Accredited official statistics

English Housing Survey 2022 to 2023: housing quality and condition

Published 18 July 2024

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 on housing quality and condition from the 2022-23 survey.

This report uses two combined years of physical and interview survey data (2021-22 and 2022-23). Due to COVID-19 restrictions, in 2021-22, internal inspections of properties were replaced with external inspections of the exterior of the dwelling and supplemented by information about the interior of the dwelling the surveyor collected (socially distanced) at the doorstep. Predictive modelling was therefore undertaken to produce the housing quality data for the 2021-22 survey year, while the housing quality data was collected and modelled in the normal way for the EHS 2022-23. This report therefore uses ‘hybrid’ variables that combine actual measured data from 2022-23 with a mix of observed and modelled data from 2021-22. More information on the impact of COVID-19 on the English Housing Survey and the modelling methodology can be found in Chapter 5 of the EHS Technical Report.

This report

This report examines housing condition using three measures: whether homes meet the Decent Homes Standard, have HHSRS Category 1 hazards, or have problems with damp. It is split into five chapters, exploring how each measure varies by tenure and household demographics. The analysis is focused on the characteristics of households who live in poor housing conditions, looking at those with dependent children, those with long-term health problems, those in receipt of housing support, older households, and those on a low income.

It goes on to explore the relationship between households’ general wellbeing and whether the home was non-decent, had a Category 1 hazard, or damp, although the analysis is unable to determine any causal relationship between well-being, satisfaction, and each indicator of poor housing.

This report finds a relationship between housing quality and the physical characteristics of dwellings as well as the demographic characteristics of households.

Main findings

In 2022-23, 3.5 million households (14%) in England lived in a home that failed to meet the Decent Homes Standard, 2.1 million households (9%) lived in a home with at least one Category 1 hazard, and 1.0 million households (4%) lived in a home with damp.

• Private renters were more likely than any other tenure to live in a poor-quality home. Just over a fifth (21%) lived in non-decent homes, 12% in homes with Category 1 hazards and 10% in homes with damp.
• Private renters were the most likely to live in a home that had Category 1 hazards (12%, 572,000), followed by owner occupiers (9%, 1.3 million), local authority renters (5%, 80,000), then housing association renters (3%, 83,000).
• Private renters were most likely to be living in a damp home (10%, 441,000). Further, local authority renters (7%, 109,000) and housing association renters (4%, 106,000) were more likely to live in a damp home compared with owner occupiers (2%, 354,000).

More than 1 in 10 dependent children in England live in non-decent housing.

• Overall, approximately 1.5 million dependent children were living in homes that failed the Decent Homes Standard (13%), 1.0 million dependent children lived in a home that had a Category 1 hazard present (9%), and 790,000 dependent children were living in a damp home (7%).
• There were 242,000 dependent children aged 0 to 4 years old (8%), and 549,000 dependent children aged 5 years or over (6%) living in homes that had problems with damp.

Households where the HRP was in full-time employment were more likely to live in good quality housing than households where the HRP was unemployed.

Private rented households with members with a long-term illness or disability or those who receive housing support were more likely to live in poor quality homes.

• Private rented households with a member who had a long-term illness or disability were more likely to live in a non-decent home (26%) than private rented households where no-one had a long-term illness or disability (19%).
• A larger proportion of private renters in receipt of housing support were living in a non-decent home (27%) compared with private renters who were not in receipt of housing support (19%). Private renters in receipt of housing support (19%) were also more likely than those not in receipt (10%) to have a Category 1 hazard in their home.

Better well-being and good health were more frequently reported by households living in good quality housing.

• HRPs living in a non-decent home were less likely to self-report ‘good’ health (66%) than HRPs in a decent home (70%).

• The level of anxiety a household reported did not vary, on average, depending on whether they lived in a non-decent home or a home with a Category 1 hazard. However, in homes with damp present, households reported a higher average level of anxiety score (3.5) than households without damp in their home (3.1).

On average, it would cost £9,266 to bring a non-decent home up to the Standard. The median cost, which is less affected by high outlying values, is lower, at £7,953. These costs vary across England.

• Non-decent dwellings in the North East have a median cost of £9,508 to meet the Standard while in the West Midlands the cost was £6,408, and in London the median cost was £6,823.

Rural dwellings are more likely to be non-decent or contain Category 1 hazards.

• Households living in villages and hamlets (26%) were about twice as likely to be in a non-decent home than those living in urban areas (14%) or towns and fringe areas (12%). This is partially driven by homes in more rural areas tending to be older and are typically houses rather than flats. Older houses tend to be less energy efficient, have higher levels of disrepair, and are more likely to have serious hazards.

Acknowledgements and further queries

Each year the English Housing Survey relies on the contributions of a large number of people and organisations. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) would particularly like to thank the following people and organisations, without whom the 2022-23 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 Molly Mackay, Naomi Ndongala and Ana Slater at BRE, in collaboration with Alistair Rice at MHCLG.

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, MHCLG. Contact via ehs@levellingup.gov.uk.

1. Demographics

A consistent pattern was evident when analysing poor-quality homes by tenure. Private renters were the most likely to live in a non-decent home, a home with any Category 1 hazard, or a home with damp problems compared with households from all other tenures.

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

• meet the statutory minimum standard for housing (the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) since April 2006), homes that contain 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 2022-23, 3.5 million households (14%) were living in homes that failed the Decent Homes Standard. Private renters were generally the most likely to be living in a non-decent home (21%, 970,000) compared with all other tenures. Housing association renters (10%, 242,000) on the other hand, were less likely to live in a non-decent home when compared with owner occupiers (13%, 2.1 million) and private renters. While there was no significant difference between rates of non-decency of local authority renters and owner occupiers, local authority renters were less likely (11%, 175,000) than private renters to be in a home that was non-decent, Annex Table 1.1.

The HHSRS is a risk-based assessment that identifies hazards in dwellings and evaluates their potential effects on the health and safety of occupants and their visitors, particularly vulnerable people. The most serious hazards are called Category 1 hazards and where these exist in a home, then it fails to meet the statutory minimum standard for housing in England.

As the presence of any Category 1 hazard is the most common reason for a dwelling to fail the Decent Homes Standard, it is not surprising that the main findings for the presence of Category 1 hazards largely mirrored those for non-decent homes. In 2022-23, 58% of dwellings that failed the Decent Homes Standard had at least one Category 1 hazard present, Annex Tables 4.3 and 4.4 of the EHS 2022-23 Headline Report.

Overall, 2.1 million households (9%) lived in a home that had a Category 1 hazard present. Private renters were the most likely to live in a home that failed the HHSRS (12%, 572,000), followed by owner occupiers (9%, 1.3 million), and local authority renters (5%, 80,000). Housing association renters were the least likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard (3%, 83,000), Annex Table 1.3.

In the English Housing Survey, a home is considered to have a problem with damp if the surveyor records damp which is significant enough to be taken into consideration when making a HHSRS risk assessment, with minor issues of damp not recorded. A dwelling is assessed as having a damp problem where any of the following exist: penetrating damp, rising damp, or extensive patches of mould growth on walls and ceilings and/or mildew on soft furnishings.

Dampness problems were present in the homes of around 1.0 million households (4%). Mirroring the patterns for non-decent homes and the prevalence of Category 1 hazards, private renters were most likely to be living in a damp home (10%, 441,000). Further, local authority renters (7%, 109,000) and housing association renters (4%, 106,000) were more likely to live in a damp home compared with owner occupiers (2%, 354,000), Annex Table 1.5.

Non-decent homes

In 2022-23, the likelihood of a household living in a non-decent home was greater if they did not have dependent children, the household reference person (HRP) was not working, the household income was in the lower income quintiles, or the household was overcrowded.

Dependent children

In the EHS, a dependent child is defined as any child in the household aged under 16 years, or aged 16 to 18 years if they are in full time education up to A-Level or equivalent, (see glossary for more detail).

Overall, 809,000 households (12%) with dependent children lived in a home that failed the Decent Homes Standard. Households without dependent children (15%, 2.7 million) were more likely to be in a non-decent home than households with dependent children, Annex Table 1.1.

A similar relationship was seen among owner occupiers and housing association renters, though this was not consistent across all tenures. There was a higher proportion of owner occupiers and housing association households with no dependent children living in non-decent homes (15% and 11%, respectively) compared with owner occupiers and housing association renters with dependent children (10% and 8%, respectively). The opposite was observed among local authority renters, where households with dependent children present (14%) were more likely to be in a non-decent home than those without dependent children (10%). For private renters, no differences were found in the likelihood of living in a non-decent home whether there were dependent children present or not, Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Proportion of non-decent homes, by dependent children in the household and tenure, 2022-23

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

HRP age

Overall, there was no difference in the likelihood of living in a non-decent home by the age of HRP. However, there were a few differences by age when analysed by tenure.

Older housing association renters were more likely to be living in a non-decent home than younger housing association renters. A greater proportion of those aged 45 to 64 years old (12%) lived in a non-decent home than those aged 16 to 29 (4%) or 30 to 44 (7%). Those in the oldest age band, 65 years or over, (11%) were also more likely to be in a non-decent home than those in the youngest age band, 16 to 29 years (4%).

HRP ethnicity

There were few differences in the likelihood of living in a non-decent home based on the ethnicity of the HRP. Overall, households with a black HRP (18%) were more likely to be living in a non-decent home than those with an Asian HRP (12%). This relationship was also evident among private renters as 30% of those with a black HRP were living in a non-decent home, compared with 14% of Asian HRPs. Private renters with a white HRP (21%) were also more likely to be in a non-decent home than those with an Asian HRP.

Among housing association renters, households with black (13%) or white (10%) HRPs were more likely to live in a home that was non-decent, compared with those with a HRP of another ethnicity (4%).

HRP gender

Typically, the prevalence of non-decent homes did not change with the gender of the HRP, apart from among local authority renters. The homes of male local authority renter HRPs were more likely to be non-decent (14%) than those of female local authority renters (9%).

Long-term illness and disability

Around 1.4 million households where someone had a long-term illness or disability lived in a non-decent home (15%). There were few differences among tenures except for private renters, where over a quarter (26%, 419,000) of households with a member living with a long-term illness or disability lived in a non-decent home compared with other private rented households (19%, 551,000).

HRP employment status

Generally, there was a greater proportion of non-decent housing among unemployed HRPs than among working HRPs. Households with an unemployed HRP were more likely to live in a non-decent home (24%) than households where the HRP was in part-time work (15%), other inactive (14%), retired (14%), or in full time work (14%).

For owner occupiers, HRPs who were unemployed (31%) or retired (14%) were more likely than HRPs in full-time work (12%) to be living in a non-decent home. Moreover, private renter HRPs who were retired (28%) were more likely to be in a non-decent home than those in either full-time (20%) or part-time (17%) work.

Among local authority renters, households with a HRP who was unemployed were more likely to be in a non-decent home (28%) when compared with those in part-time work (14%), retired (10%), other inactive (9%), or in full-time work (8%).

Receipt of housing support

Around 594,000 households in receipt of housing support lived in a non-decent home (16%). There was a greater proportion of private renters in receipt of housing support living in a non-decent home (27%) compared with private renters who were not in receipt of housing support (19%).

Household income

Overall, households with lower incomes were more likely to be living in a non-decent home. A greater proportion of households with incomes in the first (lowest) (18%), second (16%), and third (16%) quintiles were living in non-decent homes than both the fourth (12%) and fifth (highest) (11%) quintiles, Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Non-decent homes, by income quintile, all households, 2022-23

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

When analysed by tenure, this pattern was evident for both owner occupiers and private renters. Among owner occupiers, there was a higher proportion of households in the first, second and third income quintiles in non-decent homes (19%, 15% and 16%, respectively), compared with those in the fourth and fifth quintiles (10% and 11%, respectively). Similarly, private renters in the first four quintiles (21% to 26%) were more likely to live in a home that was non-decent than those in the highest quintile (12%).

Overcrowding

Households are said to be overcrowded if they have fewer bedrooms available than the notional number needed according to the bedroom standard definition, (see glossary. Some households that are classed as overcrowded may also have a HHSRS Category 1 overcrowding hazard present in the home and would therefore also fail the Decent Homes Standard.

The rate of overcrowding in England in 2022-23 was 3%, with approximately 708,000 households living in overcrowded conditions. Overall, 141,000 overcrowded households (19%) lived in a non-decent home. Overcrowded households were more likely to live in a home that failed the Decent Homes Standard than households that were not overcrowded (14%, 3.4 million), Annex Table 1.2.

Category 1 hazards

Many findings remained consistent with those observed for non-decent homes. Namely, Category 1 hazards were more prevalent in the homes of those where the HRP was non-working, where household incomes were in the lower quintiles, and where the home was overcrowded.

Dependent children

Unlike the findings for non-decent homes, there was little difference in the likelihood of living in a home with a Category 1 hazard if there were dependent children present. Local authority renters with dependent children were more likely to live in a home that had a Category 1 hazard (10%) than those without dependent children (3%), Annex Table 1.3.

HRP ethnicity

The ethnicity of the HRP also showed very little relationship to the prevalence of Category 1 hazards, apart from among social renters. Social renters from ethnic minority backgrounds (6%) were more likely to be living in a home with Category 1 hazards than white HRPs (4%).

HRP gender

The prevalence of Category 1 hazards in the homes with male HRPs was higher than in the homes with female HRPs. Overall, 1.3 million homes with male HRPs had a Category 1 hazard (9%) compared with 801,000 female HRPs (8%). This relationship was also evident among private and local authority renters where the proportion of households with male HRPs living in homes with at least one Category 1 hazard was higher (14% and 7%, respectively) than female HRPs (10% and 4%, respectively), Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Proportion of Category 1 hazards, by gender of HRP and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.3
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Long-term illness and disability

Similar to findings for non-decent homes, private renters where a member of the household had a long-term illness or disability were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in the home (16%) than other private renters (11%). This relationship was not observed among other tenures.

HRP employment status

Category 1 hazards were more likely to be present in the homes of unemployed HRPs. Overall, 17% of unemployed HRPs had a Category 1 hazard in their home, compared with, 9% who worked part-time, 9% of HRPs who worked full-time, 8% who were retired, and 7% who were otherwise economically inactive.

Unemployed private renters were more likely to be in a home with a Category 1 hazard (24%) than those working full-time (11%) or part-time (10%). Furthermore, unemployed (13%) and part-time employed local authority renters (10%) were generally more likely to live in a home with Category 1 hazards present than those that were retired (4%).

Receipt of housing support

Following the same pattern as that of non-decent homes, private renters in receipt of housing support (19%) were more likely than those not in receipt (10%) to have a Category 1 hazard in their home.

Household income

Households with lower incomes were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in the home than households with the highest incomes. Overall, households with incomes in the lowest (10%), second (9%), and third (9%) quintiles, were more likely to be living in a home with Category 1 hazard present than those in the highest quintile (7%). A similar pattern was observed for owner occupiers and private renters. A greater proportion of owner occupiers in the second and third quintiles (both 10%) had a Category 1 hazard present in their home than those in the fourth quintile (7%).

Likewise, private renters in the lowest (18%), second (14%), third (13%), and fourth (12%) income quintiles were more likely to be living in a home with a Category 1 hazard present than those in the highest quintile (6%).

Overcrowding

Households were more likely to have at least one Category 1 hazard in their home if they were overcrowded. Overall, 13% of overcrowded households (98,000) had a Category 1 hazard present in their home, compared with 9% of households that were not overcrowded (2 million), Annex Table 1.4.

When analysed by tenure, this relationship was also observed among social renters. Local authority (10%) and housing association renters (9%) who lived in overcrowded homes were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard in their home than their counterparts (4% and 3%, respectively), Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Category 1 hazards, by overcrowding and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.4
Source: 3 year average based on English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Damp

Some relationships that were evident for the analysis of non-decent homes and homes with Category 1 hazards continued to be observed among homes with damp problems. Overall, households where the HRP was unemployed, households with lower incomes, and overcrowded households were more likely to live in a damp home.

Households with dependent children were also more likely to have damp present in the home compared with those without dependent children. In addition, the ethnicity of the HRP, whether there was someone with a long-term illness or disability, and the receipt of housing support were all indicators in the prevalence of damp in the home.

Dependent children

Overall, 417,000 households with dependent children lived in a home with damp problems present (6%), compared to households without dependent children (3%, 592,000), Annex Table 1.5.

This relationship was evident among private and social renters. Households with dependent children (14% and 7%, respectively) were more likely to live in damp homes compared with other households in the rented sector (8% and 5%, respectively), Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5: Damp, by dependent children in the household and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.5
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

HRP age

Overall, households with a HRP in age bands varying from 16 to 64 (4% to 6%) were more likely to have damp problems present in the home than those with HRPs aged 65 or over (2%). Across all tenures, apart from private renters, households with younger HRPs were generally more likely to have damp problems than households with the oldest HRPs.

Among owner occupiers, households with HRPs aged 30 to 44 (4%) were more likely to have damp present in their home than HRPs aged 65 or over (2%). For social renters, HRPs aged 30 to 44 (5%) and 45 to 64 (7%) were more likely to live in a home with damp problems present than social renter HRPs aged 65 or over (2%).

HRP ethnicity

Generally, HRPs with an ethnic minority background (7%) were more likely to be living in a home with damp problems than white HRPs (4%). More specifically, households with a black HRP had a higher likelihood of having damp problems present in their home (12%) compared with white HRPs (4%), Asian HRPs (4%) and HRPs of other ethnicities (7%).

The figures were similar for private renters. Households with a black HRP (20%) were more likely to have damp problems present compared with HRPs from other ethnic groups (5% to 10%). Similarly, social renters with a black HRP (9%) were more likely to be living in a home with damp problems than those with white HRPs (5%).

Long-term illness and disability

Overall, households containing someone living with a long-term illness or disability, were more likely to have damp problems present (5%) compared with other households (3%). This relationship was apparent among private renters where15% of households with someone who had a long-term illness or disability had damp problems in the home compared with 6% of other households.

HRP employment status

Households with unemployed HRPs were more likely to have damp problems present in the home (11%) compared with those in part-time work (5%), full-time work (4%), or retired (2%), Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.6: Damp, by employment status of HRP, all households, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.5
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

There were some differences by tenure, with owner occupiers in full-time work (3%) more likely to have damp problems present in the home compared with retired HRPs (2%).

For social renters, unemployed HRPs were more likely to live in a home with damp problems present (12%) compared with HRPs in full-time work (5%), other inactive HRPs (6%) and retired HRPs (3%). Furthermore, social renter HRPs working part-time (7%) or full-time (5%) were more likely to live in a damp home than those that were retired (3%).

Receipt of housing support

Generally, households in receipt of housing support were more likely to have damp present in their home (9%, 332,000) than other households (6%, 324,000). This was also the case for private renters, where 15% of those in receipt of housing support lived in a damp home compared with 8% of those not in receipt.

Household income

Overall, households were more likely to have damp problems present in their home if their incomes were in the lower quintiles than the higher quintiles. Households with incomes in the first (lowest) (6%), second (5%), third (4%), and fourth (3%) quintiles were more likely to be living in a damp home than those in the fifth (highest) quintile (2%), Figure 1.7.

Figure 1.7: Damp, by income quintile, all households, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.5
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

This was also evident for private renters. Private renters with incomes in the first (lowest) (16%), second (12%), and third (10%) quintiles were over three times more likely to live in a home with damp problems than private renters with incomes in the highest quintile (3%).

Unlike the findings for non-decent homes and Category 1 hazards, there was a relationship between the presence of damp and household income among social renters. Those in the lowest quintile (8%) were twice as likely to have damp problems present in the home than those in the second, third, and fourth quintiles (all 4%).

Overcrowding

Overall, across all tenures, households that were overcrowded were the most likely to live in a home with damp problems present (12%, 87,000) compared with those that were not overcrowded (4%, 947,000). This relationship was also observed among private and social renters, Annex Table 1.6.

While patterns have been observed, this analysis cannot determine any causal relationship between overcrowding and damp – overcrowding does not necessarily cause damp, though damp and mould could be a potential side-effect of overcrowding.

Total number of dependent children living in poor-quality homes

In 2022-23, there were 11.6 million dependent children represented in the EHS. This comprised 3.0 million dependent children aged 0 to 4 years old, and 8.6 million aged 5 years or over, Annex Table 1.7.

It is important to note that the EHS figures will differ from that in the 2021 census, which found that there were 12.6 million dependent children living in England and Wales, due to differences in methodology, e.g., the EHS only captures children ordinarily resident in the household, the geographical coverage, and the year of collection. See ONS.gov.uk Children in families in England and Wales: Census 2021.

Overall, 1.5 million dependent children were living in homes that failed the Decent Homes Standard (13%), 1.0 million dependent children lived in a home that had a Category 1 hazard present (9%), and 790,000 dependent children were living in a damp home (7%).

When considering the age of dependent children in England, 389,000 dependent children aged 0 to 4 years old (13%) lived in a non-decent home, as did 1.1 million dependent children aged 5 years or over (12%).

There were 284,000 dependent children aged 0 to 4 years old (9%), and 722,000 dependent children aged 5 years or over (8%) living in homes with a Category 1 hazard.

Lastly, there were 242,000 dependent children aged 0 to 4 years old (8%), and 549,000 dependent children aged 5 years or over (6%) living in homes that had problems with damp, Figure 1.8.

Figure 1.8: Number of dependent children living in poor-quality homes, by age, 2022-23

^{Base: all dependent children
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.7
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Generally, when analysed by tenure, the patterns observed in the proportion of children living in poor housing mirrored those seen among all households living in poor housing. Dependent children living in the private rented sector were more likely to be in non-decent homes, homes with Category 1 hazards, and homes with damp than all other tenures.

Dependent children in the private rented sector (530,000, 20%) were the most likely to be living in non-decent homes. Those from local authority homes were also more likely to be in non-decent homes (138,000, 15%), compared with those from owner occupied (648,000, 10%), and housing association rented (139,000, 9%) homes.

Findings by tenure were similar to those of homes with Category 1 hazards present. Dependent children in the private rented sector were most likely to be living in a home with Category 1 hazards (344,000, 13%), compared with all other tenures (6% to 10%). This was also true across both age groups.

The proportion of dependent children living in a home with damp was higher among private renters (357,000, 14%), local authority renters (105,000, 11%), and housing association renters (89,000, 6%) when compared with owner occupiers (239,000, 4%). Dependent children in private rented and local authority homes were also more likely to be living with damp, when compared with housing association renters. This was mirrored among dependent children aged 5 or over.

2. Health and well-being

Housing conditions can have an impact on mental as well as physical health in various ways. This chapter examines the self-reported health and well-being of households living in non-decent homes, homes with Category 1 hazards, and homes with damp. However, it is important to note the findings in this chapter do not demonstrate a causal relationship between poor housing quality and well-being or general health.

Well-being

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

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

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

Generally, a household reported a higher well-being score if their home was decent or without any damp problems present.

Life satisfaction

Overall, households living in poor-quality homes had lower levels of life satisfaction. This was particularly evident among private renters.

Households living in non-decent homes had a lower average life satisfaction score (7.2) than those in decent homes (7.5). This finding was evident among owner occupiers (7.5 in a non-decent home, 7.8 in a decent home), private renters (6.8 in a non-decent home, 7.3 in a decent home), and local authority renters (6.4 in a non-decent home, 6.9 in a decent home), Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Satisfaction with life, by Decent Homes Standard and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Further, households living in homes with at least one HHSRS Category 1 hazard present were less satisfied with life (7.2) than those without any hazards (7.5). This relationship was evident for both owner occupiers and private renters, where those living in homes with a Category 1 hazard had a lower average life satisfaction (7.5 and 6.6, respectively) than those living in homes without hazards present (7.8 and 7.3, respectively).

On average there was a lower level of life satisfaction for households living in a damp home (6.8) compared with other households (7.5). This was particularly evident for private renters (6.4 for households in damp homes, 7.3 for households without damp problems).

Life is worthwhile

Findings for the ‘life is worthwhile’ measure were not as consistent across the three housing quality measures as it was for life satisfaction. Households recorded a lower average score for ‘life is worthwhile’ if their home failed the Decent Homes Standard (7.6) than if their home was decent (7.8). A pattern that was observed for both owner occupiers (7.8 in a non-decent home, 8.0 in a decent home) and private renters (7.3 in a non-decent home, 7.7 in a decent home). Similarly, owner occupiers living in a home with a Category 1 hazard present gave a lower score on average (7.8) than those in homes without a hazard (8.0).

Overall, households gave lower average scores for ‘life is worthwhile’ if their home had a damp problem present (7.5) than if their home had no damp (7.8). This relationship was only seen among private renters (7.2 in homes with damp, 7.6 in homes without damp).

Happiness

Levels of happiness were generally lower for households that lived in poor-quality homes. On average, HRPs scored their level of happiness lower if their home was non-decent (7.3) than if it was decent (7.5). This was also true for private renters where those living in non-decent homes scored their happiness at 6.9, compared with those in a decent home who scored their happiness at 7.3.

HRPs living in a home with a Category 1 hazard had a lower level of happiness on average (7.2) than those living in homes without (7.5). Similar patterns were observed among owner occupiers and private renters, here HRPs scored their happiness lower at 7.5 and 6.8, respectively, if their homes had Category 1 hazards, compared with 7.7 and 7.3, respectively, if their homes were without Category 1 hazards.

Those living in homes with damp problems also gave lower average happiness scores (6.9) than those in homes without damp (7.5). In particular, private renters (6.5 in homes with damp, 7.3 in homes without damp) and local authority renters (5.8 in homes with damp, 7.0 in homes without damp) observed similar differences in mean happiness, Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Happiness, by damp and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Anxiety

For most housing quality indicators, the level of anxiety a HRP reported did not vary depending on whether they lived in a poor-quality home. However, in homes with damp present, households reported a higher average level of anxiety score (3.5) than households without damp in their home (3.1).  

General health

In the EHS, all respondents are asked how their health is in general, with answers ranging on a five point scale from ‘very good’ to ‘very bad’. For this report, the ‘very good’ and ‘good’ responses as well as the ‘very bad’ and ‘bad’ responses have been condensed, to create three categories: ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘bad’. The findings represent the general health of the HRP and not the whole household.

Typically, the general health score of the HRP was more likely to be self-reported as ‘good’ if their home was decent, or did not have damp problems present, and worsened if the HRP lived in poor-quality housing.

Non-decent homes

Those living in non-decent homes were more likely to report worse health than those in decent homes. HRPs living in non-decent homes were less likely to self-report ‘good’ health (66%) than HRPs in a decent home (70%). Additionally, those in non-decent homes were more likely to report ‘fair’ health (25%) than those in decent homes (21%), Annex Table 2.2.

These findings were mirrored for private renters. Private renters in non-decent homes were less likely to report ‘good’ health (67%) than if they lived in a decent home (76%). Further, private renters in non-decent homes were more likely to report ‘fair’ health (24%) than those in decent homes (17%).

Category 1 hazards

Mirroring the findings for non-decent homes, private renters living in homes with a Category 1 hazard were less likely to report ‘good’ health (66%) than if they lived in a home without Category 1 hazards (75%). Additionally, private renters were more likely to report ‘fair’ health if their home had a Category 1 hazard (26%), compared with if their home did not have a hazard (17%), Annex Table 2.2.

Damp

It is important to bear in mind that, overall, HRPs more commonly reported ‘good’ health than ‘bad’ health, irrespective of whether damp was present or not in their home. The exception was among local authority renters living in homes with damp problems present. Among this group, HRPs were similarly likely to report ‘good’ health (27%, 29,000) and ‘bad’ health (31%, 34,000).

Overall, HRPs living in damp homes were less likely to report ‘good’ health (58%) than those living in homes without damp problems (70%). HRPs in damp homes were also more likely to report their health as ‘fair’ (30%) than those in homes without damp problems (21%).

This was mirrored by HRPs in the private rented sector. ‘Good’ health was reported by nearly two-thirds (63%) of HRPs in damp homes compared with three-quarters (75%) of HRPs in homes without damp. Similarly, over a quarter (27%) of local authority renters with damp present in their home reported ‘good’ health, lower than the 44% of local authority renter HRPs living in homes without damp, Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Proportion of HRPs reporting ‘good’ health, by damp and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.2
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

3. Household spending and residency

This chapter examines the prevalence of poor-quality housing among households by their length of residence. It will also report on the proportion of income that households spend on their rent or mortgage, by the three housing quality variables discussed throughout the report.

Length of residence

The findings below partly reflect the findings in chapter 1 for household age and tenure. Older HRPs are more likely to be owner occupiers and have lived in their homes for the longest periods of time while the youngest HRPs are more likely to be private renters and have lived in their homes for shorter periods of time.

Non-decent homes

Overall, the likelihood of households living in non-decent homes generally did not vary with their length of residence. However, among housing association renters, those who had been resident for 20 years or more (14%) were more likely to be in a non-decent home compared with those resident for 0 to 2 years, 5 to 9 years, or 10 to 19 years (all 8%), Annex Table 3.1.

Category 1 hazards

Households were as likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in their home, regardless of tenure and length of residence, Annex Table 3.2.

Damp

Overall, households with the longest length of residence had a lower likelihood of having damp problems present in the home. Those who had been resident for 3 to 4 years, 5 to 9 years, or 10 to 19 years (all 5%) were more likely to be in a damp home than those who had been resident for 20 years or more (3%), Annex Table 3.3.

When split by tenure, however, private renters and local authority renters of longer residencies were more likely to live in homes with damp problems. Private renters who had been resident in their home for 5 to 9 years (14%), or 10 to 19 years (18%) were more likely to have damp problems present than those that had been resident for 0 to 2 years (6%). Similarly, local authority renters who had been resident for 10 to 19 years (10%) were more likely to be living in a home with damp problems than those who had been resident for 0 to 2 years (4%), Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Prevalence of damp, by length of residence and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.3
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Proportion of income spent on rent or mortgage

The proportion of household income that is spent on rent or mortgage is examined for households whose weekly rent or mortgage exceeds £0, and the analysis excludes households that are shared owners, who pay both rent and mortgage.

Overall, renters consistently spent a larger portion of their income on rent than owner occupiers spent on their mortgage, irrespective of whether the home was non-decent, had Category 1 hazards, or had damp problems present. The portion of a household’s income that was spent on rent or mortgage did not vary according to whether that home passed the Decent Homes Standard, had any Category 1 hazard present, or had damp present. This finding was consistent across all tenures, Annex Tables 3.4, 3.5, 3.6.

4. Place

This chapter focuses on how the prevalence of all non-decent dwellings, including vacant homes, varied by region. It will then examine the prevalence of poor-quality housing among households by their rural urban classification.

Non-decent homes by region

Overall, private rented dwellings were most likely to fail the Decent Homes Standard (21%), followed by owner occupied dwellings (14%), while social rented dwellings had the lowest proportion of non-decent homes (10%), Annex Table 4.1.

The North West (19%), East Midlands (19%), Yorkshire and the Humber (17%), and the South West (17%) had a greater proportion of non-decent dwellings when compared with the East of England (13%), North East (12%), South East (11%) and London (10%), Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Non-decent homes, by region, all dwellings, 2022

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

In most regions, private rented dwellings (18% to 32%) were more likely to be non-decent than social rented (6% to 16%), and owner occupied (10% to 18%) dwellings. This was not observed in the North East and London regions.

For most regions, local authority dwellings were just as likely to fail the Standard as housing association dwellings. The one exception to this was dwellings in the North East, where local authority dwellings (20%) were more likely to fail than housing association dwellings (3%).

Rural urban classification

Households living in more rural areas had a higher likelihood of living in non-decent homes or homes with a Category 1 hazard than households that lived in more urban areas. Likely reflecting that homes in more rural areas tend to be older and typically comprise houses rather than flats. These older houses tend to be less energy efficient, have higher levels of disrepair, and are more likely to have serious hazards.

Non-decent homes

Overall, households living in villages and hamlets (26%) were about twice as likely to be in a non-decent home than those living in urban areas (14%) or towns and fringe areas (12%). This was also true for most tenures, Annex Table 4.2.

Almost a quarter (24%) of owner occupiers living in villages and hamlets had a non-decent home compared with 13% of those living in urban areas, and 10% of those living in towns and fringe areas. Among private renters, 44% of households in villages and hamlets lived in a non-decent home, higher than the 21% living in town and fringe areas, and 20% of those living in urban areas. As for social renters, those in villages and hamlets (21%) were more likely to live in non-decent homes than those in town and fringe areas (11%), and urban areas (10%), Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Proportion of non-decent homes, by rural urban classification and tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.2
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub sample}

Category 1 hazards

Findings were similar to those for non-decent homes. Overall households, living in villages and hamlets (20%) were more likely to have Category 1 hazards in their home than those in urban areas (8%), and town and fringe areas (7%), Annex Table 4.3.

Owner occupiers and private renters were more likely to have Category 1 hazards in their homes (19% and 34%, respectively) if they lived in villages and hamlets, than if they lived in urban areas (8% and 11%, respectively), or town and fringe areas (7% and 10%, respectively). Social renters living in villages and hamlets were also more likely to live in a home with a Category 1 hazard present (8%) than those that lived in town and fringe areas (3%).

Damp

The likelihood of damp problems in the home varied by tenure. Private renters in more rural locations, such as villages and hamlets (18%), were more likely to have damp problems present than those in urban areas (9%), and town and fringe areas (8%). The opposite was observed among social renters, where those living in urban areas (6%) were more likely to have damp present in the home than those in towns and fringe areas (2%), Annex Table 4.4.

5. Cost to make decent

This chapter focuses on how much it would cost to make all non-decent dwellings, including vacant homes, pass the Decent Homes Standard.

The EHS reports an estimated cost of all work needed to bring a dwelling up to the Decent Homes Standard.

The two years of data used for this section use two different modelling approaches. Due to COVID-19 restrictions in 2021-22 it was not possible to model the cost to make non-decent homes decent in the usual way and average costs were extrapolated using previous years’ data. For the most recent EHS survey, EHS 2022-23, the ‘cost to make decent’ used data from the repair cost modelling in the usual way. This section therefore uses ‘hybrid’ variables that combine actual measured data from 2022-23 with a mix of observed and modelled data from 2021-22. Further details are available from the EHS Technical Report Annex 5.5.

On average, it would cost £9,266 to being a non-decent home up to the Standard. The median cost was slightly lower, at £7,953. The median value is less affected by high outlying values, for example, high repair costs for large vacant dwellings in rural areas, which tend to skew the balance of the mean, Annex Table 5.1.

Non-decent owner occupied dwellings would cost more, on average, to be brought up to the Standard (£9,679) than local authority dwellings (£7,511).

The median cost required to make non-decent owner occupied and private rented dwellings decent was £8,102 and £8,381, respectively. Non-decent social rented dwellings would require a median cost of £4,691 to be made decent.

Within the EHS Cost to Make Decent modelling, costs are adjusted for each region and whether the dwelling is in the private or social sector, EHS Technical Report Annex 5.5.

The median cost varied by region. For example, non-decent dwellings in the North East would cost £9,508 to meet the Standard while in the West Midlands the cost was £6,408, and in London the median cost was £6,823, Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Median cost to make decent, by region, all dwellings, 2022

^{Base: all non-decent dwellings
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.1
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}