home rated A to C across all types of households than were social renters.

Employment status

Within the private rented sector, retired HRP households were less likely to live in homes rated A to C (34%) than full-time workers (48%). When compared with social renters, private renters were less likely to live in homes rated A to C irrespective of employment status.

Housing support

Among private renters only, households in receipt of housing support (36%) were less likely to live in a home rated A to C than those not in receipt of housing support (47%).

Private renters who received housing support (36%) were less likely to live in a home rated A to C than social renters (66%). Conversely, private renters in receipt of housing support (13%) were more likely to live in a less energy efficient home rated E to G than their social renting counterparts (3%).

Cost to make energy efficient

The Government is seeking to raise the minimum energy efficiency standards to EER Band C among private rented dwellings by 2030 in order to improve the overall energy performance of housing stock. The following analysis explores the potential of the private rented stock to meet this aspiration through the installation of Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) recommended energy improvement measures.

The potential installation of each energy efficiency improvement measure is modelled only where an EPC assessment would recommend its installation. The model does not assess the relative ease or the cost-effectiveness of installation. However, each measure is only recommended for installation if that measure alone would result in the SAP rating increasing by at least 0.95 points.

The energy efficiency improvement costs for homes occupied by private renters most commonly fell between £5,000 and £9,999 (46%; 1.1 million homes), while almost a third (30%; 733,000 homes) of homes occupied by private renters could be improved for under £5,000. At the other end of the scale, 456,000 (19%) homes would cost between £10,000 and £14,999 to improve to at least EER Band C, and a further 5% of homes would require £15,000 or more, Annex Table 4.12, Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7: Distribution of costs to improve to EER band C by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households in dwellings able to be improved to EER Band C
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.12
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Within the private rented sector, in all regions except Yorkshire and the Humber (33%) and South East (34%), most homes would need a cost of between £5,000 to £9,999 to be improved to band C (41% to 64%), Annex Table 4.10.

When compared with other tenures, homes of private renters were generally more likely to require larger sums of money to reach an EER band of C than those of social renters but less likely to require the greatest spend of £15,000 or more compared with owner occupiers.

Technical notes

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.