Accredited official statistics

English Housing Survey 2022 to 2023: rented sectors

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.

Impact of COVID-19 on the English Housing Survey

Data from both the household and dwelling samples are used in this report. While most household data for 2022-23 is not impacted by the change in survey mode over COVID-19, though the dwelling data draws upon two combined years of data (2020-21 and 2022-23) and will be impacted by the mode change. The combined 2022 datasets used in Chapter 4 includes ‘hybrid’ variables that combine actual measured data from 2022 with a mix of observed and modelled data from 2021. Additionally, the overcrowding and under occupation household data uses three years of survey data and includes information gathered through telephone rather than face-to-face interviews during COVID-19 restrictions. More information on the impact of COVID-19 on the English Housing Survey and the modelling methodology can be found in Annex 5.5 of the Technical Report .

This report

This report focuses on the two rented sectors – the social rented sector and the private rented sector – and is split into four chapters. The first chapter gives an overview of households in the rented sectors, including demographic characteristics and levels of overcrowding and under-occupation.

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

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

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

Overall, this report shows the demographics of the private and social rented sectors remain similar to previous years, though the circumstances they face may have changed. The fieldwork for this report was conducted against a backdrop of increasing inflation and, relatedly, higher cost of living on many measures but, in particular, energy costs. The private rented sector is demographically and economically diverse. Private renters broadly report satisfaction with their home and the tenure, generally reporting their housing is affordable and that they are not in arrears. Yet, they are still exposed to lower levels of security of tenure, moving more frequently, are more likely to live in poor quality homes. Particular groups, including households with dependent children, may be more exposed to affordability pressures, despite earning a generally higher income.

While less demographically and economically diverse, and generally more secure with higher quality homes, households in the social rented sector nonetheless have diverse needs. They are more likely to have someone in the home with a long-term illness or disability, more likely to have a low income and more likely to pay for utilities via a pre-payment meter, exposing them to higher unit costs for energy. While the majority of social renters do note report affordability pressures and proportion of income spent on rent is lower, households in the social sector are still more likely to be in rental arrears and unlikely to have savings.

Main findings

The rented sectors make up 35% of households in England, with 4.6 million households in the private rented sector (19% of all households) and 4 million households in the social rented sector (16%). 

• Households in the rented sectors tended to be younger, more ethnically and nationally diverse, and contained a higher proportion of households with dependent children than owner occupation.

In 2022-23, HRPs in the private rented sector were the youngest, with a mean age of 41. Social renters followed with a mean of 53 (53 years old for housing association tenants and 54 years old for local authority tenants). This compares to a mean age of 57 among owner occupiers.

• The private rented sector had a lower proportion of HRPs from the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland (70%) than the social rented sector (90%), both of which were lower than owner occupied (96%).
• Households with dependent children were more common within the rented sectors (private renters: 30%; social renters: 31%) than among owner occupiers (23%). The rented sectors presented similar proportions of households with dependent children.

The majority of renters say they find it easy to pay their rent and are not in rental arrears. However, households in the social rented sector are more likely to be in arrears than households in the private rented sector.

Aggregate figures may not total due to rounding

• Social renters were more likely to have been in arrears either currently or over the past year, than private renters. Approximately 593,000 (15%) social rented households were either currently or previously in arrears when interviewed, compared to 229,000 (5%) private rented households.
• The majority of private (71%) and social (73%) renters reported it was easy to pay rent. Approximately 1.2 million (29%) private rented households reported finding it difficult to pay their rent. A further 852,000 (27%) social rented households reported finding it difficult to pay their rent.
• While households with dependent children in both rented sectors were more likely to be in arrears in the past year than households without, households in the social rented sector with dependent children (22%) were more likely to have currently or previously been in arrears than private rented households with dependent children (8%).

Social renters are less likely to have savings than private renters, and both groups are less likely to have savings than owner occupiers.

• More owner occupiers (79%) had savings than either private renters (54%) or social renters (27%).
• Just under a quarter (24%) of private renters who were lone parents with dependent children had savings. This was a lower proportion than any other private renting household type, which ranged from 45% to 66%.
• Social renters who were lone parents with dependent children (14%) were less likely to have savings than private renters who were lone parents with dependent children.

While most renters ended their last tenancy because they wanted to move, a minority were evicted or asked to leave by their landlord.

• In 2022-23, most private renters (63%, 424,000 households) who had moved in the last 12 months cited they had decided to end their tenancy because they wanted to move.  Much like the private rented sector, the most common reason for social renters ending their last tenancy was because they wanted to move (63%, 38,000 households).
• Other reasons given by private renters included that the tenancy was for a fixed period (19%, 130,000 households), the tenancy ended by mutual agreement (10%, 69,000 households), or were asked to leave by their landlord or agent (9%, 61,000 households). A minority chose to end their last tenancy due to rent increases (2%, 11,000 households), accommodation that was linked to a job that ended (2%) or had a poor relationship with the landlord (1%, 7,000 households).
• Over one quarter of social renters (27%, 17,000 households) reported their last tenancy ended because they were asked to leave by the landlord/agent, which was higher than the proportion of private renters asked to leave by the landlord/agent (9%, 61,000 households).

Social renters are more likely to have experienced homelessness than private renters and are more likely to have a member of the household on the waiting list for social housing.

• Within the social rented sector, 8% of renters (around 319,000 households) had experienced homelessness in the past few years. This was higher than the proportion of private renters (4%, around 193,000 households) and owner occupiers (<1%, around 41,000 households).
• Overall, 9% of social renters (373,000 households) reported someone in their household was on the council housing and/or housing association waiting list, which was higher than the proportion of private renters (6%, 280,000 households).

Nearly one in ten privately renting households were refused a tenancy in the past twelve months because they were in receipt of benefits.

• Within the private rented sector, 9% of renters in receipt of housing support had been refused a tenancy in the last 12 months because they were in receipt of housing support (around 99,000 households).
• Overall, 6% of private renters with dependent children reported that they had been refused a tenancy in the last 12 months because of children in the home.
• Within the private rented sector, 407,000 households (9%) said they had experienced tenancy refusal in the last 12 months because of their pet(s).

Social renters, and renters living in high rise flats, are more likely to feel unsafe in their homes due to fear of fire.

• Social renters were more likely to feel unsafe at home because they feared a fire may break out (12%) than either private renters (8%) or owner occupiers (6%).
• Renters living in high rise flats with six storeys or more, were more likely to feel unsafe at home because of fear of fire than those in other types of dwellings, particularly among social renters (35% in high rise flats, compared with 14% in low rise and 8% in a house or bungalow).
• Social renters in high rise flats were less likely than social renters in other types of dwellings to have a working smoke alarm (87% in high rise flats, compared with 97% in low rise flats and 98% living in a house or bungalow).

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 Bethany Chapman, Melanie Doyle, Amy Dyer and Charlie Ridley-Johnson at the National Centre for Social Research, in collaboration with Joseph Clinton and Stuart Trager at BRE and Catherine Bean and Antonia Crawford 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 analysts for this report is Chauncey Glass, Housing and Planning Analysis Division, MHCLG. Contact via ehs@levellingup.gov.uk.

1.  Profile of renters

This chapter covers the demographic profile of social and private renters across England in 2022-23, as well as measures of overcrowding and under occupation within the sector.

In 2022-23 there were approximately 4.6 million (19%) private renters and 4 million (16%) social renters in England, similar to previous years, Headline report, Annex Table 1.1.

Within the social rented sector, 1.5 million households (6%) rented from their local authority and 2.5 million households (10%) rented from a housing association.

Although private renters made up a larger proportion of the rented sector than social renters, owner occupiers remained the largest tenure in England with 15.8 million (65%) households in 2022-23.

In London, there was a larger proportion of private rented households than social rented households, with 1.1 million (31%) tenants renting privately and 770,000 (21%tech) renting from a local authority or housing association. This compares to 1.8 million (49%) owner occupied households in London, Headline report Annex Table 1.2.

Outside of London, there were similar proportions of social and private renters, with 17% of households in England (excluding London) occupied by private renters and 16% occupied by social renters.

Characteristics of renters

Age of household reference person

The age distribution of private renters is based on the age of the Household Reference Person (HRP). Private renters in 2022-23 remained the youngest tenure with a mean age of 41. Social renters followed with a mean age of 53 (53 years old for housing association tenants and 54 years old for local authority tenants) – a 12-year age difference between the two rented sectors. This compares to a mean age of 57 among owner occupiers, Annex Table 1.1.

The most common age group among private renters was 25 to 34 year olds (30%), while 45 to 64 year old HRPs were most common among social renters (37%) and owner occupiers (39%). The least common age groups within the rented sectors were those 75 years or older (4%) among private renters, and 16 to 24 year olds (3%) for social renters, Annex Table 1.2.

Ethnicity and nationality of HRP

The most common ethnicity in 2022-23 across all tenures was white, making up 86% of all HRPs, or approximately 21 million households. The social rented sector had a higher proportion of white HRPs than the private rented sector (80% or 3.2 million, compared to 74% or 3.4 million, respectively), Annex Table 1.3.

Most households in England with a HRP from the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland (ROI) resided in owner occupied homes (69% or 15.1 million households), and fewer resided in the rented sectors (16% were social renters or 3.6 million and 15% were private renters or 3.2 million), Annex Table 1.4.

HRPs from the European Union (excluding ROI and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)) resided predominantly within the private rented sector (53% or 631,000), compared to 14% or 170,000 within the social rented sector.

HRPs whose nationality originates from the rest of the world also mainly resided in the private rented sector (58% or 733,000 households), compared to 18% or 229,000 households within the social rented sector.

Looking within tenure groups, UK and ROI HRPs were the most common nationality among all tenure types. However, the rented sector had significantly fewer HRPs from the UK and ROI compared to owner occupiers (96%, compared to 90% of HRPs in the social rented sector, and 70% in the private rented sector). The private rented sector had the largest proportion of HRPs from outside of the UK and ROI, with 14% from the EU (excluding ROI and EFTA), and 16% from the rest of the world, Annex Table 1.5.

Sex and sexual orientation of HRP

The sex of HRPs differed between social and private renting tenants in 2022-23, with social renters being predominantly female (56%, or 2.2 million) and private renters predominantly male (55% or 2.5 million). Allocation criteria for social rented homes means those more likely to be eligible for social housing are those with lower incomes and lone parents, attributes which are more prevalent among women, Annex Table 1.6.

The sex of privately renting HRPs presented similar trends – the only age categories that differed between the sexes were among 25 to 34 year olds and 35 to 44 year olds. Those aged 25 to 34 were four percentage points more likely to be male than female (17% compared to 13%), and those aged 35 to 44 were also four percentage points more likely to be male than female (13% compared to 9%).

The most common sexual identity across the rented sector was heterosexual, with 93% of private renters (3.7 million) and 94% of social renters (3.4 million) identifying as such, Annex Table 1.7. This equates to 476,000 LGB+ HRPs within the rented sectors. LGB+ HRPs were significantly less common among owner occupiers (3%).

Religion

In 2022-23, private renters had the highest proportion of HRPs of all tenures with no religion at 45% (2.1 million), compared to 37% of social renters (1.5 million) and 38% of owner occupiers (6 million), Annex Table 1.8.

Social renting HRPs were 12 percentage points more likely to identify as Christian than private renting HRPs (52% and 40% respectively). After Christianity, the most reported religion was Islam, with 8% of private renters and 8% of social renters identifying as Muslim.

Local authority HRPs were more likely to identify as Muslim (11%), than housing association tenants (7%).

Household type

The most common household type within the rented sectors in 2022-23 was one person living alone, making up 33% of private rented households (1.5 million) and 45% of social rented households (1.8 million), Annex Table 1.9.

The second most common household type for private renters was couples with no children, followed by couples with dependent children (21% and 18%, respectively). For social renters, the second most common household type was lone parents with dependent children, followed by couples with dependent children (15% and 14%, respectively).

Lone parents were more common (for both dependent and non-dependent children) in social rented accommodation than they were within private rented households in 2022-23 (15% and 6%, compared to 11% and 3%, respectively). Conversely, private rented households accommodated more lone persons sharing with other lone persons compared to social rented households (10% compared to 2%).

Similar proportions of households with dependent children were seen across both the private and social rented sectors (30% and 31%). Households with dependent children were more common within the rented sectors than among owner occupiers (23%), Annex Table 1.10.

Economic activity and income

In 2022-23, 3 million (65%) private renters were in full-time work, compared to 1.1 million (28%) social renters, Annex Table 1.11, Figure 1.1.

Private renters were significantly more likely to be in full-time work (65%) or education (6%) than social renters (28% and 1%, respectively). Social renters were more likely to be in part-time work (14% compared to 11%), retired (27% compared to 8%), unemployed (7% compared to 3%), or otherwise economically inactive (24% compared to 8%) than private renters. Within the social rented sector, housing association tenants (29%) were more likely to be in full-time work than local authority tenants (25%).

Figure 1.1: Employment status by tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: All households
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

National Statistics Socio-economic Classification

For socio-economic groups, the English Housing Survey uses the eight-class version of the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC). See the glossary for further information.

More than half of all social renting HRPs in 2022-23 were classified under semi-routine (27%) or routine occupations (25%), while only a quarter of private renters were classified as such (13% in semi-routine and 12% in routine occupations). Social renters were also more likely to hold lower supervisory and technical occupations (10%) over private renters (8%), Annex Table 1.13, Figure 1.2.

Nearly half of all private renters were in higher or lower managerial and professional occupations (20% and 27%), while only one in five social renters were in the same occupations (4% and 15%).

Similar proportions of social and private renters were seen in both intermediate occupations and as small employers and own account workers.

Figure 1.2: NS-SEC by tenure, 2022-23

                 

^{Base: All households
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}                    

ACORN

ACORN is a segmentation tool that categorises the UK’s population into demographic types. ACORN provides a general understanding of the attributes of a neighbourhood by classifying postcodes into a category, group or type. See the glossary for further information.

The majority of social renters were considered Financially Stretched (38% or 1.5 million) or in Urban Adversity (47% or 1.9 million) according to the ACORN categorisation. Within the social rented sector, local authority tenants were more likely to be in Urban Adversity (51%) than housing association tenants (44%). This compares to fewer than half of private renters falling into the same categories (22% in Financially Stretched and 21% in Urban Adversity), Annex Table 1.14, Figure 1.3.

Private renters were more equally spread across all ACORN categories (between 21% and 22%, approximately one million households per category) except for Affluent Achievers, of which only 13% of private renters belonged to.

Figure 1.3: ACORN by tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: All households
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}    

Long-term illness and disability

In 2022-23, more than half (56%) of all social renting households had at least one member of the household with a long-term illness or disability – 2.3 million households. This compares to 1.3 million (28%) private renters, Annex Table 1.15.

Of households that did have a HRP with a disability, common disabilities related to mobility (56% of social renters, 35% of private renters), stamina (44% of social renters, 36% of private renters), and mental health (41% of social renters, 44% of private renters), Annex Table 1.16, Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Long term health conditions by tenure, 2022-23                                                         

                 

^{Base: All tenures where HRP has long term illness or disability
Notes:
1) excludes non-response cases
2) totals sum to more than 100% as respondents could select more than one answer
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Overcrowding and Under-occupation

Levels of overcrowding and under-occupation in the EHS are measured using the bedroom standard. This is the difference between the number of bedrooms needed to avoid undesirable sharing (given the number, ages and relationship of the household members) and the number of bedrooms actually available to the household. Overcrowded households are those that are one or more bedrooms below bedroom standard. An under-occupied household is two or more rooms above bedroom standard. Due to a small sample size, we aggregate three years of data for this analysis. See the glossary for further information.

Overcrowding by tenure

On average, 232,000 privately rented households (5%) and 328,000 socially rented households (8%) were classified as overcrowded. This is similar to previous years. This compares to 148,000 owner occupied households (1%) being overcrowded over the same period, Annex Table 1.17.

Households renting from a local authority were more likely to be overcrowded (10%) than those renting from a housing association (7%).

Overcrowding by tenure and region

Rented sector households in London were more likely to be overcrowded than the rest of England, with 9% of private rented households and 15% of social rented households being overcrowded in London, compared to 4% and 6% across the rest of England, respectively, Annex Table 1.18.

London also presented the greatest difference in overcrowded conditions between the tenures, with overcrowded social rented homes (15%) being six percentage points more likely to be situated in London than private rented homes (9%).

Overcrowding by tenure and dependent children

Overcrowded households within the rented sectors were more likely to house dependent children than have no children. Among private renters, 14% of households with dependent children were overcrowded, compared with 1% of households without dependent children. In the social rented sector, 22% of households with dependent children were overcrowded, compared with 1% of households without dependent children. This is approximately 197,000 households in the private rented sector housing dependent children in overcrowded conditions, and 288,000 overcrowded households with dependent children in the social rented sector. This compares to 3% (117,000 households) of owner occupiers with dependent children living in overcrowded conditions, Annex Table 1.19, Figure 1.5.

Local authority households with dependent children were also more likely to live in overcrowded conditions (29%) than housing association households (18%).

Figure 1.5: Overcrowding by tenure and dependent children, 2022-23

                        

^{Base: All tenures where HRP has long term illness or disability
Note: overcrowding data are based on three year averages, sample size shown includes three years of data
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Overcrowding by tenure and ethnicity

There were higher rates of overcrowding in rented households with an ethnic minority HRP than there were in rented households with a white HRP, Annex Table 1.21.

Within the private rented sector, overcrowding was eight percentage points higher among ethnic minority HRP households than it was in households with white HRPs (11% and 3%, respectively). Within the social rented sector, overcrowding in households with an ethnic minority HRP was 13 percentage points higher than households with a white HRP (19% and 6%, respectively).

Overcrowding by tenure and dwelling type

Across the rented sectors, there were few differences in the level of overcrowding based on dwelling type. However, in the private rented sector, flat conversions were more likely to be overcrowded than semi-detached and detached houses, Annex Table 1.22

Social renters in detached (10%), terraced (8%), semi-detached houses (7%) and purpose built flats (9%) were more likely to be in overcrowded conditions than private renters in the same types of dwellings (2%, 5%, 4% and 6%, respectively).

Under-occupation by tenure

In 2022-23, 743,000 (16%) private rented households and 391,000 (10%) social rented households were classified as under-occupied. This compares to over half of owner occupied households (55% or 8.7 million) under the same classification, Annex Table 1.23.

Under-occupation by tenure and region

Under-occupation in the private rented sector was more common than under-occupation in the social rented sector in the following regions; the North East (28% compared to 12%), Yorkshire and the Humber (23% compared to 8%), the South West (19% compared to 9%), the North West (18% compared to 12%), and the East of England (17% compared to 10%), Annex Table 1.24.

Outside of London, under-occupied private rentals were more common (18%) than within London (12%).

Under-occupation by tenure and dependent children

Private renters without dependent children were more likely than social renters without dependent children to live in under-occupied conditions (21% or 674,000 compared to 14% or 385,000) but were less likely than owner occupiers who had no dependent children (61% or 7.4 million), Annex Table 1.25.

Under-occupation by tenure and ethnicity

Owner occupied households with a white HRP were the most likely of all tenures to be under-occupied (56%), followed by private renters (17%) and social renters (11%), Annex Table 1.27.

Social rented households with a white HRP were also more likely to be under-occupied than those with an ethnic minority HRP (11% compared to 6%).

Under-occupation by tenure and dwelling type

Among social rented accommodation, detached (11%), semi-detached (16%) and terraced housing (16%) all presented similar levels of under-occupation, Annex Table 1.28.

For private rented accommodation, detached houses (39%) were the most prevalent dwelling type among under-occupied accommodation, followed by semi-detached (29%) and terraced (19%) houses. Less common under-occupied dwelling types in the private rented sector were purpose built flats (4%) and flat conversions (2%).

2.  Housing costs and affordability

This chapter provides an overview of housing costs and affordability for private and social renters. It begins with a discussion of household income by region and demographic characteristics, before moving on to housing costs, measures of affordability, receipt of housing support, ease of paying rent, arrears and presence of savings. For private renters, deposits are also examined.

Income

In 2022-23, nearly half (47%) of social renters, representing just under 1.9 million households, were in the lowest income quintile. About 823,000 (18%) private renting households and approximately 2.2 million (14%) owner occupying households were also in the first, and lowest, income quintile. A quarter (25%) of owner occupiers, 17% of private renters and 3% of social renters were in the highest income quintile, Annex Table 2.1.

Overall, owner occupiers tended to cluster towards the higher income quintiles, whereas the opposite is the case for social renters. Private renters meanwhile were more evenly spread out, with a smaller proportion in the lowest quintile (18%) than in quintiles two (23%), three (22%) or four (20%) and five (17%), Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Income quintiles by tenure, 2022-23

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

Region

By region, smaller proportions of social (40%) and private (12%) renters living in London were in the lowest income quintile than those living in the rest of England (social renters: 49%, private renters: 20%). For private renters, London also had a higher proportion (30%) in the highest income quintile, compared to those living in the rest of England (13%). There was no significant difference between the proportion of social renters living in London who were in the highest income quintile (5%) and those living in the rest of England (3%).

Receipt of housing support

Across both rented sectors, more than half (56%) of households with one or more members receiving housing support were in the lowest income quintile, with a further 27% in quintile two. Just over two in five (43%) private renters and 62% of social renters in receipt of housing support were in the lowest income quintile, compared to 10% of private renters and 25% of social renters not in receipt of housing in the lowest income quintile, Annex Table 2.2.

Economic status

Private (3%) and social renters (11%) with an HRP in full-time work were less likely to be in the lowest income quintile than those of other economic statuses, Annex Table 2.3.

Age

For both social and private renters, households with an older HRP were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile. Over a third of private renters with a HRP aged 65 to 74 (36%) and 38% of those with a HRP aged 75 or over were in the lowest income quintile. Over two-thirds (68%) of social renters with a HRP aged 75 or over were in income quintile one, Annex Table 2.4.

Dependent children

Similar proportions of private renting households with or without dependent children were in each income quintile, apart from in the highest income quintile. A greater proportion of private renters without dependent children were in the highest income quintile (18%) than private renters with dependent children (14%), Annex Table 2.5, Figure 2.2.

Over half (56%) of social renters without dependent children were in the lowest income quintile. A third (33%) of social renters with dependent children were in income quintile two, and a further 29% were in income quintile one.

Social renters with dependent children were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile (29%) than private renters with dependent children (16%), while a greater proportion of private renters with dependent children were in the highest income quintile (14%) than social renters (5%).

Figure 2.2: Income quintiles by presence of dependent children, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data presented in Annex Table 2.5
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Average weekly housing costs

Outright owners are excluded from this analysis as they have no mortgage costs. Shared owners are also excluded from this analysis. As shared owners both purchase their home in a different way to full mortgagors and rent their home in a different way to full renters, they have different housing costs which affect the overall mean and median mortgage and rent payments.

Private renters had higher weekly housing costs (mean: £231, median: £196) than any other tenure. Social renters spent the least on housing per week (mean: £111, median: £102). Mortgagors were between the two renting tenures, spending more than social renters but less than private renters, with a mean weekly cost of £208 (median: £173), Annex Table 2.6.

Housing association renters paid more on average (mean: £117, median: £106) per week than local authority renters (mean: £102, median: £95).

Age

As age increased, the amount private renters paid per week for housing generally decreased, from a mean of £257 per week (median: £211) for those aged 16 to 24 to £163 per week (median: £138) for those aged 75 or over.

This was broadly the case for social renters too, with mean costs of £116 (median: £100) for those aged 16 to 24 decreasing to £100 (median: £96) for those aged 65 to 74.

Economic status

Private renters in full-time work paid a similar amount on average per week (mean: £245, median: £208) as private renters in full-time education (mean: £268, median: £231). Private renters in full-time work and those in full-time education paid more on average per week than those in part-time work (mean: £216, median: £180).

Social renters in full-time work paid a similar amount on average per week (mean: £118, median: £111) as those in part-time work (mean: £124, median: £111).

Region

Private (mean: £356, median: £329) and social renters (mean: £140, median: £129) living in London paid more on average per week than those in any other region. Private renters in London spent more per week on rent than social renters in London. Additionally, private renters in London spent over twice as much on rent as private renters in the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the East and West Midlands, where average weekly rental costs ranged from £133 to £170, Figures 2.3 and 2.4.

Figure 2.3: Mean weekly rent costs, by region, 2022-23

^{Base: all private and social renters paying rent
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.6
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Private (mean: £133, median: £121) and social (mean: £90, median: £87) renters living in the North East of England had the lowest average rent costs per week – within both tenures, this was less than any other region.

Income

As household income increased, so too did the average spend on housing costs. The average weekly rent for private renters increased from £174 per week (median: £144) in the lowest income quintile to £345 per week (median: £312) for those in the highest income quintile.

A similar pattern appears for social renters, where average weekly rent increased from £104 (median: £96) for those in the lowest income quintile to £128 (median: £118) in the highest income quintile.

Receipt of housing support

Private and social renters in receipt of housing support paid less on average per week for their housing than those who were not in receipt of housing support.

For social renters in receipt of housing support this was a mean of £110 per week (median: £100) compared to a mean of £114 per week (median: £105) for those not in receipt of housing support. Private renters in receipt of housing support meanwhile paid a mean of £192 per week (median: £167), compared to a mean of £245 per week (median: £208) for those not in receipt of housing support.

Dependent children

Similar mean weekly rents were observed for private renters with dependent children (mean: £239; median: £212) as those without dependent children (mean: £228, median: £185). This similarity was not seen for social renters, where those with dependent children (mean: £120; median: £110) paid more rent on average per week than social renters without dependent children (mean: £107; median: £100).

Proportion of income spent on housing

For this report, we have used the mean proportion of household income spent on housing costs. This provides a measure of all the income a household has available and so assumes that all household members contribute to the rent or mortgage.

Housing support made a significant difference to the average proportion of income spent on housing costs for both rented sectors. On average (mean), private renters spent 32% of their income on rent when housing support was included in their household income, compared to 37% when it was excluded. Similarly for social renters, when housing support was included, they spent an average of 26% of their income on rent, compared to 34% when housing support was excluded, Annex Table 2.7 and 2.8.

The rest of this section focuses on the mean proportion of household income, including housing support, spent on rent as this best represents the total income available to renters.

Age

On average, private renters aged 16 to 24 spent nearly half (46%) their income on rent when housing support was included. This is a greater proportion than any other age group of private renters. For social renters, both those aged 75 or over and those aged 16-24, spent the largest average proportion of their income on rent (29%) than the other age groups, Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Mean proportion of income spent on rent, by age, 2022-23

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

Economic status

Private renters in full-time work spent an average of 26% of their income on their rent, the lowest proportion of income spent. Those in part-time work spent 38% of their income on their housing costs. Private renters in full-time education spent an average of 70% of their income on rent, a greater proportion than any other economic group.

Social renters in full-time work spent a mean proportion of their income on rent of 18%, a lower proportion than those in part-time work spent (28%). Social renters who were unemployed spent a higher proportion of their income on rent (37%) than the other economic groups.

Region

Private renters in London spent an average of 42% of their income on rent, a higher proportion than any other region. The other regions ranged from an average of 26% of their income on rent in the North East, to 30% of their income on rent in the North West, the East, the South East and the South West of England.

Social renters living in London (30%) and the South East (29%) spent a similar proportion of their income on rent. Aside from these two regions, social renters ranged from spending 23% of their income on rent in the South West to 26% in the West Midlands.

Income

For both private and social renters the average proportion of income spent on rent decreased as income quintile increased.

Receipt of housing support

Private and social renters in receipt of housing support spent a larger proportion of their income on rent (private renters: 36%, social renters: 29%) than private or social renters not in receipt of housing support (private renters: 31%, social renters: 23%).

Dependent children

Across the private and social rented sectors, households with dependent children spent a lower average proportion of their income on rent than households without dependent children (private renters with dependent children: 30%; private renters without dependent children: 33% social renters with dependent children: 22%; social renters without dependent children: 28%).

This was also the case within the social rented sector, where local authority renters with dependent children present in the household spending an average of 21% of their income on rent and housing association renters an average of 23%, compared to 27% for local authority and 29% for housing association renters without dependent children.

40/30 ratio of housing affordability

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

Just under three-quarters (72%) of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles spent 30% or more of their income on rent. This represents approximately 1.2 million private renting households across England with low incomes and high housing costs. This was a higher proportion than other tenures. Just over a third of mortgagors (34%) and less than half of social renters (45%) in the lowest two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on housing, Annex Table 2.9.

Region

There was regional variation in affordability across the two rented sectors. Nearly all (94%) private renters living in London who were in the lowest two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on rent, compared to more than the two-thirds (68%) of private renters living elsewhere in England, Figure 2.5.

For private renters, the regions with the lowest proportion of household with low incomes and high housing costs were the West Midlands (48%) and the North East (49%). Regardless, nearly half of lower income private renters in these regions spent more than 30% of their income on rent.

Just under two-thirds (64%) of social renters living in London who were in the lowest two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on rent. This was a greater proportion than the 41% of social renters living elsewhere in England. A similar proportion of social renters living in London as those who were living in the South East (60%) spent more than 30% of their income on rent.

Figure 2.5: 40/30 ratio, by region, 2022-23

^{Base: households in the lowest two income quintiles spending 30% or more of their income on rent
Notes: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.9
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Age

A larger proportion of private renting households with youngest (16 to 24: 84%) and second oldest (65 to 74: 81%) HRPs spent more than 30% of their income on rent, compared to private renters aged 35 to 44 (67%), those aged 45 to 64 (67%) and those aged 75 or over (54%). Statistically similar proportions of those aged 25 to 34 (76%) as those aged 16 to 24 and 65 to 74 spent more than 30% of their income on rent.

Similar proportions of social renters in each age group spent more than 30% of their income on rent.

Economic status

A higher proportion of private renters who were in part-time work (81%), than those in full-time work (61%) and who were in the two lowest income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on rent. Two-thirds (69%) of retired private renters in the lowest income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on rent, while 89% of private renters who were in full time education and 87% of those who were unemployed in the bottom two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on rent.

Social renters who were in full-time work had the lowest proportion of households in the bottom two income quintiles paying more than 30% of their income on rent (26%). Similar proportions of social renters in part-time work (47%), who were retired (45%), who were in full-time education (47%) and who were classified as otherwise economically inactive (49%) spent more than 30% of their income on rent. Two-thirds (67%) of social renting households where the HRP was unemployed spent more than 30% of their income on rent, Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: 40/30 ratio, by economic status, 2022-23

^{Base: households in the lowest two income quintiles spending 30% or more of their income on rent
Notes: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.9
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Receipt of housing support

For both private and social renters, housing support made no statistically significant difference to the proportion of those in the lowest two income quintiles who spent more than 30% of their income on rent.

Receipt of housing support

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

Overall, about 1.1 million private and 2.4 million social renting households were in receipt of housing support. Just under one in four (24%) private renters reported receiving housing support, a lower proportion than the 59% of social renters in receipt of housing support, Annex Table 2.10.

Region

A lower proportion of private renters living in London were in receipt of housing support (17%) than in the rest of England combined (26%). However, similar proportions of private renters living in the South West (19%), East (22%), South East (23%) and East Midlands (25%) as those living in London were in receipt of housing support. More private renters living in the North East (29%), North West (29%), Yorkshire and the Humber (29%), and the West Midlands (36%) than those living in London were in receipt of housing support.

Generally, similar proportions of social renters in London were in receipt of housing support (56%) as in the rest of England (60%). Nevertheless, there were some regional differences with the proportion in receipt of housing support ranging from 55% in the East of England to 64% in both the North West and East Midlands.

Age

Private renters with a HRP aged 16 to 24 had the lowest proportion of households in receipt of housing support (12%). For private renters, rates of housing support varied from 12% for those aged 16 to 24 to 29% for those aged 45 to 64.

A higher proportion of social renters aged 25 to 34 were in receipt of housing support (69%) than the other age groups, apart from those aged 16 to 24 (59%) where the difference was not significant.

Income

Those in higher income quintiles were less likely to receive housing support. For private renters, the proportion decreases from 58% of households receiving housing support in the lowest income quintile to 3% in the highest income quintile. For social renters, it decreases from 78% in the lowest income quintile to 5% in the highest quintile, Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Receives housing support, by income quintiles, 2022-23

^{Base: all renters in receipt of housing support
Notes: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.10
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Economic status

Just over three-quarters (77%) of private renters who were classified as otherwise economically inactive, 70% of unemployed private renters, 48% of private renters in part-time work and 31% of those who were retired received housing support. Private renters in full-time work or full-time education (both 12%) had the lowest proportion in receipt of housing support. Those in full-time work will be less likely to need or qualify for housing support, while most full-time students will not be eligible.

Nine in ten (90%) social renters classified as otherwise economically inactive were in receipt of housing support, a greater proportion than the 82% of unemployed social renters in receipt of housing support. Similar proportions of social renters who were working part-time or retired were in receipt of housing support (both 64%). Unlike private renters, social renters in full-time work (22%) or full-time education (49%) did not have similar proportions in receipt of housing support.

Household type

For both private (80%) and social (87%) renters, lone parents with dependent children were the most likely household type to be in receipt of housing support. For private renters, prevalence of housing support receipt ranged from 80% of lone parents with dependent children to 3% for lone persons sharing with other lone persons. For social renters, prevalence based on household type ranged from 87% for lone parents with dependent children, to 33% for households composed of two or more families.

Dependent children

Just under half (48%) of private and 66% of social renting households with dependent children were in receipt of housing support, higher proportions than the 14% of private and 57% of social renting households without dependent children receiving housing support, Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Receives housing support, by precense of dependent children, 2022-23

^{Base: all renters in receipt of housing support
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.10
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Ease of paying rent

The majority of private (71%) and social (73%) renters reported finding it easy to pay their rent. Social renters were more likely to find it very easy to pay their rent (29%) than private renters (20%), Annex Table 2.11.

Approximately 1.2 million (29%) private renting households reported finding it difficult to pay their rent. A further 852,000 (27%) social renting households reported finding it difficult to pay their rent.

Region

Private (62%) and social (68%) renters living in London were less likely to report finding it easy to pay their rent than those living in the rest of England (both tenures: 74%).

Income

Across the rented sectors, those in higher income quintiles were more likely to report it was easy to pay their rent.

Economic status

Similar proportions of private (76%) and social renters (78%) in full-time work found it easy to pay their rent. For both private and social renters, this was a greater proportion than those in part-time work (private: 55%, social: 67%), who were unemployed (private: 55%, social: 61%) or who were classified as otherwise economically inactive (private: 64%, social: 66%). Similar proportions of private renters who were in part-time work as who were unemployed found it easy to pay their rent.

Receipt of housing support

A lower proportion of both private (55%) and social (69%) renters in receipt of housing support said it was easy to pay rent, compared to 76% of private renters and 77% of social renters not in receipt of housing support.

Dependent children

In both the private and social rented sectors, households with dependent children were less likely to report it was easy to pay rent. Three-quarters of private (76%) and social renters (75%) without dependent children said it was easy to pay rent, compared to 61% of private renters and 70% of social renters with dependent children.

Arrears

The majority of both private (95%) and social (85%) renters were not currently in arrears at the time of interview, nor had they been in the past year. Approximately 74,000 (2%) private renting and 338,000 (9%) social renting households were currently in arrears at the time of interview, and a further 154,000 (4%) private renters and 255,000 (6%) social renting households were not currently but had been in arrears in the last 12 months. A greater proportion of social (9%) than private renters (2%) were currently in arrears. Additionally, a greater proportion of social (6%) than private renters (4%) had been in arrears within the last year, Annex Table 2.12.

Region

For social renters, the proportion of those previously or currently in arrears varied by region from 11% in the East Midlands to 21% in the North East. For private renters, the proportion who were previously or currently in arrears ranged from 9% in Yorkshire and the Humber to 3% in both the West Midlands and the North West.

Age

A greater proportion of social renters aged 16 to 24 (23%) were previously or currently in arrears than those aged 75 or over (2%).

Income

Private renters in the lowest income quintile were more likely to have been previously or to be currently in arrears than those in the highest income quintile, with the proportion decreasing from 11% of those in income quintile one to 2% of those in quintile five. Similar proportions of social renters regardless of income were previously or currently in arrears.

Economic status

A greater proportion of retired private renters (100%) than those in full-time work (96%) were not in arrears. This was also the case for social renters, where 94% of those who were retired were not in arrears, compared to 85% of those in full-time work.

For both private and social renters, those in full-time work (private: 4%, social: 15%) were less likely to have been previously or be currently in arrears than those in part-time work (private: 10%, social: 24%). Similar proportions of social renters in part-time work as those who were unemployed (28%) were previously or currently in arrears.

Receipt of housing support

Across both rented sectors, those in receipt of housing support (private: 11%, social: 17%) were more likely to report being previously or currently in arrears than those who did not receive housing support (private: 3%, social: 13%).

Dependent children

A greater proportion of private renters with dependent children in the household (8%, 117,000 households) reported being previously or currently in arrears than those without dependent children (4%, 112,000 households). This was also the case for social renters, with 22% of households containing dependent children previously or currently being in arrears (275,000 households), compared to 12% of households without dependent children (318,000 households). There were about 145,000 (12%) social rented households containing dependent children currently in arrears, and an additional 130,000 (11%) who had been in arrears in the last 12 months.

Ethnicity

For social renters, similar proportions of households with a white HRP as those with an ethnic minority HRP were currently or had been previously in arrears in the last year (white HRP: 15%, ethnic minority HRP: 16%). This was not the case within the private rented sector, where households with ethnic minority HRPs were more likely to report being either previously or currently in arrears (8%) than those with white HRPs (4%).

Method of payment for gas and electricity

Direct debit was the most common method of payment for energy within the private rented sector, with over half (57%) of private renters using direct debit to pay for their mains gas and just over two-thirds (69%) using it to pay for their electricity. This was also the case for social renters, with 44% using direct debit to pay for their mains gas and just over half (51%) using this to pay for their electricity. Private renters were more likely than social renters to use direct debit to pay for their mains gas or electricity. Meanwhile, private renters were less likely to use a pre-payment method than social renters to pay for their utilities (private renters, gas: 11%, private renters, electricity: 13%, social renters, gas: 31%, social renters, electricity: 35%), Annex Tables 2.13 and 2.14.

Ease of paying rent

For private renters, direct debit was the most common method of payment for gas or electricity regardless of whether people found it easy or difficult to keep up with rent payments. Statistically similar proportions of social renters who found it very difficult to pay their rent used a pre-payment method (gas: 41%, electricity: 48%) as used direct debit (gas: 29%, electricity: 34%).

Arrears

Nearly half (47%) of social renters who were currently in rent arrears paid for their gas with a pre-payment method, a similar proportion (42%) of social renters who had been in arrears in the last year paid via pre-payment. These were both higher proportions than the 28% of social renters not in rent arrears who used a pre-payment method for their gas, Annex Tables 2.15 and 2.16.

Greater proportions of private renters who were currently in rent arrears (gas: 26%, electricity: 27%) or who had been in arrears in the past year (gas: 34%, electricity: 39%) paid for their energy through a pre-payment method than those who had not been in arrears (gas: 9%, electricity: 12%).

Savings

Overall, more owner occupiers (79%) had savings than both private renters (54%) and social renters (27%), while more private renters than social renters had savings. A greater proportion of housing association (28%) than local authority renters (25%) had savings, Annex Table 2.17.

Region

A higher proportion of private renters living in London (59%) than those living in the rest of England combined (52%) had savings. This was not the case for social renters, where similar proportions of those living in London (25%) as in the rest of England (27%) had savings.

Economic status

Private renters in full-time work (62%) or those who were retired (64%) were more likely to have savings than those in part-time work (30%) those who were unemployed (18%) or who were otherwise economically inactive (22%). Social renters who were retired reported the highest prevalence of savings at 44%, more than those in full-time work (32%), those in part-time work (19%), those who were unemployed (9%) or who were otherwise economically inactive (11%).

Receipt of housing support

For both private and social renters, a lower proportion of households in receipt of housing support had savings. Just under one in five private and social renters (both 18%) who received housing support had savings, compared to 65% of private renters and 40% of social renters who did not receive housing support.

Household type

Just under a quarter (24%) of private renters who were lone parents with dependent children had savings. This was a lower proportion than any other private renting household type. Social renters who were lone parents with dependent children (14%) were less likely to have savings than private renters who were lone parents with dependent children.

Ethnicity

A greater proportion of private renting households where the HRP was white (55%) had savings than those where the HRP was from an ethnic minority (49%). This was also the case for the social rented sector overall, with 28% of those with a white HRP having savings compared to 22% of households with an ethnic minority HRP.

Presence of lodgers and casual sub-lettings

Across all tenures, fewer than 1% of households had a lodger present within the home. Fewer than 1% of social renters (approximately 26,000 households) and 1% of private renters (about 53,000 households) had lodgers, Annex Table 2.18.

Overall, about 1.3 million (5%) households in England reported sub-letting their home on a casual basis. More social (6%) than private renters (4%) had sublet their property on a casual basis, Annex Table 2.19.

3.  Housing history and future housing aspirations

This chapter provides an overview of housing history and future housing aspirations for private and social renters in 2022-23. It begins with a discussion of current accommodation and tenure before exploring reasons for considering moving, reasons for moving, tenancies and waiting lists. Finally, renters’ experience with homelessness and tenancy refusal are discussed.

In 2022-23, approximately 1.9 million households had moved home in the previous 12 months. The majority of household moves occurred within, into or out of private rented dwellings.  In total, 676,000 households moved within the tenure (from one privately rented home to another) and 192,000 new households moved into the private rented sector, English Housing Survey 2022-23 Headline Report Annex Table 3.7.

There was less movement in the social rented. In 2022-23, there were 125,000 households that moved from one social rented property to another, 32,000 new households, and 60,000 privately renting households moved into the sector.

Length of residence in current home

The average length of residence among private renters was significantly less than those in the social rented sector. On average, private renters spent a shorter length of time in their current home (4 years) compared to both social renters (12 years) and owner occupiers (17 years), Annex Table 3.1.

Among all private renters, the most common length of residence was less than 1 year (22%), which was higher than the proportion of social renters (6%) and owner occupiers (4%). Social renters most frequently cited they had lived in their current home for between 10 to 19 years (25%), Annex Table 3.2.

Age

In both the private and social rented sectors, younger groups of renters were generally more likely to have lived in their current home for a shorter length of time. More than half (53%) of private renters in the youngest age group (aged 16 to 24) said they had lived in their current home for less than 1 year, and 25% of HRPs aged 16 to 24 in the social rented sector had been in their current home for less than 1 year.

Among older social renters aged 65 to 74, 10 to 19 years was the most common length of residence in their current home (28%). For social renters in the oldest group (aged 75 and over) it was 30 years or more (27%).

For private renters aged 65 to 74, 5 to 9 years was the most common length of residence in their current home (24%). Among private renters in the oldest group (aged 75 and over) it was 10 to 19 years (21%).

While those 75 or older were more likely to have lived in their accommodation for a longer period of time, there was still a significant proportion of private renters in the oldest age group who had lived in their home for less than a year – 13%. This is higher than the proportion of the oldest social renters who lived in their home for less than a year (3%) and owner occupiers 75 and older who were resident for less than a year (fewer than 1%).

Dependent children 

In the social rented sector, renters with dependent children tended to have been resident for a longer period than private renters with dependent children.

Among social renters with dependent children, the most common length of residency was between 5 and 10 years (31%), which was higher than the proportion of social renters without dependent children living in their residence for the same length of time (19%).  Social renters without dependent children were mostly likely to have lived in their current residence for between 10 and 20 years (26%), Annex Table 3.3.

For private renters with and without dependent children, the most common length of residency was between 1 and 3 years (29% for renters with dependent children, 30% for renters without dependent children).

Length of time in rented sector

Within the social rented sector, it was common for households to have rented from a council or housing association for long periods of time. More than half of these renters (61%, approximately 2.4 million households) said that they had been renting from a council or housing association for 10 years or more. This was greater than the proportion of renters in the private rented sector (30%, approximately 1.4 million households). Social renters were more likely to report that they had been renting a social rented home for between 3 and 10 years (23%) compared to fewer than 3 years (15%). Private renters most commonly said that they had been renting a private rented home for between 3 and 10 years (39%), Annex Table 3.5.

Reasons for moving

Tenure

Both private and social renters who had lived in their current residence for fewer than three years were asked the reason they moved. Respondents could select multiple answers. Within the social rented sector, the most common reasons for moving were for ‘some other reason’ (21%) followed by because they ‘wanted a larger house/flat’ (18%), ‘other family/personal reasons’ (17%), and that the ‘previous accommodation [was] unsuitable’ (16%).  Private renters and owner occupiers were less likely to cite that the ‘previous accommodation [was] unsuitable’ as a reason for moving (7% and 6%, respectively), Annex Table 3.10, Figure 3.1.

For private renters, ‘job related reasons’ (22%) was cited as the most common reason for moving. This was higher than the proportion of owner occupiers (7%) and social renters (5%). The next most common reasons were because they ‘wanted a larger house/flat’ (21%) and to live in a ‘better neighbourhood/area’ (15%). Private renters (15%) and social renters (13%) however were less likely to report moving to have a ‘better neighbourhood/area’ compared to owner occupiers (26%).

Figure 3.1: Reasons for moving, by tenure, 2022-2023

^{Base: all households resident less than three years
Notes:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.10
2) totals less than sum of responses as respondent could give more than one response
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Dependent children

Respondents who had moved in the past three years were asked to report the reason(s) they had moved. Among social renters with dependent children, the most common reason cited for moving was because they ‘wanted a larger house/flat’ (33%), which was higher than the proportion of those without dependent children (9%). Similarly, private renters with dependent children most frequently reported their reason for moving was to have ‘a larger house/flat’ (34%) compared to those without dependent children (16%). The most common reason cited by private renters without dependent children was ‘job related reasons’ (24%), Annex Table 3.11.

Other less common reasons given by social renters with dependent children included ‘previous accommodation unsuitable’ (20%) followed by ‘other family/personal reasons’ (19%). These reasons were less frequently cited by owner occupiers with dependent children (6%, 9%, respectively).

End of tenancy

In 2022-23, most private renters (63%, 424,000 households) who had moved in the last 12 months cited they had decided to end their tenancy because they wanted to move, Annex Table 3.12.

Other less common reasons given by private renters included, that the tenancy was for a fixed period (19%), the tenancy ended by mutual agreement (10%), or were asked to leave by their landlord or agent (9%). A minority chose to end their last tenancy due to rent increases (2%), accommodation that was linked to a job that had ended (2%) or had a poor relationship with the landlord (1%).

Much like the private rented sector, the most common reason for tenancies ending in the social rented sector was because they wanted to move (63%, 38,000 households). However, more than one quarter of social renters (28%, 17,000 households) reported that their last tenancy ended because they were asked to leave by the landlord/agent. This was higher than the proportion of private renters asked to leave by the landlord/agent (9%, 61,000 households), though given that private renters move more frequently than social renters, the scale of evictions is larger in the private rented sector.

Waiting lists

Overall, 9% of social renters (373,000 households) reported someone in their household was on the waiting list for social housing. This was higher than the proportion of private renters (6%, 280,000 households) and owner occupied (<1%, 60,000 households) households who reported someone in their home on the waitlist, Annex Table 3.13, Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Proportion of households with someone on the waiting list, by tenure, 2022-2023

^{Base: all households
Notes: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.13
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Length of time

In 2022-23, among those households with someone on a social housing waiting list, 11% of social renters (42,000 households) and 9% of private renters (25,000 households) reported they had been on the council housing and/or housing association waiting list for fewer than 3 months, Annex Table 3.14.

Approximately 14% of households in the private rented sector (40,000 households) and 7% (28,000 households) in the social rented sector said they had been on the waiting list for more than 10 years.

Tenancy type within the private rented sector

Among those in the private rented sector, the most common type of tenancy agreement was an assured shorthold tenancy, accounting for 69% of tenancies, Annex Table 3.15.

For private renters with assured shorthold tenancies who have been in their current property for less than three years, the most common length of the initial tenancy agreement was 12 months (62%), followed by 6 months (23%). Longer 18-month tenancies were relatively uncommon, accounting for 2% of these assured shorthold tenancies, Annex Table 3.16.

Notice periods within the private rented sector

Within the private rented sector, the most frequently reported notice period was for 2 months (45%) followed by a notice period of less than 2 months and more than 2 months (both 22%). Just over one in ten (11%) had no notice period, Annex Table 3.17.

The majority of respondents with a notice period of 2 months or less expressed concern over having enough time to find a new place to live. Of those with a 2 month notice period, half (50%) indicated this was possibly too short to find a new place to live with a further 16% indicating this was definitely too short. Among those with a notice period of less than two months, the equivalent figures were 42% (possibly too short) and 25% (definitely too short). Annex Table 3.18.  

Renters with more than 2 months’ notice were less likely to think that this period was possibly too short to find a new place to live (27%) or definitely too short (12%).

Approximately 11% of private renters reported that they had no notice period, although nearly three-quarters (74%) of this group felt that this gave them enough time to move.

Homelessness

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

Within the social rented sector, 8% of renters (around 319,000 households) said they experienced homelessness in the past few years. This was higher than the proportion of private renters (4%, around 193,000 households) and owner occupiers (<1%, around 41,000 households), Annex Table 3.19, Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Experience of homelessness in past few years by tenure, two-years analysis, 2021-23

^{Base: all households
Notes: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.19
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Contacted the council

The majority of private renters (69%, approximately 133,000 households) and social renters (93%, approximately 296,000 households) who experienced homelessness in the last few years contacted the council for help, but significantly more social renters did so, Annex Table 3.20.

Hosted someone homeless

Overall, 3% of private renters (122,000 households) and 3% of social renters (120,000 households) hosted someone homeless in the past 12 months. This proportion was higher than owner occupiers (2%, 279,000 households), Annex Table 3.21.

Sex of homeless person

As in previous years, private renters and social renters were statistically just as likely to host a male homeless person (59% of private renters, 58% of social renters) as they were to host a female homeless person (41% of private renters, 42% of social renters), Annex Table 3.22.

Age of homeless person

Private renters were most likely to have hosted a homeless person between the age of 25 to 34 years (around 47%, 57,000 households) in the past 12 months, which was higher than the proportion of those aged 16 to 24 years (21%), 35 to 54 years (27%) and 55 to 64 years (4%), Annex Table 3.23.

Similar to private renters, social renters were also more likely to have hosted a homeless person between the ages of 25 and 34 years (34%, 40,000 households) in the past 12 months than older homeless persons, aged 55 to 64 (4%, 5,000 households).

Tenancy refusal within the private rented sector

Household type

Overall, 6% of private renters with dependent children (83,000 households) reported that they had been refused a tenancy in the last 12 months because of children in the home, Annex Table 3.24.

Among these renters, couples with dependent children were more likely to cite that they had experienced tenancy refusal (8%) than lone parents with dependent children (2%).

Pets

Within the private rented sector, 407,000 households (9%) said they experienced tenancy refusal in the last 12 months because of their pet(s), Annex Table 3.25.

Receipt of benefit

Within the private rented sector, 9% of renters in receipt of housing support said they had been refused a tenancy in the last 12 months because they were in receipt of housing support (around 99,00 households). 

Deposits within the private rented sector

Current private renters were asked whether they had paid a deposit when they first moved in. Just under 3.5 million privately renting households paid a deposit when they started their current tenancy, representing just over three-quarters (77%) of all private renters, Annex Table 3.27.

The majority (81%) of private renters who paid a deposit reported it was protected under one of the government’s authorised tenancy deposit protection schemes, although 194,000 (6%) private renting households reported their deposit was not protected. A further 467,000 (13%) households did not know whether their deposit was protected, Annex Table 3.28.

Just under half (48%) of private renters who paid a deposit paid the equivalent of four weeks or one calendar months their usual rent. Smaller proportions reported paying between five and six weeks (17%) and six weeks or more (22%) than their usual rent for their deposit, Annex Table 3.29.

Private renters were also asked if they had been asked to provide a guarantor for their tenancy. Roughly 940,000 privately renting households had been asked to provide a guarantor when they moved into their current property. This represents one-fifth (21%) of private renters, Annex Table 3.30.

About 1.8 million privately renting households paid rent in advance either in addition to, or instead of, a deposit. This represents just under two in five (39%) private renters. Those who said they paid rent in advance were asked how much rent they had paid as a proportion of their usual monthly rent. The majority (78%) paid one month or less in advance, with smaller proportions reporting they paid more than one and up to two months rent (7%), more than three and up to four months rent (4%) or more than four months rent (12%) in advance, Annex Tables 3.31 and 3.32.

Private renters were asked if they were charged a letting agency fee. Around 830,000 privately renting households reported paying a landlord or agency fee when entering their current tenancy. This represents just under one in five (19%) private renters, Annex Table 3.33.

4. Dwelling condition, energy efficiency and local area

This chapter describes the quality of rented homes in 2021-23 using housing quality indicators: the Decent Homes Standard; Category 1 Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) hazards; presence of damp; safety from fire including working smoke alarms and energy efficiency. It estimates the potential costs to raise minimum energy efficiency standards to at least energy efficiency rating (EER) band C. The chapter also reports on access to open space (private or shared plots for the home).

Dwelling type and age

Dwelling type

Across all tenures, the majority of dwellings were houses or bungalows (79%) as opposed to flats (21%), Annex Table 4.1.

Most owner occupied dwellings were houses or bungalows (91%). Within the rented sectors, the proportion of houses and bungalows was lower, accounting for 60% of housing stock in the private rented sector and 56% in the social rented sector. Flats made up 40% of private rented dwellings and 44% of social rented dwellings.

Region

In most regions the profile of dwelling type for rented dwellings was broadly similar, with the majority of rented dwellings being houses or bungalows. For private rented dwellings this ranged from 61% in the South West to 82% in the West Midlands. For social rented dwellings the picture was similar, ranging from 60% in South West to 74% in the North East, Annex Table 4.2.

However, two regions had a different profile for rented dwellings. In the South East, around half of private rented and social rented dwellings (both 52%) were houses or bungalows. In London, the majority of private rented (70%) and social rented (72%) dwellings were flats. Rented flats in London accounted for a considerable proportion of rented flats in England: just over a third of all private rented flats (approximately 773,000) were in London; just under a third of all social rented flats (approximately 570,000) were also in London.

Age of HRP

Houses and bungalows comprised the main rented dwelling type for all households in both rented sectors for households with HRPs aged 35 and over, Annex Table 4.3.

Social rented households with HRPs aged 16 to 24 were more likely to live in a flat (76%) than a house or bungalow (24%). Social renters renting from local authorities aged 25 to 34 were also more likely to live in a flat (58%) than a house or bungalow (42%). There was no significant difference between dwelling types for private renters with HRPs aged between 16 and 34, or for all social renters (regardless of landlord) with HRPs aged 25 to 34.

Households with an older HRP aged 65 to 74 living in social rented accommodation were more likely to live in a flat (44%) than those of the same age group in private rented accommodation (29%) although there was no statistically significant difference for HRPs aged 75 and older.

Dwelling age

Private rented stock tended to be older than that of other tenures. Almost a third (31%, 1.5 million) of private rented dwellings were constructed before 1919 compared with 20% (3.3 million) of owner occupied and 7% (282,000) of social rented dwellings, Annex Table 4.4.

Dwelling age within the social rented sector varied. Local authority dwellings were typically older than housing association dwellings. The majority of local authority dwellings were constructed between 1945 and 1964 (39% of local authority, compared with 25% of housing association) or between 1965 and 1980 (31%, compared with 19% of housing association). Housing associations had the highest proportion of new dwellings, with 32% (814,000) of housing association stock constructed after 1990, compared with 5% (82,000) of local authority stock.

Presence of plot

A plot is defined as the land immediately surrounding the dwelling to which the dwelling has exclusive (private plot) or shared access. The plot may consist of hard landscaping, soft landscaping or a combination.

The majority of dwellings had access to a private or shared plot. The proportion of dwellings with access to a private plot was lower for private rented (66%) and social rented (64%) dwellings than for owner occupied dwellings (93%), although renters’ access to a shared plot was higher (6% of owner occupied, compared with 26% of private rented and 31% of social rented dwellings). The proportion of dwellings with no access to a private or shared plot was highest among rented dwellings: 8% of private rented dwellings had no access to a private or shared plot, followed by social rented dwellings (5%), and then owner occupied (1%), Annex Table 4.5.

Region

Rented dwellings in London had a higher proportion of dwellings with no access to a private or shared plot than other regions, which is likely to reflect the high proportion of flats in London. In the private rented sector, 19% of dwellings in London did not have access to a private or shared plot compared with 5% in the rest of England. In the social rented sector, 13% of dwellings in London had no plot compared with 3% in the rest of England.

Having access to only a shared plot was also more common among rented dwellings in London than those elsewhere: 39% of private rented dwellings in London had access to a shared plot only compared with 22% in the rest of England, and 42% of social rented dwellings had access to a shared plot only, compared with 29% in the rest of England. 

Household type

Private rented households most likely to have no access to a plot were couples without dependent children (11%) and one-person households (male: 11%, female: 9%), Annex Table 4.6.

The majority of private rented households with dependent children had access to a private plot (80% of couples with dependent children and 83% of lone parents) or a shared plot (16% of couples with dependent children and 13% of lone parents). However, in the private rented sector, 4% of couples with dependent children (41,000 households) and a further 3% of lone parents with dependent children (18,000 households) had no access to a plot.

Similarly, the majority of social rented households with dependent children had access to a private plot (76% of couples with dependent children, and 75% of lone parents) or shared plot (20% of couples with dependent children, and 21% of lone parents). In the social rented sector, 4% of couples with dependent children (22,000 households) and 4% of lone parents with dependent children (27,000 households) had no access to a plot.

Decent homes and hazards

The Decent Homes Standard (DHS)

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

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

Non-decent homes were most prevalent in the private rented sector, where 21% (just over 1 million homes) were non-decent. Private rented dwellings were more likely to be non-decent than owner occupied (14%, 2.2 million) and social rented (10%, 431,000) dwellings, Annex Table 4.7.

Household characteristics

Overall, private rented households were generally more likely than comparable households in the social rented sector to live in non-decent homes in all age groups, in households with and without dependent children, among those who received housing support and those who did not and in most ethnic groups. Within the social rented sector there was relatively little variation in rates of non-decent homes by household characteristics, Annex Table 4.8.

Region

Among private rented dwellings, the highest rates of non-decent homes were in the North West, where 32% (181,000) were classed as non-decent. Rates of non-decent homes were higher here than in the North East (16%, 36,000), East of England (19%, 91,000), London (12%, 137,000) and the South East (18%, 130,000). The East Midlands (29%, 108,000), West Midlands (25%, 114,000) and Yorkshire and the Humber (25%, 118,000) also had higher rates of non-decent dwellings than London (12%, 137,000) which had the lowest proportion of non-decent private rented dwellings. Annex Table 4.7, Figure 4.1.

The proportion of non-decent social rented dwellings ranged from 6% (34,000) in the South East to 14% (47,000) in the East Midlands and was lower than non-decent private rented dwellings in all regions except London and the North East where no significant difference was observed.

Figure 4.1. Proportion and number of non-decent homes, by region and tenure, 2022

^{Base: all dwellings
Note: Underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.7
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

Long-term illness or disability

Within the private rented sector, households where a member of the household had a long-term illness or disability were more likely to live in non-decent home (26%) than those without (19%), Annex Table 4.8.

Housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS)

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

Overall, 8% of dwellings in England, around 2.1 million dwellings, were categorised as having a Category 1 hazard, Annex Table 4.7.

Prevalence varied across tenure, with private rented dwellings most likely to have a Category 1 hazard (12%, 579,000 dwellings) while social rented dwellings were least likely (4%,167,000 dwellings). Within the social rented sector, Category 1 hazards were more prevalent in local authority (5%, 81,000 dwellings) than housing association (3%, 86,000 dwellings) homes.

Region

At a regional level, the prevalence of Category 1 hazards in private rented dwellings ranged from 5% (11,000 dwellings) in the North East to 21% (116,000 dwellings) in the North West. Yorkshire and the Humber (20%, 91,000 dwellings) and the West Midlands (19%, 86,000 dwellings) also had higher rates of Category 1 hazards than most other regions. In social rented dwellings, prevalence of Category 1 hazards ranged from 2% in the South East to 8% in the East Midlands.

Dependent children

Social rented households with dependent children (6%) were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard than those without dependent children (3%). This difference is likely to be driven by local authority housing where 10% of households with dependent children lived in a dwelling with a Category 1 hazard compared with 3% of those without dependent children, Annex Table 4.9.

Long-term illness or disability

In the private rented sector, having a household member with a long-term illness was associated with higher rates of Category 1 hazards (16%) than those without (11%)..

Ethnicity

Private rented households with an Asian HRP (8%) were less likely than those with a white HRP (13%) to have a Category 1 hazard.

Gender

Households with a male HRP (14%) were more likely than those with a female HRP (10%) to have a Category 1 hazard.

Receipt of housing support

Households receiving housing support were more likely to have a Category 1 hazard (19%) than those who did not (10%).

Economic status

Nearly a quarter (24%) of private rented households with an unemployed HRP had a Category 1 hazard, compared with households where the HRP was full-time (11%) or part-time (10%) employed. However, it is worth noting that the large number of full-time employed private renters means that this group accounts for over half (318,000) of the 572,000 private rented households with a Category 1 hazard.

Social rented households with an unemployed HRP (9%) and those in part-time employment (7%) were more likely than HRPs who were in full-time employment, or other inactive (both 3%) to have a Category 1 hazard.

Damp

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

Private rented dwellings (9%) were more likely to have a damp problem than social rented (5%) or owner occupied dwellings (2%). Within the social rented sector, damp was more prevalent in local authority (7%) than housing association (4%) dwellings, Annex Table 4.7.

Region

In the private rented sector, regional rates of dwellings with a damp problem ranged from 3% in London to 18% in Yorkshire and the Humber. Social rented properties were generally less likely to have a damp problem than private rented properties in the same region. Damp problems in social rented dwellings for individual regions were typically between 3% and 4%, except in the East Midlands (10%) and London (9%) where there was a higher prevalence of social rented dwellings with a damp problem. Annex Table 4.7, Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. Proportion and number of homes with a damp problem, by region and tenure, 2022

^{Base: all dwellings
Note: Underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.7
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

Dependent children

Private rented households with dependent children were more likely to live in damp dwellings (14%) than those without dependent children (8%). This proportion was higher than in the social rented sector. In the social rented sector, 7% of households with children had damp compared with 5% of households without children, Annex Table 4.10

Ethnicity

Prevalence of damp varied by ethnicity of the HRP in the private rented sector, ranging from 5% of households with an Asian HRP, one in ten (10%) households with a white HRP and one in five (20%) private rented households with a black HRP.

Long-term illness or disability

Private rented households where someone had a long-term illness or disability were more likely to have a damp problem (16%) than those where no-one had a long-term illness (6%). Private renters with a long-term illness (16%) were also more likely than those in the social rented sector to experience a damp problem (6%).

Receipt of housing support

Among private renters, those in receipt of housing support were more likely to have a damp problem (15%) than those who did not receive housing support (8%). Private renters in receipt of housing support (15%) were also more likely than social renters who received housing support (6%) to have a damp problem.

Area deprivation

Area deprivation is a measure of relative deprivation, based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 and shown here as deciles, where decile 1 represents the most deprived 10% of small areas in England, and decile 10 represents the least deprived 10%.

Renters were generally more likely than owner occupiers to live in deprived local areas. The difference was most apparent for social renters who were more likely than other tenures to live in deprived areas. Just under a quarter (23%) of social renters lived in the most deprived 10% of areas, compared with 9% of private renters and 6% of owner occupiers. A further 19% of social renters lived in the second most deprived areas compared with 8% of private renters and 6% of owner occupiers, Annex Table 4.11, Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Area deprivation, by tenure, 2022-23

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.11
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Complaints and decent homes

Renters were asked if they had considered making a complaint to their landlord or letting agency (for private renters) or their landlord or tenant management organisation (for social renters) in the last 12 months. Private renters (24%) were less likely than social renters (33%) to consider making a complaint, Annex Table 4.12.

Overall, 33% of social renters had considered making a complaint. Rates were higher among those in non-decent homes (37%) than those living in decent homes (32%)

Those who considered making a complaint were asked if they had made a complaint. The proportion who decided not to complain was higher among social renters in non-decent homes (32%) than those in decent homes (20%).  Among social renters in non-decent homes, 47% went on to complain to the landlord and 24% complained to the tenant management organisation, Annex Table 4.13

Private renters living in non-decent homes (30%) were more likely to consider a complaint than those in decent homes (22%) and the majority of private renters in non-decent homes went on to complain to the landlord (54%), agent (27%) or both, Annex Table 4.12, Annex Table 4.13.

Presence of working smoke alarms

Across all tenures, most households had a working smoke alarm (93%). Presence of a working smoke alarm in private rented households ranged from 90% in the North East, the East of England, and the South West to 96% in the West Midlands. In social rented households, this ranged from 93% in London to 98% in the North East, East of England, and South West, Annex Table 4.14. 

Dwelling age

Private renters in older housing constructed between 1919 and 1944 were least likely to have a working smoke alarm (90%), and less likely than social renters in housing of a similar age where almost all had a working smoke alarm (98%), Annex Table 4.15.

Dwelling type

Social renters in high rise flats with six storeys or more, were less likely than social renters in other types of dwelling to have a working smoke alarm (87% in high rise flats, compared with 97% in low rise flats and 98% living in a house or bungalow).

Perception of safety from fire

Households were asked their level of agreement with the statement ‘I do not feel safe at home because I fear that a fire may break out’. Social renters were more likely to say they felt unsafe (12%) than private renters (8%) or owner occupiers (6%), Annex Table 4.16.

Region

Among social renters, the highest rates of agreement were found in the East of England, London and the South East (all 15%), with the high rates in the East of England driven by strong agreement among those in local authority housing in that region (21%). Rates of agreement among private renters were highest in the East of England (12%).

Ethnicity

Private renters with a HRP from an ethnic minority background were more likely to feel unsafe (11%) than those from a white background (7%). Annex Table 4.18

Dwelling type

Households living in high rise flats were more likely to feel unsafe at home because of fear of fire than those in other types of dwellings, particularly among social renters (35% in high rise flats, compared with 14% in low rise and 8% in a house or bungalow). A similar pattern was observed for private renters, albeit with lower rates of agreement (16% in high rise flats, 8% in low rise and 5% in a house or bungalow), Annex Table 4.20.

Energy efficiency of dwellings

Mean SAP rating

The EHS uses the Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) to monitor the energy efficiency of homes, through the calculation of a SAP energy efficiency rating (EER). Ratings vary between 1 and 100+ with higher ratings indicating more energy efficient dwellings with lower fuel costs and lower associated emissions of carbon dioxide. The EER is also converted into an A to G banding system, where band A represents high energy efficiency and band G represents low energy efficiency. The EER is the primary rating presented on an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

Region

Homes in the social rented sector were more energy efficient than those in the private rented or owner occupied sectors across all regions: the average SAP rating for social rented homes was 70.5, compared with 65.5 for private renters and 66.0 for owner occupiers, Annex Table 4.21.

Dwelling type

Flats were more energy efficient than houses or bungalows. In the social rented sector mean SAP ratings were 71.9 for flats and 69.5 for houses or bungalows; in the private rented sector SAP ratings were 67.6 for flats and 64.1 for houses and bungalows, Annex Table 4.22.

Energy efficiency rating bands

The majority of social rented dwellings (70%) had an energy efficiency rating band of A, B or C and were more likely to have this rating than private rented (45%) and owner occupied (43%) dwellings, Annex Table 4.23, Figure 4.4.

Social rented dwellings were also less likely to have a low (E, F or G) energy efficiency rating (3%) than private rented (12%) or owner occupied dwellings (10%). Considering the numbers of E, F or G rated dwellings in England, the majority were owner occupied (1,670,000 homes), with around a quarter (578,000) belonging to the private rented sector. A relatively small number of social rented homes (122,000) had an E, F or G energy efficiency rating.

Figure 4.4: Proportion and number of dwellings with good, average and poor EER ratings, by tenure, 2022

^{Base: all dwellings
Note: Underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.23
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

Region

At a regional level, social rented homes in London were more likely to have an A, B or C rating (77%) than those in the rest of England (69%). The same was true for private rented homes, with 62% of London homes given an A, B or C rating, compared with 40% of homes in the rest of England. For private rented homes, those outside of London were more likely to have a poor (E, F or G) energy efficiency rating (14%) than those in London (4%).

Dwelling age

Dwelling age was associated with energy efficiency rating band, with newer dwellings more likely to be energy efficient. For all categories of dwelling age, social rented homes were more likely to have an A, B or C rating than other tenures. In the social rented sector, the proportion of A, B and C rated properties increased from 45% of pre 1919 dwellings to 91% of post 1990 dwellings. Similarly, the proportion of private rented dwellings with an A, B, or C rating increased from 24% of pre 1919 dwellings to 81% of post 1990 dwellings in the private rented sector, Annex Table 4.24.

Dwelling type

Dwelling type was also associated with energy efficiency band. Flats were more likely to have an A, B or C energy efficiency rating than houses and bungalows in the social rented sector (80% of flats, 63% of houses) and in the private rented sector (60% of flats, 35% of houses).

Income

Within the private rented sector, prevalence of A, B or C rated properties varied by income quintile, from 40% of those in the lowest income quintiles to 56% in the highest. Annex Table 4.25.

Receipt of housing support

Private renters in receipt of housing support (35%) were less likely to live in an A, B or C home than those who did not receive housing support (49%).

Household type

Private rented homes of lone parents with dependent children (33%) were less likely to have an A, B or C rating than those of couples with (46%) or without (50%) dependent children, or other multi-person households (51%).

Age of HRP

Among social rented households the proportion of households in an A, B or C rated dwelling declined as the age of the HRP increased, from 76% of those with an HRP aged 35 to 44 to 63% of households with an HRP aged 75 and over. However, for all age groups social renters were considerably more likely to live in an energy efficient (A, B or C rated) property than private renters in the same age group: across age groups the proportion of private renters with an A, B or C rating ranged from 38% for those aged 75 and over to 52% for those aged 16 to 24.

Cost of improving dwellings to energy efficiency rating band C

This section considers the costs of improving dwellings with an EER band D or lower to an EE band of C or higher. Across England 43% (10.7 million) of homes were rated band D, and a further 9% (2.4 million) of homes were rated as bands E, F or G, Annex Table 4.23.

Across all tenures, the cost of improving these dwellings to energy efficiency rating band C was under £10,000 for the majority of these properties: 45% had an estimated cost of £5,000 to £9,999, 25% had an estimated cost of £1,000 to £4,999, and 5% had an estimated cost of less than £1,000, Annex Table 4.26, Figure 4.5.

Costs of improving varied by tenure with higher costs associated with private rented or owner occupied dwellings. The cost of improving dwellings to energy efficiency rating band C was over £15,000 for 7% of private rented and 8% of owner occupied dwellings, compared with 2% of social rented dwellings. Similarly, estimated costs were £10,000 to £14,999 for 17% of private rented dwellings and 18% of owner occupied dwellings, compared with 11% of social rented dwellings.

Region

A similar pattern was observed at a regional level, with improvements to private rented properties generally associated with the higher costs. Private rented dwellings with costs of £10,000 to £14,999 to improve to an EER band C or above were higher in Yorkshire and the Humber (25%), East Midlands (24%), East of England (23%) than in London (10%) or the West Midlands (11%). Those with costs of £15,000 or more were more common in the South West (16%) than Yorkshire and Humber (4%), the North West (5%) and the West Midlands (5%), Annex Table 4.27.

^{Base: all households in dwelling able to be improved to EER band C
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.26
Source: English Housing Survey, household sub-sample}