National statistics

English Housing Survey 2021 to 2022: satisfaction and complaints

Published 13 July 2023

Applies to England

Introduction and main findings

The English Housing Survey (EHS) is a national survey of people’s housing circumstances and the condition and energy efficiency of housing in England. It is one of the longest standing government surveys and was first run in 1967. This report provides the findings from the 2021-22 survey.

Impact of COVID-19 on the English Housing Survey

The 2021-22 English Housing Survey data were 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.

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 brings together demographic information collected in the household survey with details of the quality and condition of homes collected in the physical survey to outline the housing circumstances and conditions of renting households in relation to rates of satisfaction and complaints. Comparisons between renters and owners are made where relevant.

Chapter 1 outlines rates of satisfaction across the rented sectors, including how satisfied renters were with their accommodation, their housing services and the repairs and maintenance carried out by their landlord. Reasons for dissatisfaction with repairs and maintenance are also examined.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the complaints process within the rented sectors and follows households that considered making a complaint through the decisions they made. Reasons for why some respondents did not make a complaint are also explored. In addition to complaints, this chapter also looks at perceptions of racial discrimination within the private and social rented sectors.

Main findings

Satisfaction with current accommodation varied by tenure, with owners more likely to be satisfied than those in the rented tenures.

• Owner occupiers were more likely be satisfied with their accommodation (94%) than either private (81%) or social renters (77%).
• Within the social rented sector, rates of satisfaction were similar between local authority and housing association renters.

Satisfaction with current accommodation varied by region, with private renters in the North East (91%) and social renters in the South East (85%) being the most satisfied.

• Private renters in Yorkshire and the Humber (75%) and social renters in the South West (68%) were the least satisfied.
• The difference between the most satisfied region and least satisfied region was the same (17%) for both the private and social rented sectors.

Across all tenures, vulnerable or minority groups tended to be less satisfied with their current accommodation.

• Satisfaction with current accommodation was higher for households who did not receive housing support (83%) than for households who did (73%).
• Across all tenures, rates of satisfaction with current accommodation were lowest for households where the Household Reference Person (HRP) was black (70%). This was also the case within the renting sectors: fewer social (62%) and private renters (69%) where the HRP was black were satisfied with their accommodation than social (79%) or private renters (83%) with a white HRP
• Overall, households which included people who had a long term illness or disability were less likely to be satisfied with current accommodation (84%) than households which did not contain people a long term illness or disability (91%).

Households living in poor quality dwellings were more likely to say their landlord does not bother with repairs or maintenance.

• Across all tenures, the main reasons reported for why households were dissatisfied with their landlord’s or freeholder’s repairs or maintenance were that the landlord does not bother (30%) or that the landlord is slow to get things done (30%).
• Those in poor quality homes were more likely to say they were dissatisfied because their landlord did not bother – this reason was given for 33% of those who lived in a non-decent home, 40% of those living in homes with Category 1 hazards and 35% of those living in homes with damp problems.

The way people complained differed in the private and social rented sectors. Higher proportions of social renters considered making and then did make a complaint in the last year.

• Around 1.2 million (31%) social renting households and 726,000 (16%) private renting households considered making a complaint in the last 12 months. Within the social rented sector, similar proportions of local authority and housing association tenants (both 31%) considered making a complaint.
• Around 188,000 social renters (15%) decided not to make a complaint; the remaining social renters decided to complain. Across all social renters, 70% complained directly to their landlord, while 17% complained to their Tenant Management Organisation (TMO).
• Of those private renters that considered making a complaint, a quarter (25% or 181,000 households) decided not to complain. 44% complained directly to their landlord, while 34% complained to their estate agent.

Households living in poor quality dwellings who considered making a complaint, were less likely to do so.

• 15% of social renters and 25% of private renters who considered making a complaint decided not to complain, but more than a quarter (26%) of all social and 30% of private renters living in non-decent homes who had considered making a complaint decided not to make a complaint.
• Of those who had considered making a complaint in the last 12 months, 35% of all social (including 57% of housing association), and 39% of private renters living in homes where a Category 1 hazard was present decided not to make a complaint.
• Of private renters who had considered making a complaint and who lived in homes with a damp problem 30% decided not to complain.

The majority of social and private renters were unhappy with how their complaint was responded to, with most in both tenures not then escalating the complaint further.

• Similar proportions of housing association (63%) and local authority (70%) renters were unhappy with the response to their complaint.
• Small proportions of private renters said they had taken their complaint to their local council’s environmental health office (7%) or to their local council’s tenancy relations officer (2%).
• Smaller proportions of social renters said they had taken their complaint to an MP (14%), a local councillor (13%), their local council’s environmental health department (9%), the Housing Ombudsman (7%), the Health and Safety Executive (5%).

Across the social and private rented sectors, households with a black HRP thought they would be treated worse because of their race by a council housing department or housing association for social renters, or by a private landlord or letting agent for private renters.

• A fifth (20%) of social renting households with a black HRP thought they would be treated worse than other races by their local council’s housing department or by a housing association, compared to 8% of households with a white HRP.
• A quarter (25%) of private renters with a black HRP thought they would be treated worse by a private landlord or letting agent, more than households with a white HRP (3%).

Acknowledgements and further queries

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

This report was produced by Charlie Ridley-Johnson at NatCen Social Research, in collaboration with BRE and DLUHC.

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

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

1. Satisfaction across the rented sectors

This chapter examines satisfaction across tenures and by different demographic groups. Satisfaction is self-reported, with respondents asked their level of satisfaction about various aspects of housing, including how satisfied they were with their accommodation, the housing services provided by their landlord or freeholder and the repairs and maintenance carried out by their landlord or freeholder. Those who were dissatisfied with the repairs and maintenance carried out by their landlord or freeholder were asked for their reasons for feeling this way. Levels of satisfaction are grouped so those who said they were either very or fairly satisfied are labelled ‘all satisfied’.

This chapter uses the one year, interview survey, full sample datasets for EHS 2021-22 as is standard for EHS reports focusing on households, apart from for analysis of dwelling quality characteristics. These sections are specified in the text and make use of the two-year, paired sample datasets that enable analysis of the dwelling and the household living in it. The notes for each annex table specify the data used.

Satisfaction with accommodation

In 2021-22, about 21.1 million households, representing the majority (89%) of households in England, were satisfied with their accommodation. Approximately 1.7 million households (7%) were dissatisfied with their accommodation. Around 983,000 households (4%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, Annex Table 1.1.

Tenure

Satisfaction with current accommodation varied by tenure. Owner occupiers were more likely be satisfied with their accommodation (94%) than either private (81%) or social renters (77%), with private renters more likely to be satisfied than social renters. Within the social rented sector, rates of satisfaction were similar between local authority and housing association renters, Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Satisfaction with current accommodation, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes:
1) the baseline is the average proportion who are satisfied with their accommodation across all tenures
2) the figure shows all groups, whereas the text reports on the statistically significant difference between groups for each demographic
3) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.1
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Region

Satisfaction rates within the rented sectors varied by region and by tenure. The proportion of private renters who were satisfied ranged from 91% in the North East of England to 75% in Yorkshire and the Humber. Private renters in London were more satisfied with their accommodation (82%) than social renters (70%). Similar proportions of private (81%) and social renters (78%) outside of London were satisfied. For social renters, those living in London reported lower rates of satisfaction (70%) than those living in the rest of England combined (78%). Social renters living in the South West of England reported similar satisfaction rates (68%) to those living in London. Satisfaction also differed within the social rented sector: 64% of housing association renters living in the South West reported being satisfied with their accommodation, compared to 81% of local authority renters living in the South West.

Demographic characteristics

Generally, satisfaction with current accommodation was higher for households who did not receive housing support (83%) than for households who did (73%). This was not the case for all tenures: levels of satisfaction among local authority tenants were similar regardless of receipt of housing support. Nevertheless, a greater proportion of housing association and private renting tenants who did not receive housing support were satisfied with their accommodation (housing association: 80%; private renting: 85%) than those who did receive support (housing association: 75%; private renting: 71%). Similar proportions of social (74%) and private renters (71%) who receive housing support reported being satisfied, although among those with no housing support more private renters (85%) than social renters (80%) were satisfied, Annex Table 1.2, Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Renters’ satisfaction with current accommodation, by receipt of housing support, 2021-22

^{Base: private and social renters
Notes:
1) the figure shows all groups, whereas the text reports on the statistically significant difference between groups for each demographic
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.2
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

For private renters, satisfaction with accommodation generally increased with income from 76% among private renting households in the first (lowest) income quintile to 88% among those in the fifth (highest) income quintile. This pattern was not seen for social renters, Annex Table 1.3.

Across all tenures, 90% of households without dependent children were satisfied with their accommodation, a greater proportion than households where there were dependent children (85%). This pattern was also seen in the rented sectors alone, where satisfaction with accommodation was around 10 percentage points lower in private and social renting households where dependent children live, Annex Table 1.4, Figure 1.3.

Overall, rates of satisfaction with accommodation were higher in households that did not contain someone who had a long-term illness or disability (91%) than for households where someone with a long-term illness or disability lived (84%). This pattern is seen across both the private and social rented sectors, although it is not present for housing association renters alone, Annex Table 1.5.

Figure 1.3: Renters’ satisfaction with current accommodation, by dependent children and disability, 2021-22

^{Base: private and social renters
Notes:
1) the baseline is the average proportion who are satisfied with their accommodation across all tenures
2) the figure shows all groups, whereas the text reports on the statistically significant difference between groups for each demographic
3) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.4 and 1.5
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Across all tenures, rates of satisfaction with current accommodation were lowest for households where the Household Reference Person (HRP) was black (70%). This was also the case within the renting sectors: fewer social (62%) and private renters (69%) where the HRP was black were satisfied with their accommodation than social (79%) or private renters (83%) with a white HRP, Annex Table 1.6.

Social renters in the youngest age band, households with a HRP aged 16 to 24, reported noticeably lower satisfaction with their accommodation (58%) than other age groups. In contrast, 90% of social renting households with a HRP aged 75 or over were satisfied with their accommodation, Annex Table 1.7.

Satisfaction with housing services

Satisfaction with housing services was asked of both renters and owner-leaseholders. Overall, about 6.7 million renting or leasehold households (73%) were satisfied with the services provided by their landlord or freeholder, whilst 1.6 million (17%) were dissatisfied with their services. Around 900,000 households (10%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, Annex Table 1.8. The balance of this section focuses on satisfaction of renting households, rather than for leaseholders.

Tenure

Within the rented sectors, private renters were more likely to be satisfied (79%) with the services their landlord provided than social renters (70%). Within the social rented sector, similar proportions of local authority and housing association renters were satisfied (both 70%), Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Satisfaction with housing services, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: private and social renters
Notes:
1) the figure shows all groups, whereas the text reports on the statistically significant difference between groups for each demographic
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.8
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Region

Satisfaction with housing services varied by region. Across the social rented sector there were some quite substantial differences by region, with rates of satisfaction varying from 83% in the North East to 63% in London. London reported lower satisfaction rates than the rest of England combined (72%). This was broadly the case within the social rented sector, although was less pronounced for housing association renters. The proportion of London housing association tenants who were satisfied (65%) was similar to the rest of England (71%), although there were regional differences: 82% of housing association tenants in the North East reported being satisfied, compared to 65% in London. Within the same regions, similar proportions of housing association and local authority renters reported being satisfied.

Demographic characteristics

Satisfaction also varied by demographic characteristics. Overall, households in receipt of housing support reported lower satisfaction with housing services (70%) than households that did not receive housing support (77%). This general pattern is seen for private renters, where 72% of those that did receive housing support were satisfied, compared to 81% of those that did not.

However, this was not the case for social renters, where receipt of housing support did not appear to be related to levels of satisfaction with services provided by the landlord. Similar proportions of social renters in receipt of housing support (69%) compared to those that did not receive housing support (71%) were satisfied with their landlord’s services. Similar proportions of private and social renters who received housing support were satisfied with their landlord’s services, Annex Table 1.9.

Across all tenures, households that included someone with a long-term illness or disability were less likely to be satisfied (68%) than households that did not contain someone with a long term illness or disability (76%). This trend was seen across the private rented (disability: 71%; no disability: 82%) and social rented sectors (disability: 67%; no disability 74%), although when looking within the social rented sector this was not significant for housing association renters, Annex Table 1.10.

Overall, similar proportions of households with either an Asian (72%), black (68%), white (74%) or other (69%) ethnic background HRP were satisfied with their landlord or freeholders services. This was also the case across the private and social rented sectors, including within the social rented sector for local authority and housing association renters, Annex Table 1.11.

Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance

Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance is asked of renting or owner-leasehold households. About 6.3 million renting or leasehold households (68%) were satisfied with the repairs and maintenance carried out by their landlord or freeholder, while 2.2 million (23%) were dissatisfied with their repairs or maintenance. Around 828,000 households (9%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, Annex Table 1.12.

Tenure

Private renters were more likely to be satisfied with the repairs and maintenance carried out by their landlord (75%) than social renters (62%). Within the social rented sector, similar proportions of local authority (62%) and housing association (63%) renters were satisfied with their repairs and maintenance, Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5: Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: private and social renters
Notes:
1) the figure shows all groups, whereas the text reports on the statistically significant difference between groups for each demographic
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.12
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Region

For social renters, satisfaction with repairs and maintenance varied quite considerably by region, from 52% in London to 82% in the North East. Social renters in London were less likely to report being satisfied (52%) than those in the rest of England (65%). However, this masks some regional similarities, in particular between London and the East of England, where 57% were satisfied. Local authority and housing association renters in the same regions reported similar rates of satisfaction.

For private renters, satisfaction varied from 69% in the South East to 82% in both the North East and in Yorkshire and the Humber. Similar proportions of private renters in London (75%) as in the rest of England (75%) were satisfied with their repairs and maintenance.

Demographic characteristics

Generally, households who received housing support reported lower satisfaction with their repairs and maintenance (66%) than those that did not receive housing support (71%). However, the pattern is not statistically significant when broken down by tenure, Annex Table 1.13.

Overall, households that contained someone with a long term illness or disability were less likely to be satisfied with their repairs and maintenance (63%) than households where people did not have a long term illness or disability (71%). This pattern was also seen when looking specifically at the rented sectors. For private renters, 68% of private rented households containing someone with a long term illness or disability were satisfied, compared to 78% where this was not the case. Three-fifths (60%) of social rented households where people with a long term illness or disability lived were satisfied, compared to two-thirds (66%) where this was not the case, Annex Table 1.14.

There were no significant differences by ethnicity overall and within the private rented or social rented sectors.

Dwelling quality

Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance was also assessed in relation to housing quality. As this section makes use of physical survey data, analysis is based on the two-year, paired sample datasets.

When looking across all tenures, similar proportions of households living in poor quality homes – those classed as non-decent (64%), containing Category 1 hazards (67%) or serious damp or mould problems (64%) – were satisfied with the repairs and maintenance carried out by the landlord as those that did not have these problems. However, looking at individual tenures, there were some substantial differences in satisfaction with repairs and maintenance in the private rented sector for decency (decent: 76%; non-decent: 66%) and damp (damp not a problem: 75%; damp a problem: 65%). Similar proportions of social renters living in non-decent homes (60%), homes which contained Category 1 hazards (63%) and homes with damp (58%) were satisfied with the repairs and maintenance carried out by their landlord, Annex Table 1.16, 1.17 and 1.18, Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.6: Renters’ satisfaction with repairs and maintenance, by dwelling quality characteristics, 2021-22

^{Base: private and social renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.16, 1.17 and 1.18
Source: English Housing Survey, full dwelling sample}

Main reason for dissatisfaction with repairs and maintenance

Renters or owner-leaseholders who reported dissatisfaction with their landlord or freeholder’s repairs and maintenance were asked for their reasons why. Respondents were then asked to choose one main reason – this is what is reported in the tables and text for this section. The ‘other’ category includes “landlord does emergency repairs only”, “landlord difficult to contact”, “landlord becomes hostile when issues raised” and “other” responses.

Overall, across all tenures, the main reasons reported for a household’s dissatisfaction with their landlord’s or freeholder’s repairs or maintenance were that the landlord does not bother (30%) or that the landlord is slow to get things done (30%). Smaller proportions stated that they were dissatisfied because the work done was of poor quality (11%) or because only the bare minimum work required was done (11%). A further 17% gave an ‘other’ reason, Annex Table 1.19, Figure 1.7.

Figure 1.7: Main reason for dissatisfaction with repairs or maintenance, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: private and social renters dissatisfied with repairs and maintenance
Notes:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.19
2) “other” includes “landlord does emergency repairs only”, “landlord difficult to contact”, “landlord becomes hostile when issues raised” and “other” responses
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Tenure

Within the rented sectors, broadly similar proportions to the overall figures were reported. Nevertheless there were some differences, with more private renters (38%) than social renters (28%) reporting their main reason being because the landlord does not bother with repairs or maintenance, and more social renters (14%) than private renters (6%) reporting their main reason was because the work done was of poor quality.

Dwelling quality

The main reason for dissatisfaction was also assessed in relation to housing quality. This section uses the two-year, paired sample dataset.

For households living in non-decent homes, 33% said their main reason for dissatisfaction was because the landlord did not bother with repairs. Nearly a quarter (23%) said it was because the landlord was slow to get things done. For private renters living in non-decent homes, 37% said their main reason for dissatisfaction was because the landlord did not bother with repairs, Annex Table 1.20.

For households living in homes with Category 1 hazards, 40% reported their main reason for being dissatisfied was because their landlord does not bother with repairs and maintenance. The proportion of households reporting that they were dissatisfied because the landlord was slow to get things done or because the work done was of poor quality was both 18%. More private renting households where Category 1 hazards were not present (39%) reported they were dissatisfied because their landlord was slow than households where Category 1 hazards were present in the home (18%), Annex Table 1.21.

However, it is important to stress that slowness could also be a problem for private renters, and it is possible that this is being masked by analysis of the main reason for dissatisfaction only. The primary issue for private renters living in homes with Category 1 hazards was that their landlord did not bother with repairs at all, with 46% reporting this as their main reason for dissatisfaction. As this question asks for the main reason, tenants say landlords are not doing repairs, they unlikely to also be seen as slow.

For households living in homes with damp problems, 35% reported their main reason for being dissatisfied was because their landlord did not bother with repairs and maintenance. A further 23% reported dissatisfaction because the landlord did the bare minimum, Annex Table 1.22.

Similarly to private renters living in homes with Category 1 hazards, more private renters (38%) living in homes without damp problems said they were dissatisfied because their landlord was slow than private renters (19%) with a damp problem in their home.

As with Category 1 hazards, the primary issue for private renters living in damp homes was that the landlord does not bother with repairs or maintenance, with 42% selecting this as their main reason. It appears then that particularly for private renters living in problem homes, landlords are simply not doing the necessary repairs, whilst for those living in homes without a serious fault the key reason for dissatisfaction is that the landlord is slow.

2. Complaints within the rented sectors

This chapter examines complaints for renters by tenure and by different demographic groups. It provides an overview of the complaints process within the rented sectors. This chapter looks first at those households that considered making a complaint and follows them through the decisions they made - whether they made a complaint, how happy they were with the response if so and, if they were unhappy, whether they escalated their complaint. Reasons for why some respondents did not make a complaint are also examined. In addition to complaints, this chapter also looks at perceptions of racial discrimination within the private and social rented sectors.

To begin with, the rented sectors are reported together. This allows for an overall assessment of complaints within the rented sectors, although there are specific differences, for example, to whom private and social renters can complain. The differences in the complaint system means that it is more reasonably to look at the private and social rented sectors separately. This is because the questions and answer options available to respondents are substantially different between the two tenures.

This chapter uses the two-year, full sample dataset for sample size reasons, apart from where specified for analysis of dwelling quality characteristics. Dwelling quality sections are specified in the text and make use of the two-year, paired sample datasets that enable analysis of the dwelling and the household living in it. The notes for each annex table specify the data used.

Complaints across the rented sectors

Around 1.2 million (31%) social renting households and 726,000 (16%) private renting households considered making a complaint in the last 12 months. Within the social rented sector, similar proportions of local authority and housing association tenants (both 31%) considered making a complaint, Annex Table 2.1.

Those who considered making a complaint were asked if they had made a complaint. Around 188,000 social renters (15% of those who considered making a complaint) decided not to make a complaint; the remaining social renters decided to complain. Across all social renters, 70% complained directly to their landlord. A further 17% complained to their Tenant Management Organisation (TMO). More local authority (74%) than housing association (67%) tenants complained directly to their landlord, while more housing association (20%) than local authority (11%) tenants complained to their TMO. Similar proportions of local authority (16%) and housing association (15%) renters decided not to make a complaint, Annex Table 2.2.

Of those private renters who considered making a complaint, a quarter (25% or 181,000 households) decided not to complain. Some 44% complained directly to their landlord. A further 34% complained to their estate agent. A higher proportion of private than social renters decided not to make a complaint, Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Whether complaint made, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: renters who considered making a complaint in the last 12 months
Note:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.2
2) totals sum to more than 100% as respondents could select more than one answer
Source: English Housing Survey, 2020-21 and 2021-22 full household sample}

Demographic characteristics

Whether or not a complaint was made also varied in relation to some key demographic characteristics of those households – mainly in terms of housing support receipt and ethnicity. The rates of different demographic groups choosing not to complain were generally quite similar across tenures and, particularly for ethnicity, were often too low to report, reflecting both general trends and the fact that most renters as a whole decided to make a complaint. While there were some trends by tenure, there were no clear statistically significant patterns within tenure in relation to income, presence of dependent children in the household, disability or age.

Within the social rented sector, households who received housing support more likely to decide not to complain (13%) compared with households who did not receive support (19%). The proportions of those in receipt of housing support who complained to their landlord (receives housing support: 71%; does not receive housing support: 67%) or who complained to their TMO (receives housing support: 17%; does not receive housing support: 16%) were similar to households who did not receive housing support, Annex Table 2.3.

Within the private rented sector, households choosing not to complaint were similar regardless of housing support receipt (receive housing support: 22% decided not to complain; does not receive housing support: 27%), complained to the landlord (receives housing support: 45%; does not receive housing support: 43%) or estate agent (receives housing support: 36%; does not receive housing support: 33%).

Among social renters, more households where the HRP was from an Asian ethnic background complained to their landlord (88%) than households with a white HRP (68%). Within the private rented sector, households with a black HRP (75%) or with a HRP from any other ethnic background (77%) were more likely to complain to their landlord than households with a white (39%) or Asian (44%) HRP. Similar proportions of households with a white or Asian HRP reported they had complained to their landlord, and similar proportions of households with a black HRP or a HRP from an ‘other’ ethnic background reported they had complained to their landlord, Annex Table 2.7.

Dwelling quality

In addition to analysis by demographics, whether a complaint was made and to whom was also examined in relation to housing quality. As this section uses the physical survey data, it is based on the two-year, paired sample datasets.

A third (33%) of housing association, 26% of all social and 30% of private renters living in non-decent homes who had considered making a complaint decided not to make a complaint. Of those who did, social renters living in decent homes (72%) were more likely to complain to their landlord than those living in non-decent homes (51%). A higher proportion of private renters living in decent homes (40%) complained to their agent than private renters living in non-decent homes (23%), Annex Table 2.9.

Of those who considered making a complaint in the last 12 months, 57% of housing association, 35% of all social, and 39% of private renters living in homes where a Category 1 hazard was present decided not to make a complaint. As with analysis by decency, social renters living in homes where Category 1 hazards were not present (71%) were more likely to complain to their landlord than those living in homes where Category 1 hazards were present (39%), Annex Table 2.10.

Of private renters who had considered making a complaint and who lived in homes where a damp problem was found, 30% decided not to complain. Of those who did, just under a half (46%) of private renters, 70% of local authority, 48% of housing association and 59% of all social renters living in homes with damp problems complained directly to their landlord. Over three-quarters (76%) of local authority, two-thirds (66%) of housing association and 70% of all social renters living in homes where damp was not a problem complained directly to their landlord, Annex Table 2.11.

Satisfaction with the response to the complaint

Renters who made a complaint in the last 12 months were asked how happy they were with the response to their complaint. The majority of social (66%) and private renters (57%) were unhappy with how their complaint was responded to. Social renters were more likely to be unhappy with the response than private renters, and private renters were more likely to be happy with all the responses they received (26%) than social renters (17%). Similar proportions of housing association (63%) and local authority (70%) renters were unhappy with the response to their complaint, Annex Table 2.12, Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Whether renters were happy with response to complaint, by tenure, 2021-22

^{Base: renters who made a complaint in the last 12 months
Notes:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.12
2) totals sum to more than 100% as respondents could select more than one answer
Source: English Housing Survey, 2020-21 and 2021-22 full household sample}

Response to complaints within the private rented sector

Of private renting households who made a complaint and who received housing support, 60% were not happy with any of the responses to their complaint, a similar proportion to those who did not receive housing support (55%). Three fifths (61%) of Private renting households where someone had a long-term illness or disability were unhappy the response to their complaint, a similar proportion to private renting households where no one with a long-term illness or disability lived (54%), Annex Table 2.13.

Private renters who were unhappy with the responses to their complaint were asked if they had escalated the complaint and, if so, to whom. The majority (89%) of private renters did not escalate their complaint. Smaller proportions said they complained to their local council’s environmental health office (7%) or to their local council’s tenancy relations officer (2%), Annex Table 2.14.

Private renters who did not complain initially were asked their reasons why. Overall, 37% reported they decided not to complain for an ‘other’ reason. A further 21% said they did not complain because they did not want to cause a problem with their landlord or agent, 17% because they did not think anything would be done, 16% because it was too much hassle, 15% because they were worried about retaliation from their landlord, 13% because they were worried their tenancy would not be renewed, 7% because it was not important enough, 6% because they did not know how to complain and 4% because they wanted to stay in their current home, Annex Table 2.15, Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Private renters’ reasons for not complaining, 2021-22

^{Base: private renters who considered but did not make a complaint
Notes:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.15
2) only the top five most selected reasons, and “other” are shown
3) totals sum to more than 100% as respondents could select more than one answer
Source: English Housing Survey, 2020-21 and 2021-22 full household sample}

Response to complaints within the social rented sector

As with private renters, complaints within the social rented sector were also analysed in more detail. Across the social rented sector, similar proportions of households who were in receipt of housing support (68%) as those that were not (61%) were unhappy with the response to their complaint. For social renting households where someone lived who had a long-term illness or disability, 67% were not happy with the response to their complaint: this was a similar proportion to households where no-one had a long-term illness or disability (63%). Although there did appear to be some variation in the proportion who were unhappy with the response received by ethnicity, these proportions were statistically similar to one another: 74% of households with an Asian HRP, 65% with a black HRP, 65% with a white HRP and 67% where the HRP was from an ‘other’ ethnic background reported they were unhappy with the response to their complaint, Annex Table 2.16.

There were no differences between local authority or housing association tenants by the different demographic characteristics in the proportion who were not happy with the response they had received.

Social renters who were unhappy with the response to their complaint were asked if they escalated the complaint and, if so, to whom. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of social renters did not escalate their complaint. Smaller proportions said they took their complaint to an MP (14%), a local councillor (13%), their local council’s environmental health department (9%), the Housing Ombudsman (7%), the Health and Safety Executive (5%), to conciliation, mediation, adjudication or arbitration (2%) or to their tenant’s panel (2%), Annex Table 2.17, Figure 2.4.

Similar proportions of local authority (75%) and housing association (73%) renters did not escalate their complaint. For those who did escalate their complaint, similar proportions of local authority and housing association tenants decided to escalate to the housing ombudsman, an MP, local councillor or the Health and Safety Executive, although more housing association (11%) than local authority renters (6%) reported they had escalated their complaint to their local council’s environmental health department.

Figure 2.4: Who social renters who were unhappy with complaint escalated their complaint to, 2021-22

^{Base: social renters unhappy with the response to their complaint
Notes:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.17
2) totals sum to more than 100% as respondents could select more than one answer
Source: English Housing Survey, 2020-21 and 2021-22 full household sample}

Social renters who had considered but did not make a complaint were asked their reasons why. Similar proportions of social renting households said they had not complained because it was too much hassle (32%) or for an ‘other’ reason not listed (37%), Annex Table 2.18.

A further 22% of social renters said they did not complain because they did not think anything would be done to fix the problem, 11% because they did not know how to complain, 7% because they did not think the problem was important enough and 3% because they did not want to cause a problem with their landlord. The proportion selecting each reason was similar for local authority and housing association renters.

Perceptions of racial discrimination within the rented sectors

In addition to the complaints process, respondents were also asked about their perceptions of racial discrimination in the private and social rented sectors by landlords or letting agents, local councils or housing associations. All respondents were asked for their perceptions, regardless of the tenure in which they lived, and these findings are presented as a part of the Annex Tables. However, the in narrative of this report the response of private renters about perceptions on private landlords or letting agents, and the response of social renters about perceptions on local councils or housing associations was analysed.

A quarter (25%) of private renters with a black HRP thought they would be treated worse by a private landlord or letting agent, more than households with a white HRP (3%) and households with a HRP from an ‘other’ ethnic group (9%), although this proportion was similar to the 14% of households with an Asian HRP who thought they would be treated worse, Annex Table 2.19, Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Proportion of private renters’ who perceive they would be treated worse by a private landlord or letting agent because of their race, by ethnicity, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.19
Source: English Housing Survey, 2020-21 and 2021-22 full household sample}

A fifth (20%) of social renting households with a black HRP thought they would be treated worse than other races by their local council’s housing department or by a housing association, compared to 8% of households with a white HRP. The pattern seen for the social rented sector as a whole, by different ethnic groups, is also seen within the local authority and housing association sectors, with no differences by ethnicity between local authority or housing association renters, Annex Table 2.20, Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Proportion of social renters’ who perceive they would be treated worse by a local council’s housing department or by a housing association because of their race, by ethnicity, 2021-22

^{Base: all households
Notes: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.20
Source: English Housing Survey, 2020-21 and 2021-22 full household sample}

Technical notes

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

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

In this report on Satisfaction and Complaints in the rented sectors, the household data is presented as both the full household sample, and is paired with physical data, but weighted to households throughout. Fieldwork was carried out between May 2020 and March 2022. As the data are weighted to households, we refer to the year of data similarly, as 2021-22.

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

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

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

A more thorough description of the English Housing Survey methodology is provided in the Technical Report which is published annually. The 2021-22 Technical Report includes further details of the impact the COVID-19 on the 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.