Accredited official statistics

English Housing Survey 2023 to 2024: drivers and impacts of housing quality

Published 17 July 2025

Applies to England

Introduction

The English Housing Survey (EHS) is a national survey of people’s housing circumstances and the condition and energy efficiency of housing in England. It is one of the longest standing government surveys and was first run in 1967. This report provides findings on the drivers and impacts of housing quality from the 2023-24 survey. 

This report draws on two years of combined physical and interview survey data from 2022-23 and 2023-24. This is the first since 2019 that was not impacted by the data collection and methodological changes introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Full dwelling surveys were conducted in both years, meaning housing quality variables are based on direct observations rather than modelled estimates. As a result, this is the first time since 2019 that a complete set of detailed housing quality and energy efficiency variables are available. 

The changes in methodology necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic mean that comparisons between the findings in the EHS 2022-23 Housing Quality and Condition Report and the findings in this report should be made with caution. 

This report

Housing quality data from the 2023-24 English Housing Survey has previously been reported on within the 2023-24 EHS Headline Report on Housing Quality and Energy Efficiency and Local Authority Stock Condition Modelling 2023.

While housing quality has shown general improvements in the long term, we have recently observed an uptick in the levels of dangerous damp and mould in homes, as well as regional disparities in housing conditions across all tenures. The multi-faceted nature of housing quality and its varied impact on households are explored in this report. It shows that many vulnerable groups, including children, older people, and those on social housing waiting lists are currently living in poor conditions due, at least in part, to their dwellings being older and less energy efficient. In addition, common defects such as uninsulated walls, as well as less common defects such as inadequate ventilation, are highly predictive of issues like damp and mould.

It is also worth noting this report is being published during the consultation period for a reformed Decent Homes Standard (2 July to 10 September 2025), though the analysis refers to the existing Decent Homes Standard as last updated in 2006. In addition, Awaab’s Law, which will require social landlords to investigate and fix dangerous damp and mould within set time periods, will be introduced in October 2025.

This report examines housing condition using two metrics – whether a home meets the Decent Homes Standard or has a problem with damp. It is split into five chapters, across which we explore the potential predictors of these metrics and their impacts on the dwellings and the households occupying them. The first section explores the Decent Homes Standard, its criteria and its relationships with certain dwelling characteristics. The second section examines the prevalence of damp homes among dwellings and the characteristics of households who live in damp homes. Lastly, the third section looks at the impact poor housing quality may have, both financially and in relation to residents’ well-being.

Main findings  

Vacant dwellings were more likely to be non-decent (26%) than occupied dwellings (14%), but equally likely to have a problem with damp (both 5%).

Dwellings were more likely to be non-decent if they were built before 1919 (29%), had an EER rating below D (57%), were a converted flat (32%), were in villages and hamlets (25%), or where households were overcrowded (20%).

The most common elements of poor quality were windows in poor condition (1.8 million dwellings or 7% of the overall housing stock), problems with noise (1.6 million dwellings or 6%), problems with bathrooms (1.3 million dwellings or 5%), and external doors in poor condition (1.1 million dwellings or 4%).

 

While the more common energy efficiency issues in the housing stock were associated with a slight increased likelihood in the presence of damp, less common disrepair issues, such as inadequate ventilation, were highly predictive of problems with damp.  

• Dwellings with uninsulated walls (47%, 11.9 million dwellings) were common in English housing, and 8% of these dwellings had a problem with damp (909,000 dwellings). 

• Having external elements in poor condition, including elements such as windows, external doors, or walls, was less common (12%, 3.0 million dwellings) was associated with a higher likelihood of damp (15%, 453,000 dwellings). 

• While inadequate ventilation was much less common (1%, 236,000 dwellings), more than 60% of these dwellings had a problem with damp (142,000 dwellings). 

The cost of housing, both in average weekly amounts and as a proportion of income, was higher for private renters living in decent homes compared with non-decent homes. However, there was no difference for social renters. Mortgagors in decent homes spent more on housing than those in non-decent homes, but not relative to their income.

Of the 3.5 million occupied dwellings that did not meet the Decent Homes Standard, 1.0 million contained vulnerable households in receipt of means-tested or disability benefits. There were 1.7 million dependent children (of which 622,000 were in relative low income) living in non-decent homes, as well as 1.5 million people aged 65 or over.

The 1.3 million damp occupied homes contained 470,000 vulnerable households, 1.0 million dependent children (of which 482,000 were in relative low income), and 324,000 people aged 65 or over.

Nearly a quarter of households containing someone on a waiting list for social housing lived in a non-decent home (24%), and 17% lived in a home with damp. 

• In 2023, there were 169,000 households in non-decent housing and 121,000 households in damp homes that had at least one household member on a social housing waiting list. In contrast, for households with no-one on a social housing waiting list, 14% lived in a non-decent home and 5% lived in a home with damp. 

 

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 2023-24 survey and this report, would not have been possible: all the households who gave up their time to take part in the survey, The National Centre for Social Research, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and CADS Housing Surveys.

This report was produced by Molly Mackay and Susie Margoles at the Building Research Establishment, in collaboration with Alistair Rice at MHCLG.

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

The responsible analyst for this report is Alistair Rice. Contact via ehs@communities.gov.uk.

1. Dwelling characteristics and housing quality 

The Decent Homes Standard

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

• meet the statutory minimum standard for housing, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Since April 2006, homes that contain a Category 1 hazard under the HHSRS are considered non-decent 

• be in a reasonable state of repair 

• have reasonably modern facilities and services  

• provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort 

In 2023, 3.8 million dwellings (15%) failed the Decent Homes Standard. Private rented dwellings were most likely to be non-decent (21%), followed by owner occupied dwellings (14%), then local authority dwellings (12%), with housing association dwellings the least likely to be non-decent (9%), Annex Table 1.1. 

Dwellings were most likely to fail the Decent Homes Standard due to having HHSRS Category 1 hazards (8%). The next most commonly failed criteria were thermal comfort (5%) and disrepair (5%), with modern facilities the least prevalent failed criterion in the stock (1%). Typically, dwellings in the private sector observed higher levels of failures for each criterion than the social rented tenures. 

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 known as Category 1 hazards and, where these exist in a home, it fails to meet the statutory minimum standard for housing in England. 

Overall, around 2 million dwellings (8%) failed the HHSRS criterion in 2023. Further, 1.2 million dwellings (5%) failed the repair criterion of the Decent Homes Standard. There were also 323,000 dwellings (1%) that failed the modern facilities criterion of decent homes, and lastly, 1.2 million dwellings (5%) that failed the thermal comfort criterion. 

Mirroring the findings for non-decent homes, private rented dwellings were typically the most likely to fail each criterion of the Decent Homes Standard than other tenures, while housing association dwellings were generally the least likely. However, each tenure was equally likely to fail the modern facilities criterion (values ranged from 1% to 2% by tenure), Figure 1.1. 

Figure 1.1: Reasons for failing the Decent Homes Standard, by tenure, 2023

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

Dwellings can fail the Decent Homes Standard on either one or multiple criteria. Around one in ten (12%) of all dwellings failed on just one (3.1 million), while 3% of all dwellings failed multiple criteria (748,000). There was a higher proportion of private rented (4%) and owner occupied dwellings (3%) failing multiple criteria compared with dwellings in both social rented tenures (1-2%). Further, local authority dwellings (2%) were more likely to have failed multiple criteria than housing association dwellings (0.8%). 

Damp

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

Overall, 1.3 million dwellings (5%) had damp problems present in one or more rooms, Annex Table 1.2. 

Prevalence of damp by tenure differs slightly from the Decent Homes Standard and its criteria. For damp, owner occupied dwellings typically fared better than the social rented tenures. 

Private rented and local authority dwellings were equally the most likely to be damp (both 9%), followed by housing association dwellings (5%), while owner occupied dwellings were the least likely to be damp (4%), Figure 1.2. 

Figure 1.2: Dwellings with damp, by tenure, 2023 

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.2 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

Occupancy and housing quality 

The EHS collects data on both occupied and vacant dwellings, (see glossary  for more detail). A dwelling may be vacant while awaiting a new tenant or owner or may be categorised as ‘other vacancy’ if it was either awaiting demolition, being modernised, new and never occupied, being used for other purpose, or was vacant for other reasons. 

Decent Homes Standard

Overall, 3.5 million occupied dwellings and 300,000 vacant dwellings failed the Decent Homes Standard. Generally, vacant dwellings were more likely to be non-decent than occupied dwellings. 

Over a quarter of vacant dwellings were non-decent (26%) compared with around 14% of occupied dwellings. Dwellings of ‘other vacancy’ were also more likely to be non-decent (41%) than dwellings that were vacant but awaiting a new tenant or owner (20%) or were occupied (14%), Figure 1.3. 

Figure 1.3: Non-decent and damp dwellings, by occupancy status, 2023 

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.2 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

There was a higher proportion of non-decency in vacant owned dwellings (35%) compared with occupied owned dwellings (14%). Further, owned dwellings of ‘other vacancy’ were more likely to be non-decent (52%) than dwellings that were awaiting another owner (24%) or that were occupied. This was not the case for the rented tenures. 

Damp

There were no observed differences in the prevalence of damp between occupied and vacant dwellings. 

Elements in poor condition 

The levels of repair needed on particular dwelling elements are considered in the definition of the disrepair criterion of the Decent Homes Standard. The following elements, external and internal to the dwelling, are considered to be in need of repairs if they require replacing, or have major repairs: 

External elements: 

• Chimneys 

• External doors 

• Roofs (structure or covering) 

• Walls (structure or finish) 

• Windows 

Internal elements: 

• Kitchens or bathrooms 

• Electrics 

• Heating systems (central heating boilers and distribution, or storage heaters) 

For the Decent Homes Standard, the age of the element is also considered alongside the nature of the disrepair. Only dwellings that have elements that are both in disrepair and over the threshold age will fail the disrepair criterion.  

The data discussed in this section relate only to the presence of disrepair, and not to the age of the elements. Therefore, disrepair numbers do not directly equate to whether a home fails the Decent Homes Standard. 

Generally, dwellings were more likely to have external elements in a state of disrepair than internal elements. Over one in ten dwellings had at least one external element in disrepair (12%). The proportion of dwellings with at least one internal element in disrepair was lower at 3%, Annex Table 1.3. 

Dwellings were most likely to have windows in disrepair (1.8 million dwellings, 7%) than any other element, followed by external doors (1.1 million dwellings, 4%). Dwellings were more likely to have disrepair to walls (460,000 dwellings, 2%), roofs (388,000 dwellings, 2%), electrics (383,000 dwellings, 2%), and chimneys (371,000 dwellings, 1%) than heating systems (246,000 dwellings, 1%) and kitchens or bathrooms (245,000 dwellings, 1%), Figure 1.4. 

Figure 1.4: Dwellings with key elements in poor condition, 2023

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

For all tenures, dwellings were most likely to have either windows or doors in disrepair than other elements. Looking at those elements that were most likely to need repairs, each tenure was equally likely to have dwellings with windows and external doors in disrepair. Local authority (3%), private rented (2%), and owner occupied (2%) dwellings were more likely to have walls in need of repairs than housing association dwellings (1%).

Lack of modern facilities 

Four dwelling facilities are considered as part of the ‘modern facilities’ criterion of the Decent Homes Standard. These are: 

• Kitchens: Does the kitchen have problems with space or layout? 

• Bathrooms: Are there problems with the location of the bath or WC? 

• Noise: Are there problems with external or neighbour noise? 

• Common areas: Is the arrangement of the common areas unsatisfactory? 

There are two additional modern facilities requirements on the age of kitchens and bathrooms. However, the figures discussed in this section relate only to the questions posed above and do not consider the two age requirements. Therefore, they do not directly equate to whether a home fails the Decent Homes Standard due to the modern facilities criterion but are indicative of areas that may be in need of modernisation.  

Overall, dwellings were more likely to require modernisation of facilities due to problems with noise (1.6 million dwellings, 6%), followed by problems with bathrooms (1.3 million, 5%), kitchens (863,000 dwellings, 3%), and lastly common areas (357,000 dwellings, 1%), Annex Table 1.4, Figure 1.5. 

Figure 1.5: Dwellings with non-modern facilities, 2023

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.4 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

Analysis within each tenure showed similar trends, with noise issues and non-modern bathrooms more prevalent than non-modern common areas. Only among private rented dwellings were problems with noise (9%) more prevalent than problems with bathrooms (6%). Owner occupied dwellings were the only tenure to observe a higher prevalence of problems with bathrooms (5%) compared with kitchens (3%). 

Thermal comfort 

The thermal comfort criterion of the Decent Homes Standard is an assessment of the efficiency of the dwelling’s heating and effectiveness of the dwelling’s insulation, (see glossary  for more detail). A dwelling can fail on either or both the heating measure or insulation measure. 

It is more common for dwellings to fail the thermal comfort due to insulation measures rather than heating measures. Overall, around 891,000 dwellings (4%) failed the insulation measure, while 509,000 dwellings (2%) failed the heating measure. This was also evident by tenure, Annex Table 1.5. 

For private rented dwellings, over a quarter of a million (265,000) failed the insulation measures (5%) compared with 176,000 that failed the heating measures (4%). Of owner occupied dwellings, over half a million (532,000) failed insulation measures (3%), compared with 310,000 that failed on heating measures (2%), Figure 1.6. 

Figure 1.6: Reasons for failing thermal comfort, by tenure, 2023

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

In the social rented sector, 2% of both housing association dwellings and local authority dwellings failed the thermal comfort criterion due to insulation measures, compared with 0.7% and 0.3% of housing association and local authority dwellings, respectively, that failed due to heating measures. 

Private rented dwellings were most likely to fail on either the insulation or heating measure compared to all other tenures. Owner occupied dwellings were more likely to fail either measure than dwellings in the social rented tenures. 

2. Predictors of housing quality

This chapter examines the prevalence of non-decent homes by different dwelling characteristics, to investigate the types of dwellings that may have a greater likelihood of failing the Decent Homes Standard. While the characteristics examined in this chapter may suggest a relationship with poor housing quality, the analysis is not sufficient to determine a causal relationship. The reasons for differences in the housing quality of different dwellings are complex and each characteristic alone cannot be viewed in isolation to other indicators of poor housing quality. 

Dwelling age 

The oldest dwellings had the highest prevalence of non-decency, while the newest homes had the lowest levels. Overall, the greatest prevalence of non-decency was found for dwellings built before 1919 (29%) compared with dwellings of all other ages. This trend was consistent for private rented and owner occupied dwellings. As for social rented dwellings, those built before 1919 were also more likely to be non-decent than social rented dwellings in most other age bands, Figure 2.1. 

Figure 2.1: Non-decent dwellings, by dwelling age and tenure, 2023

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

Furthermore, dwellings built before 1990 were more likely to be non-decent (13% to 29%) than buildings built after 1990 (2%). This was typically true for all tenures. 

Considering the oldest dwellings – those built before 1919 – private rented dwellings were more likely to be non-decent (35%) compared with owner occupied dwellings (27%) and housing association dwellings (20%). There were no differences between tenures for dwellings built after 1990.  

Energy efficiency 

Overall, there was a relationship between energy efficiency and non-decency across all tenures. A greater proportion of dwellings in the lower energy efficiency rating (EER) bands were non-decent compared with dwellings in higher EER bands. Those in bands E to G, representing the least energy efficient dwellings, were most likely to be non-decent, followed by those in band D, and lastly the most energy efficient dwellings, in bands A to C, were the least likely to be non-decent, Annex Table 2.2. 

There is a relationship between energy efficiency and the Decent Homes Standard. This is because nearly all homes within the lowest EER bands (roughly equivalent to bands F or G) will be categorised as having a HHSRS Category 1 excess cold hazard and will therefore fail the Decent Homes Standard. However, not every dwelling in the lowest EER bands will be non-decent. See 2023-24 Technical Report for more information about the definition of Excess Cold. 

Over half of all dwellings that were rated E to G were non-decent (57%, 1.3 million), around 17% of those rated band D were non-decent, and lastly, fewer than one in ten of A to C rated dwellings were non-decent (7%). This trend was consistent across every tenure, Figure 2.2. 

Figure 2.2: Non-decent dwellings, by energy efficiency rating and tenure, 2023

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

Dwelling type 

Converted flats and small terraces were the most likely to be non-decent, while purpose built high rise flats were typically the least likely, Annex Table 2.3 

Almost a third of all converted flats were non-decent (32%), a higher proportion than all other dwelling types. Small terraced houses were the next most likely to be non-decent, with 21% failing the Decent Homes Standard. Most dwelling types (14% to 32%) were more likely to be non-decent than purpose built, high rise flats (9%), Figure 2.3. 

Figure 2.3: Non-decent dwellings, by dwelling type, 2023 

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.3 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

Area 

A quarter of dwellings in villages and hamlets were non-decent (25%), and these were more likely to be non-decent than those in urban areas (14%) or those in town and fringe areas (14%). This trend was also evident for owner occupied and private rented dwellings, where the proportion of non-decency was higher for dwellings in villages and hamlets than dwellings in urban or town and fringe areas, Annex Table 2.4. 

Regardless of whether the dwelling was in an urban area, a town and fringe area, or village and hamlet, private rented dwellings and owner occupied dwellings were more likely to be non-decent than social rented dwellings.  

Area deprivation 

The Indices of Deprivation (IOD) is the official measure of relative deprivation in England. This is an overall measure of multiple deprivation experienced by people living in an area and is calculated for every Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA), or neighbourhood, in England. All neighbourhoods in England are then ranked according to their level of deprivation relative to that of other areas (see glossary  for more detail). 

Generally, dwellings in the least deprived of areas were the least likely to be non-decent. 

Dwellings located in areas in the first (most deprived) to fourth quintiles were more likely to be non-decent (15% to 17%) than those in the fifth quintile (least deprived), where just over a tenth of dwellings were non-decent (11%), Annex Table 2.5, Figure 2.4. 

Figure 2.4: Non-decent dwellings, by area deprivation, 2023

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.5 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

Owner occupied dwellings in the first to fourth quintiles (14% to 19%) were more likely to be non-decent than owner occupied dwellings in the fifth quintile of area deprivation (10%). Similarly, private rented dwellings in the first (23%) and third (26%) quintiles were more likely to be non-decent than those in the highest quintile (16%). There was also a higher proportion of non-decent social rented dwellings in the second, third, and fourth quintiles (11% to 13%) compared with those in the fifth quintile (6%). 

Overcrowding 

Households are said to be overcrowded if they have fewer bedrooms available than the notional number needed according to the bedroom standard definition (see glossary  for more detail). Some households that are classed as overcrowded may also be assessed as having a HHSRS Category 1 overcrowding hazard present in the home. 

Households that were overcrowded were more likely to be living in a non-decent home (20%) than those not overcrowded (14%). This was also evident among social renters, where overcrowded households were more likely to be living in non-decent homes (15%) than those not overcrowded (10%). When looking at owner occupiers and private renters, there were no significant differences in the levels of non-decency in relation to overcrowding. This may be due to lower sample sizes for households in overcrowded homes, Annex Table 2.6.  

3. Causes of damp and mould

This chapter examines the prevalence of damp among dwellings and the characteristics of households who live in damp homes. It explores the presence of damp in relation to the energy efficiency and insulation measures of the dwelling, the state of disrepair to certain dwelling elements, the householder’s approaches to heating and energy use, and the number of people living in the home.

A dwelling is assessed as having a damp problem where any of the following exist: penetrating damp, rising damp, or extensive patches of mould growth on walls and ceilings and/or mildew on soft furnishings.

The underlying causes of damp can be complex and, while there is a clear relationship between damp and energy efficiency, it may be caused by a combination of factors. For example, disrepair to external fabric elements of the dwelling can lead to water ingress and penetrating damp to roofs or walls. Additionally, inadequate ventilation or insulation can worsen condensation, which is the most common source of dampness observed in the EHS.

Rooms with damp

In the EHS, not all dwellings are recorded as having each of the five key surveyed rooms. For example, a dwelling that is a studio flat comprising one main room with living, sleeping, and kitchen facilities will be recorded as just having a kitchen, and not having a living room or bedroom. A dwelling that has a separate kitchen, but a single room for living and sleeping, is recorded as having a kitchen and a living room but not having a bedroom. The analysis here only reports on rooms that exist in the dwelling, which means occupants of studio flats could be sleeping in a room that the EHS does not specifically define as a bedroom.

Dwellings were more likely to have damp present in bathrooms, bedrooms and living rooms (2.1-2.3%) than in kitchens (1.6%) and circulation spaces (0.9%). Damp was more prevalent in kitchens than circulation areas. This was much the same when analysed by tenure, Annex Table 3.1.

Owner occupied dwellings were more likely to have damp in living rooms (2%) than in kitchens (1%). Further, in owner occupied dwellings there was a greater prevalence of damp in all rooms compared with circulation spaces (0.6%), Figure 3.1.

In the private rented sector, a greater proportion of dwellings had damp present in bedrooms (4%), living rooms (4%), bathrooms (4%), and kitchens (3%) than circulation spaces (2%).

This was also generally true for the social rented sector. Local authority dwellings typically had higher prevalence of damp in bedrooms (6%) and bathrooms (5%) than living rooms and circulation areas (each 2%). Similarly, housing association dwellings were more likely to have damp in bathrooms and bedrooms (each 3%) than in living rooms, kitchens, and circulation spaces (2%, 1%, and 0.6%, respectively).

Figure 3.1: Rooms with damp, by tenure, 2023

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.1 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

Looking at differences between tenures, private rented and local authority dwellings typically had a greater prevalence of damp in each of the surveyed rooms than housing association and owner occupied dwellings. Additionally, housing association dwellings were more likely to have damp in the bedroom or bathroom than owner occupied dwellings.

Energy efficiency

Overall, 13.3 million dwellings had an energy efficiency rating (EER) of A to C, representing more than half of all dwellings (52%). A further 9.8 million dwellings had an EER of D (39%), and 2.3 million dwellings had the lowest EERs of E to G (9%). Within each tenure, a greater proportion of dwellings were in the top EER bands compared with the lower EER bands, Annex Table 3.2.

There was a greater prevalence of damp problems among dwellings with lower energy efficiency ratings than dwellings with higher energy efficiency ratings. Dwellings of the poorest energy efficiency rating (an EER of E to G) were the most likely to be damp (12%), followed by those with an EER of D (7%), and lastly those with the highest EERs of A to C which observed the lowest prevalence of damp problems (3%) (Annex Table 3.4, Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Dwellings with damp, by energy efficiency rating, 2023

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.4 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

For owner occupied dwellings, around one in ten in EER bands E to G were damp (10%) compared with 2% of those in bands A to C. Among private rented dwellings, those with EERs E to G were more likely to be damp (15%) than those with EERs of A to C (4%).

Similarly, there was a greater prevalence of local authority and housing association dwellings in EER bands E to G with damp (29% and 16%, respectively), than their counterparts in EER bands A to C, (8% and 4%, respectively).

Looking at differences between tenures, private rented dwellings were more likely to be damp than owner occupied dwellings if their EER was A to C or D, however there was no difference in prevalence of damp between these tenures for dwellings with lower EERs.

Private rented and social rented dwellings were typically equally likely to be damp within most EER bands, however where the dwelling had an EER of D (where the 2023 average SAP rating of 67 points falls, see headline findings on housing quality and energy efficiency report, Annex Table 2.1) there was a higher prevalence of damp among private rented dwellings than social rented dwellings (14% and 9%, respectively).

Keeping warm

Households in the EHS were asked if they could normally keep comfortably warm in their living rooms during cold winter weather. Most households (87%) reported being able to keep warm, however more than one in ten households (13% or 3.2 million households) reported being unable to keep warm, Annex Table 3.3.

Households that reported being unable to keep comfortably warm in the winter were more likely to have a damp home (12%) than those that said they were able to keep warm (4%). This was evident for every tenure, Annex Table 3.5.

For owner occupiers, around one in ten that were unable to keep warm had damp in the home (11%). In contrast, 3% of households that were able to keep warm lived in a damp home. Likewise, around 14% of private renters that could not keep warm were living in a damp home compared with 8% of those that could keep warm, Figure 3.3.

Similarly, there was a greater prevalence of damp problems present in the homes of local authority and housing association renters that were unable to keep warm (14% and 10%, respectively) than social renters who reported being able to keep warm (8% and 4%, respectively).

Figure 3.3: Homes with damp, by ability to keep warm and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.5 
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Among all households that were able to keep warm in their living rooms in the winter, private renters and local authority renters were more likely to have damp problems present in the home (each 8%) than housing association renters and owner occupiers (4% and 3%, respectively). However, among households that were not able to keep themselves comfortably warm, no tenure showed a higher prevalence of damp problems in the home than any other (10% to 14%).

Responses to rising energy prices

Households in the EHS were asked what action they took in response to rising energy prices. For this report, responses have been grouped into two categories:

Reduce heating. This comprises mentioning any of the following:

• “Cut down on the number of hours you heat your home”

• “Heat your home to a lower temperature”

• “Heat fewer rooms in your home”

• “Stop heating your home”

Limit energy use. This comprises mentioning any of the following:

• “Use less hot water”

• “Use less electricity”

• “Use less gas”

• “Use less gas or electricity in cooking”

• “Limit the number of hot meals you cook”

• “Stop cooking hot food”

• “Limit leisure activities that use electricity”

Overall, 16.4 million or around two-thirds of households (67%) mentioned reducing their heating, and 12.9 million or over half of all households (53%) mentioned limiting their energy use. Generally, renters were more likely to take either action in response to rising energy prices than owner occupiers, Annex Table 3.3.

Overall, households that mentioned reducing their heating (6%) or limiting their energy use (6%) were more likely to have damp in their home compared with their respective counterparts that did not reduce their heating (4%) or did not limit their energy use (5%), Annex Table 3.6.

For private renters, the trend was similar. There was a higher prevalence of damp problems in the home of those that reduced their heating or limited their energy use (each 11%) compared with those that did not take those actions (each 7%).

Owner occupiers that reduced their heating were also more likely to have damp in their home (4%) than owner occupiers that did not (3%). However, no difference was seen in the prevalence of damp in the home between owner occupiers that did and did not limit their fuel use.

Local authority renters that reduced their heating were more likely to have damp in their home (11%) than those that did not (6%). This was also true of housing association renters, 7% of those that reduced their heating compared with 3% of those that did not reduce their heating had damp problems present in the home.

Insulation measures

Insulation keeps a house warmer, and insulating the whole of a dwelling should therefore reduce the risk of serious damp. When warm moist air comes into contact with a cold surface, such as a poorly insulated wall or window, it can cause condensation. Inadequate insulation can lead to moisture buildup and condensation, which promotes mould growth.

Overall, social rented dwellings had higher levels of insulation than dwellings in the private sector (Annex Table 3.2).

Dwellings with uninsulated walls, with less than 200mm of loft insulation, or with less than 100% of windows double glazed were more likely to have damp than those that had cavity or solid wall insulation, more than 200mm of loft insulation, and 100% of windows double glazed, respectively (Annex Table 3.7, Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Dwellings with damp, by insulation measures, 2023

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.7 
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

Walls

Overall, 13.5 million dwellings had insulated cavity or solid walls (53%). These were generally more prevalent in the stock than the 11.9 million dwellings with uninsulated cavity or solid, or other wall types (47%). While this was the case for owner occupied and social rented dwellings, in private rented dwellings insulated cavity or solid walls were less prevalent. Around 3.0 million private rented dwellings (61%) had uninsulated cavity or solid walls, compared with 1.9 million private rented dwellings (39%) with insulated cavity or solid walls, Annex Table 3.2.

Private rented dwellings were most likely to have these uninsulated wall types, followed by owner occupied dwellings (46%), with social rented dwellings the least likely to have these wall types (32% of local authority and 31% of housing association dwellings).

Dwellings with uninsulated solid or cavity walls were more likely to have damp problems present (8%) than dwellings with insulated solid or cavity walls (3%). This was also evident for owner occupied (5% compared with 2%), private rented (12% compared with 4%), and local authority (15% compared with 7%) dwellings, Annex Table 3.7.

Loft insulation

Generally, dwellings were more likely to have less than 200mm of loft insulation, than 200mm or more. Just under half of all dwellings had less than 200mm of loft insulation (46%, 11.7 million), while 10.1 million dwellings (40%) had 200mm or more. However, among housing association dwellings, around four in ten had loft insulation at a thickness of 200mm or more (41%), compared with three in ten with thinner loft insulation of less than 200mm (30%), Annex Table 3.2.

Overall, more than one in 10 dwellings (14%) had no loft, and therefore no loft insulation. This was more prevalent for the rented tenures (28% to 30%) than owner occupied dwellings (6%).

Dwellings with less than 200mm of loft insulation were more likely to be damp (7%) than those with 200mm or more of loft insulation (3%). This was the case across most tenures, with local authority (14%), private rented (13%), and owner occupied (6%) dwellings with less than 200mm of loft insulation having a higher prevalence of damp compared with those that had thicker loft insulation at 200mm or more (5%, 7%, and 2%, respectively). However, we did not observe this difference for housing association dwellings, Annex Table 3.7.

A higher proportion of local authority dwellings that had no loft were damp (9%) compared with local authority dwellings that had 200mm or more of loft insulation (5%). This was not the case for dwellings of any other tenure.

For dwellings with less than 200mm of loft insulation, local authority and private rented dwellings were more likely to be damp than housing association dwellings. However, for those with 200mm of loft insulation or more, there was no tenure difference in the prevalence of damp.

Double glazing

Most dwellings in 2023 had all their windows double glazed (22.5 million, 89%), and the remaining 11% (2.9 million) had less than 100% of their windows double glazed, if at all. Private rented and owner occupied dwellings were both more likely to have less than 100% of their windows double glazed (each 13%) than local authority and housing association dwellings (each 4%), Annex Table 3.2.

Overall, around one in ten dwellings that had less than 100% of the windows double glazed had damp problems present (10%), compared with 5% of those that were fully double glazed, Annex Table 3.7.

When looking across tenures, this trend was only observed for owner occupied dwellings where 9% of those with less than 100% of the windows double glazed had damp. In comparison, around 3% of owner occupied dwellings that had all windows double glazed were damp.

Elements in poor condition

The elements discussed in this section are the same as those described in Chapter 1.

Overall, around 15% of dwellings with any external element in disrepair had damp present. Similarly, damp was present in 19% of dwellings that had any internal element in disrepair, Annex Table 3.8.

Additionally, dwellings that had their heating systems (either central heating or programmable heating) in disrepair were more likely to be damp (23%) than those with kitchens and bathrooms in disrepair (10%).

For social rented dwellings, damp was more prevalent among those that had any internal element in disrepair (28%) compared with those with any external element in disrepair (13%).

Private rented dwellings were more likely to have damp present than owner occupied dwellings, if any external element (21% compared with 13%) or internal element (34% compared with 15%) was in poor condition. Further, private rented dwellings were also more likely to be damp than social rented dwellings if there was an external element in disrepair (21% compared with 13%). There was no difference between the rented tenures if an internal element was in disrepair.

Inadequate ventilation

In this section, inadequate ventilation indicates if the surveyed dwelling had either inadequate room ventilation or inadequate appliance ventilation in any of the surveyed rooms.

In the EHS, inadequate room ventilation related to dwellings where windows were permanently fixed (due to being painted, screwed, or nailed) and there was no other adequate form of ventilation to the room, or if the window openings were too small or too poorly positioned to allow proper ventilation. Remedies for inadequate ventilation are to make windows openable or to provide a new window with a larger opening.

Inadequate appliance ventilation included any un-flued gas, solid fuel, or oil appliance that did not have adequate permanent ventilation provided such as air bricks or door vents.

Almost all dwellings in 2023 had adequate ventilation. Just under a quarter of a million dwellings (236,000, 0.9%) had ventilation that was assessed as inadequate by the EHS. Inadequate ventilation was more prevalent in private rented dwellings (2%) than all other tenures (0.3% to 0.9%), and among the social rented sector, housing association dwellings (0.9%) were more likely to have inadequate ventilation than local authority dwellings (0.3%), Annex Table 3.2.

There was a strong relationship between inadequate ventilation and damp problems. Dwellings with inadequate ventilation were considerably more likely to have damp problems present (60%) than dwellings with adequate ventilation (5%). This was also seen across every tenure, Annex Table 3.9.

A higher proportion of private rented, social rented, and owner occupied dwellings with inadequate ventilation had damp problems (76%, 59%, and 42%, respectively), compared with dwellings that had adequate ventilation (8%, 7%, and 3%, respectively), Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Dwellings with damp, by inadequate ventilation and tenure, 2023

^{Base: all dwellings 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.9
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

Household size

In 2023-24, the majority of households were made up of just one or two people. The most common household size was two people (35%), followed by one person households (33%), households of four or more people (17%), and lastly three person households (14%), Annex Table 3.3.

There was a relationship between household size and the prevalence of damp in the home. Households with a higher number of people were more likely to have damp problems. Having more people in the home can contribute to increased levels of moisture, which can lead to increased risks of condensation, the most common source of damp observed in the EHS. Annex Table 3.10

Households of four or more people were most likely to have damp in their home (9%) followed by households of three people (7%), with two person (4%) and one person (5%) households the least likely to have damp present in the home, Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6: Homes with damp, by household size, 2023-24

^{Base: all households 
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.10
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Owner occupiers with four or more people in the household were more likely to have damp in the home (6%) than those with one (3%), two (3%) or three (4%) people. This overall trend was present across all tenures.

Overcrowding

Overall, 819,000 households were overcrowded (3%). Overcrowding was most prevalent among local authority renters (12%), followed by housing association renters (8%), and private renters (7%), with owner occupiers the least likely to be overcrowded (0.8%), Annex Table 3.11.

Similar to analysis by household size, there was a clear relationship between overcrowding and damp, as households that are overcrowded are typically those with more people.

Households that were overcrowded were more likely to have damp in their home (14%) than households that were not overcrowded (4%). This was also true for private and social renters. For private renters, around two in ten overcrowded households were living in damp homes (21%) compared with 9% of those that were not overcrowded. Additionally, around 10% of social renter households that were overcrowded lived in a damp home compared with 6% of social renters that were not overcrowded, Annex Table 3.12.

4. Cost impacts of poor housing quality

This chapter focuses on the financial costs related to poor housing quality, by region and by tenure. It reports on how much it would cost to make all non-decent homes meet the Decent Homes Standard and then how much it would cost to mitigate the Category 1 hazards assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It then examines the living costs (energy costs, average weekly housing costs, proportion of income spent on housing) for households living in non-decent and damp homes. Finally, it reports on the prevalence of non-decent and damp homes for low income and vulnerable households.

Cost to make decent

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

The 2023-24 survey data published in this report is the first since 2019-20 to feature two years of Cost to Make Decent data modelled the ‘usual’ way, unaffected by the restrictions brought around by COVID-19 in 2021-22. The Cost to Make Decent analysis for the previous EHS 2022-23 Housing Quality and Condition Report used a hybrid approach that combined actual measured cost data from 2022-23 with modelled estimated costs from 2021-22.

These modelled costs were calculated using the average costs from previous EHS surveys, specifically 5 years of single year survey data, which eliminated the impact of high outlying values, likely reducing the mean values in comparison to the normal modelling approach.

The findings for this report on the average cost to make non-decent homes decent are therefore not directly comparable with the findings from the previous year (see the EHS 2022 to 2023 technical report Annex 5.5 and 2023-24 Technical Report for more details of each year).

In 2023, the average cost to make a non-decent dwelling meet the Standard was £10,975, and the median cost was £5,397. The median value is less affected by high outlying values, for example, high repair costs for large vacant dwellings in rural areas, which can skew the balance of the mean, Annex Table 4.1.

On average, non-decent owner occupied dwellings (£11,606) and private rented dwellings (£10,586) cost more to be made decent than social rented dwellings (£8,476). The median cost to make decent ranged from £4,222 for private rented dwellings, to £5,957 for owner occupied dwellings.

To better understand the variation in costs across tenure, the distribution of costs in England was examined using quartiles by dividing the data into four equal parts based on the lower (first), median, and upper (third) quartiles. Examining the lower and upper quartiles helps to highlight the spread of costs and identify where the most and least expensive cases lie, offering a clearer picture of the financial implications across the housing stock. The lower and upper quartiles of the cost to make decent were £1,230 and £15,402, respectively. The lower quartile cost to make decent for social rented dwellings was £944, private rented dwellings £1,185, and owner occupied dwellings £1,269. The upper quartile costs for these tenures, respectively, were £12,330, £14,321, and £16,006, Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Cost to make decent quartiles, by tenure, 2023

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

Dwellings in the North West cost more, on average, to be made decent (£14,933) than dwellings in all other regions apart from the North East (£12,575), where costs ranged from £9,244 in the East Midlands to £11,411 in London. The median cost to made decent also varied by region, from £2,496 in Yorkshire and the Humber to £12,212 in the North East. For the North West, the region with the largest average cost, the median cost was £8,026.

Cost to make safe

The EHS also reports an estimated cost of all work needed to mitigate HHSRS Category 1 hazards (known as cost to make safe) so that the subsequent risk of harm is no worse than average for the age and type of the dwelling. It is important to note that, similar to the cost to make decent, the differences between median and mean average cost are due to high cost outliers that impact the mean calculation. Unlike the cost to make decent, which undergoes a regional adjustment, the cost to make safe is independent of region and final figures are notional costs.

In 2023, the average cost to make a dwelling safe was £4,333 and the median cost was £1,757. Social rented dwellings with Category 1 hazards had a higher average cost to be made safe (£6,291) than owner occupied dwellings (£3,890). These tenures had similar median costs of £1,757. The average cost to make a private rented dwelling with Category 1 hazards safe was £4,816 (median cost £2,100), Annex Table 4.2.

Dwellings with Category 1 hazards in London cost more on average to be made safe (£6,655) than several other regions, where average costs ranged between £2,472 and £3,913. The median cost to make safe also varied by region, with costs of £805 in Yorkshire and the Humber, and £2,248 in the North West. Dwellings in London had a median cost of £2,195 to be made safe, while dwellings with Category 1 hazards in the East of England region had a median cost of £5,000 to be made safe, Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Median cost to make safe, by region, 2023

^{Base: all dwellings with Category 1 hazards
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.2
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample} 

There were also some regional differences in the average cost to make safe among owner occupied dwellings. Dwellings in the East of England region had a higher average cost to make safe of £5,682 than dwellings in the North West (£3,573), South East (£3,565), East Midlands (£2,862), and Yorkshire and the Humber (£2,082) regions.

Owner occupied dwellings with Category 1 hazards in the West Midlands (£4,013), South West (£5,302), South East (£3,565) had higher average costs to make safe compared with dwellings in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Energy costs

The EHS models household energy costs as the total annual energy costs from space heating, water heating, ventilation, and lighting, less the costs saved by energy generation (see glossary  for more detail).

Household energy costs are influenced by many factors. However, the key factors are the size and the energy efficiency of the home. These should be considered when examining the relationship between the Decent Homes Standard or the presence of dampness and energy costs.

On average, households spent more on their energy costs if their home was non-decent or damp, than if their home was decent or did not have damp.

Decent Homes Standard

Overall, households living in non-decent homes had higher annual average energy costs (£2,177) compared with those that lived in decent homes (£1,576). This difference was the same for each of the tenures, Annex Table 4.3.

Owner occupiers living in non-decent homes had the highest annual average energy cost (£2,460) compared with all other tenures, followed by private renters (£1,884), and lastly local authority and housing association renters (£1,380 and £1,379, respectively). This pattern between tenures was similar for households living in decent homes and is likely related to the differences in the average home size of each tenure, Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Average energy cost, by Decent Homes Standard and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.3
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Damp

The differences in average energy costs between households living in damp homes or non-damp homes by tenure were similar to those observations evident for non-decent or decent homes and was also likely related to the average home size within each tenure.

In 2023-24, households living in damp homes had higher annual average energy costs (£1,918) compared with those that did not live in damp homes (£1,648). This pattern was the same within each of the tenures.

Owner occupiers living in damp homes had the highest annual average energy cost (£2,376) compared with all other tenures, followed by private renters (£1,708), and lastly housing association and local authority renters (£1,361 and £1,271, respectively). This pattern between tenures was also evident for households living in non-damp homes.

Housing costs

The amount and proportion spent on rent or mortgage is examined for households whose weekly rent or mortgage exceeds £0, and the analysis excludes households that are shared owners, who pay both rent and mortgage. Therefore, in this section owner occupiers are mortgagors only.

While average housing costs were typically higher for those living in decent homes and non-damp homes when compared with non-decent and damp homes, respectively, this was not the case for social renters. Further, the proportion of a household’s income that was spent on rent or mortgage did not vary according to whether their home passed the Decent Homes Standard or had damp present, although this was not the case for private renters, Annex Table 3.4.

Decent Homes Standard

Overall, households living in non-decent homes spent £179 on their weekly mortgage or rent costs, while households living in decent homes typically spent more (£199). However, this difference was not evident for social renters. Private renters and mortgagors living in decent homes spent more on their housing on average (£251 and £219, respectively) than those living in non-decent homes (£192 and £196, respectively), Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Average housing cost, by Decent Homes Standard and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households that pay rent or mortgage, excludes shared owners
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.4
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample} 

Mortgagors and private renters living in non-decent homes had the highest weekly average housing costs (£196 and £192, respectively), followed by housing association renters (£117), with local authority renters typically spending the least on the housing costs of their non-decent home (£107).

In 2023-24, the overall proportion of a household’s income that was spent on the rent or mortgage of their non-decent home was 28%, this was similar to those living in a decent home (27%). However, there was an exception when explored by tenure. Private renters living in a non-decent home spent on average around a third of their income on housing costs (33%), while private renters living in decent homes spent on average a greater portion (38%), Annex Table 4.5.

Renters, both private and social, living in non-decent homes on average spent around a third of their income on housing costs (33% to 35%), more than mortgagors who on average spent around a fifth of their income on housing costs (20%).

Damp

Overall, households on average spent more on their housing costs if they lived in a home without damp (£198) than if they lived in a home with damp (£168). But when broken down by tenure this was only the case for private renters. The average weekly housing costs for private renters living in damp homes was £190, while private renters living in non-damp homes spent more on average on their weekly housing costs (£244), Annex Table 4.4.

Mirroring the overall pattern of costs, private renters (£190) and mortgagors (£185) living in damp homes had higher average weekly housing costs than housing association and local authority renters (£118 and £109, respectively).

Households living in damp homes on average spent a similar proportion of their income on housing costs (29%) to households living in home without damp (27%). However, when explored by tenure, local authority renters living in damp homes spent a larger proportion of their income on housing costs (37%) than those living in non-damp homes (31%), Annex Table 4.5.

Private and social renters living in damp homes on average spent around a third of their household income on housing costs (31% to 37%), a higher proportion than mortgagors living in damp homes, who spent around a fifth of their income on housing costs (18%).

Relative low income

In this section, households are defined as being in relative low income if their equivalised after housing cost (AHC) income is less than 60% of the median. Alternatively, households are categorised as not in relative low income and above the threshold if their equivalised after housing cost income is more than 60% of the median

Decent Homes Standard

Overall, households that were in relative low income were more likely to be living in a non-decent home (17%, 752,000 households) than households that were not in relative low income (14%). When explored by tenure, this difference was only evident for owner occupiers, who were more likely to be living in a non-decent home if they were in relative low income (18%) than if they were not (13%), Annex Table 4.6, Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: Non-decent homes, by relative low income and tenure, 2023-24

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

Damp

Overall, 375,000 households (8%) that were in relative low income were living in a home that had damp problems present in one or more rooms, compared with 5% of households that were not in relative low income. This was also evident for owner occupiers and local authority renters, but not private renters or housing association renters, Annex Table 4.7.

Owner occupiers were more likely to be living in a damp home if they were in relative low income (6%) than if they were not (3%). Similarly, a greater proportion of local authority renters were living in a damp home if they were in relative low income (13%) compared with if they were not in relative low income (8%).

Local authority renters and private renters that were in relative low income were more likely to be living in a damp home (13% and 10%, respectively) compared with owner occupiers (6%).

Vulnerable households

In this section, a vulnerable household is defined as a household that receives a means-tested benefit or a disability benefit.

Decent Homes Standard

In 2023-24, just under a million vulnerable households (988,000) were living in a non-decent home. Non-decent homes were more prevalent for vulnerable households (16%) than non-vulnerable households (14%, 2.6 million), Annex Table 4.8.

Vulnerable households in the private rented sector (24%), owner occupiers (18%), and local authority renters (14%) were more likely to be living in non-decent homes than non-vulnerable households within the same tenure (19%, 13%, and 9% respectively), Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6: Non-decent homes, by vulnerable households and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.8
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Irrespective of whether the household was considered vulnerable, private renters were the most likely to be living in a non-decent home, followed by owner occupiers, with social renters the least likely. This generally followed the overall trends for non-decency by tenure.

Damp

Vulnerable households were more likely to be living in damp homes (470,000, 8%) than households that were not vulnerable (5%). Similarly, there was a greater prevalence of damp in the home for private renters who were vulnerable households (12%) compared with private renters that were not vulnerable (8%), Annex Table 4.9.

In addition, private renters who were in vulnerable households were also more likely be living in damp homes than housing association renters and owner occupiers that were in vulnerable households (6% and 4%, respectively), Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7: Homes with damp, by vulnerable households and tenure, 2023-24

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

5. Human impact of poor housing quality

This chapter focuses on the households who live in poor housing conditions, looking at the demographics of the household reference person (HRP) and household. It also explores how many dependent children and older people aged 65 or over are living in poor housing conditions in England. It then examines how the self-reported well-being, loneliness, and satisfaction of the household may vary when living in a non-decent or damp home, (though the analysis is unable to determine any causal relationship between well-being and either of the indicators of poor housing). The chapter goes on to report on the prevalence of non-decent and damp homes for households on social housing waiting lists, households containing regular home-workers, and households that did or did not remember seeing the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of their current home when they moved in.

Decent Homes Standard

In 2023-24, there were 3.6 million households living in non-decent homes (14%), Annex Table 5.1.

Overall, the groups that were more likely to be living in non-decent homes were households with male HRPs, unemployed HRPs, households that contained someone with a long-term illness or disability, and households in the lower income quintiles.

There was a greater prevalence of non-decent homes among households with a male HRP (15%) compared with a female HRP (14%). When looking at ethnicity, households with a black HRP were more likely to live in a non-decent home (18%) than households with a white HRP (14%). Households containing someone with a long-term illness or disability were more likely to live in a non-decent home (15%) than households where no one had a long-term illness or disability (14%), Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Non-decent homes, by household characteristics, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note:
1) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.1
2) analysis on long-term illness and disability excludes non-responses
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

A larger proportion of households were living in non-decent homes if the HRP was unemployed (19%) than if the HRP was in full-time work (14%).

Lastly, households in the three lower income quintiles were more likely to live in a non-decent home (16% to 17%) than households in the two higher income quintiles (12% and 11%, respectively).

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

Overall, 900,000 households that contained at least one dependent child lived in a non-decent home (14%). Among owner occupiers only, households with no dependent children present were more likely to live in a non-decent home (14%) than those with dependent children present (11%).

While this was not seen across tenures, there was a greater proportion of private renters in receipt of housing support living in non-decent homes (26%) compared with private renters who were not in receipt of housing support (19%).

Within the owner occupied and private rented tenures, there were some differences in the prevalence of non-decent homes for HRPs of certain ages. Owner occupiers with HRPs aged 45 to 64 years old (14%) or 65 or over (15%) were more likely to be living in non-decent homes than owner occupiers with HRPs aged 30 to 44 (11%). Among private renters, the proportion of households with HRPs aged 45 to 64 years old living in non-decent homes (23%) was greater than households with the youngest HRPs aged 16 to 29 (17%).

Damp

In 2023-24, there were 1.3 million households living in a home that had damp problems in one or more rooms (5%), Annex Table 5.2.

Overall, the groups that were more likely to be living in damp homes were households with younger HRPs, female HRPs, HRPs of ethnic minority backgrounds, or unemployed HRPs, households with dependent children present, or containing someone with a long-term illness or disability, and households in the lower income quintiles, when compared with other households.

Households with children present were more likely to have damp in their home (8%) than those with no children present (4%), a trend that was also statistically significant for private renters and housing association renters, Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Homes with damp, by dependent children in the household and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.2
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

There was a greater prevalence of damp homes for households with a female HRP (6%) compared with a male HRP (5%). Households with a HRP with an ethnic minority background were also more likely to be living in a home with damp (9%) problems than those with a white HRP (5%).

Households with a HRP aged 16 to 29 (6%), 30 to 44 (7%), or 45 to 64 (6%) years old were more likely to have damp present in the home than households with a HRP aged 65 or over (3%). Additionally, a greater proportion of households were living in damp homes if there was someone in the household who was living with a long-term illness or disability (6%) compared with those that did not contain a household member with a long-term illness or disability (5%).

Generally, households with a retired HRP or a HRP in full-time work were the least likely to have damp present in the home. Households with a HRP who was unemployed (10%), of ‘other inactive’ employment status (8%), or employed in part-time work (7%) were more likely to have damp in their home than HRPs who were in full-time work (5%). Furthermore, these four groups were all also more likely to be living in a damp home than households with a retired HRP (3%), Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: Homes with damp, by employment status, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.2
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

In 2023-24, around 360,000 households that received housing support lived in a damp home. There was a higher prevalence of damp homes among households where someone was in receipt of housing support (10%) than households where no one was in receipt (7%). Further, households in the first (lowest), second, and third income quintiles (each 7%) were more likely to have damp present in the home than households with incomes were in the fourth (4%) and fifth (highest) (2%) quintiles.

Total number of dependent children

In 2023-24, there were 11.6 million dependent children represented in the EHS. This is made up of 6.4 million dependent children in owner occupier households, 2.8 million in private renter households, 951,000 in local authority households, and 1.4 million in housing association households, Annex Table 5.3.

It is important to note that the EHS figures will differ from that in the 2021 census, which found that there were 12.6 million dependent children living in England and Wales, due to differences in methodology, e.g., the EHS only counts children who are ordinarily resident in the household, some dwellings are excluded from the sample, the geographical coverage differs from the census, as does the year of collection. See ONS Children in families in England and Wales: Census 2021.

Overall, around 1.7 million dependent children were living in homes that failed the Decent Homes Standard (14%), 1.1 million dependent children lived in a home that had a Category 1 hazard present (10%), and 1.0 million dependent children were living in a damp home (9%). Since 2022-23 data on non-decency was partially modelled due to COVID-19 but 2023-24 data was fully observed, direct comparisons between the findings in the EHS 2022-23 Housing Quality and Condition Report and the findings in this EHS 2023-24 report should be treated with caution.

Generally, when analysed by tenure, the patterns observed in the proportion of children living in poor housing mirrored those seen among all households, with or without children, living in poor housing, Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4: Dependent children living in poor quality homes, by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all dependent children
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.3
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Dependent children living in the private rented sector were the most likely to live in a non-decent home (617,000, 22%), followed by dependent children in local authority homes (137,000, 14%), with dependent children from owner occupier homes (748,000, 12%) and housing association homes (149,000, 11%) the least likely to live in non-decent homes.

Similarly, dependent children in private rented households were more likely to be living in a home with a Category 1 hazard present (14%) than all other tenures (6% to 10%). Those in local authority homes were more likely to be in a home with a Category 1 hazard present (10%) than those in housing association households (6%).

The proportion of dependent children living in a home with damp problems was higher for all rented tenures than for owner occupiers. In total, 14% of dependent children in private rented households (407,000 dependent children), 12% of dependent children in local authority households (119,000 dependent children), and 10% of dependent children in housing association households (133,000 dependent children) were living with damp problems in the home, compared with 6% of dependent children in owner occupied households (378,000 dependent children).

Total number of dependent children in relative low income

In this section, a household is considered to be in relative low income if their equivalised after housing cost income is less than 60% of the overall median.

In 2023-24, there were 3.7 million dependent children represented in the EHS living in relative low income households. Of those in relative low income households, 1.5 million dependent children were in private renter households, 911,000 in owner occupier households, 732,000 in housing association households, and 568,000 in local authority households, Annex Table 5.4.

Overall, 622,000 dependent children living in low income households lived in a non-decent home (17%), 404,000 dependent children from low income households lived in a home with at least one Category 1 hazard present (11%), and 482,000 dependent children from low income households were living in homes that had damp problems (13%).

Similar to findings for all dependent children in the section above, dependent children living in low income private renter households were the most likely to live in a non-decent home (322,000 dependent children, 22%) than their counterparts in local authority (91,000 dependent children, 16%), owner occupier (122,000 dependent children, 13%), and housing association households (87,000 dependent children, 12%).

There was a larger proportion of dependent children from low income private renter households (13%) and low income local authority households (12%) living in a home with Category 1 hazards compared with those from low income housing association households (8%).

Nearly quarter of a million dependent children from low income private renter households were living in a damp home (247,000, 17%), as were 78,000 dependent children from low income local authority households (14%), compared with 62,000 dependent children from low income housing association households (8%). Those from low income private renter households were also more likely to be living in a damp home than dependent children from low income owner occupier households (95,000, 10%).

Total number of people aged 65 years or over

In 2023-24, there were 10.4 million people aged 65 or over represented in the EHS. The majority were owner occupiers (8.5 million), while 804,000 were housing association renters, 557,000 were private renters, and 534,000 were local authority renters, Annex Table 5.5.

A total of 1.5 million people aged 65 or over lived in a home that was non-decent (14%), 782,000 lived in a home that had Category 1 hazards present (8%), and 324,000 lived in a damp home (3%), Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5: People aged 65 or over living in poor quality homes, 2023-24

^{Base: all occupants aged 65 or over
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.5
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Just under a quarter of private renters aged 65 or over lived in a non-decent home (135,000, 24%), a higher proportion than owner occupiers (1.2 million, 14%), and local authority renters of that age group (70,000, 13%). Housing association renters were the least likely to live in a non-decent home (75,000, 9%).

The proportion of people aged 65 or over who lived in a home with Category 1 hazards was highest among private renters (12%), followed by owner occupiers (8%), compared with local authority (5%) and housing association (3%) renters.

People aged 65 or over were more likely to be living in a damp home if they were private renters (8%) when compared with housing association renters (4%) or owner occupiers (3%). Local authority renters aged 65 or over were more likely to have damp present in the home (6%) than older owner occupiers.

Well-being

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

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? Referred to as ‘life satisfaction’.

• Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? Referred to as ‘life is worthwhile’.

• Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? Referred to as ‘happiness’.

• Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? Referred to as ‘anxiety’.

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

These well-being questions were asked to the HRP, therefore, if another member of the household completed the EHS interview survey (as a proxy interviewee) they are not asked these questions. In 2023-24, around 13% of household interviews were by proxy so the results may not be fully representative of all HRPs.

Overall, the average reported scores for each of the well-being measures were typically lower when the HRP lived in non-decent or damp homes.

In addition, the well-being scores showed that owner occupiers generally reported higher average scores for life satisfaction, life is worthwhile, and happiness, and lower average scores for anxiety than renters. This trend was also present when owners and renters lived in non-decent and damp homes.

Life satisfaction

Owner occupiers had the highest life satisfaction score of all tenures (7.8), followed by private renters (7.1), then housing association and local authority renters (6.8 and 6.7, respectively). Owner occupiers living in non-decent or damp homes also had greater levels of satisfaction on average compared with other tenures, Annex Table 5.6.

Overall, households living in non-decent homes reported lower levels of life satisfaction (7.3) compared with those living in decent homes (7.5). These findings were likely due to the differences in average life satisfaction scores of owner occupiers living in non-decent homes (7.6) compared with decent homes (7.8), and private renters living in non-decent homes (6.8) compared with decent homes (7.2), Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.6: Satisfaction with life, by Decent Homes Standard and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all household reference persons
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.6
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Overall, households living in damp homes had lower levels of life satisfaction (6.8) compared with those living in non-damp homes (7.5). This was also true for private renters (with a score of 6.2 for those living in damp homes and 7.2 for those whose homes were free of damp) and housing association renters (6.3 for those living with damp and 6.9 for those without).

Life is worthwhile

On average, owner occupiers reported the highest ‘life is worthwhile’ score (8.0) compared with other households, while social renters reported the lowest average score (7.2).

Overall, households living in non-decent homes had a lower ‘life is worthwhile’ score (7.7) compared with those living in decent homes (7.8). This was only true for private renters where those living in non-decent homes had an average lower ‘life is worthwhile’ score (7.3) compared with those living in decent homes (7.7).

Similarly, households living in damp homes had a lower average score for ‘life is worthwhile’ (7.5) compared with those living in non-damp homes (7.8). However, this was not observed when explored by tenure.

Happiness

Overall, owner occupiers had a higher average ‘happiness’ score (7.8) than households in other tenures. Private renters also had a higher average ‘happiness’ score (7.1) than social renters (6.9).

Households living in non-decent homes had a lower average score for ‘happiness’ (7.3) compared with those living in decent homes (7.5). When explored by tenure, only private renters living in non-decent homes had an average lower ‘happiness’ score (6.7) compared with those living in decent homes (7.3), Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7: Happiness, by Decent Homes Standard and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all household reference persons
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.6
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Overall, households living in damp homes had lower average scores for ‘happiness’ (6.9) compared with those living in homes without damp (7.5). Private and social renters living in damp homes had lower ‘happiness’ scores on average (6.1 and 6.5, respectively) compared with those living in non-damp homes (7.2 and 6.9, respectively). However, this difference was not found among owner occupiers.

Anxiety

Social renters reported higher average levels of anxiety (3.8) compared with private renters (3.5) and owner occupiers (2.8). Private renters also reported higher average levels of anxiety than owner occupiers. Anxiety levels remained higher among social and private renters living in non-decent or damp homes compared with owner occupiers in similar homes.

Overall, similar levels of anxiety were experienced by households living in non-decent (3.2) and decent homes (3.1). However, households living in damp homes reported a higher average anxiety score (3.6) compared with households in homes without damp (3.0). This difference was only statistically significant for private renters living in damp homes who had a higher average anxiety score (4.1) than those living in non-damp homes (3.4).

Loneliness

For the EHS, the HRP was asked how often they felt lonely. Here, the analysis groups HRPs who reported either being lonely ‘often, always, or some of the time’ and those who reported being lonely ‘hardly ever, or never’

While the reported level of loneliness is influenced by many factors that are not directly related to the HRP’s home, exploring loneliness by poor housing quality and tenure can highlight the difficulties households can experience in their home. Feelings of loneliness were more prevalent for HRPs who rented, and those who were living in homes with damp.

Decent Homes Standard

Households living in non-decent homes (23%) were equally as likely to report being lonely ‘often, always or sometimes’ as those living in decent homes (21%). However, households living in non-decent homes were less likely to report experiencing loneliness ‘hardly ever, or never’ (57%) than households living in decent homes (60%), Annex Table 5.7.

There were variations by tenure. Owner occupiers were less likely to report experiencing loneliness ‘hardly ever, or never’ if they lived in a non-decent home than owners living in decent homes (58% compared with 66%, respectively).

In contrast, local authority renters living in non-decent homes were more likely to report experiencing loneliness ‘hardly ever, or never’ than those living in decent homes (54% and 42%, respectively).

Damp

Households living in damp homes were more likely to report being lonely ‘often, always or sometimes’ (28%) than those living in non-damp homes (21%), though this varied by tenure. A higher proportion of private renters living in damp homes reported being lonely ‘often, always or sometimes’ (35%) compared with private renters in non-damp homes (26%).

Local authority and private renters living in damp homes (39% and 35%, respectively) were more likely to report being lonely ‘often, always or sometimes’ than owner occupiers (19%). Local authority renters were more likely to report this response than housing associations (26%).

Satisfaction with accommodation

In this section, household responses have been grouped. Those who said they were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied are referred to as ‘satisfied’.

Overall, households living in non-decent or damp homes were less likely to be satisfied with their homes than households living in decent homes or homes with no damp. This was the case for renters on both measures of quality. However, for owner occupiers, only those in damp homes report lower levels of satisfaction.

Decent Homes Standard

Households living in non-decent homes were less likely to be satisfied with their accommodation (81%) compared with those that lived in a decent home (88%). When explored by tenure, this difference was only apparent for households that rented.

Housing association renters were less likely to be satisfied with their accommodation if they lived in a non-decent home (66%) compared with a decent home (75%), as were private renters (65% compared with 81%) and local authority renters (58% compared with 72%), Annex Table 5.8.

Considering households living in non-decent homes, owner occupiers were more likely to be satisfied with their accommodation (92%) compared with those in other tenures (58% to 66%).

Damp

The findings for household satisfaction with accommodation by the presence of damp in the home were similar to those observed for non-decent homes. Overall, households living in a damp home were less likely to be satisfied with their home (64%) compared with households living in homes with no damp (89%). These differences were also evident within each tenure, Figure 5.8.

Figure 5.8: Satisfied with accommodation, by damp and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.8
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Looking at comparisons between tenures, owner occupiers living in a damp home were more likely to be satisfied with their accommodation (82%) compared with those in other tenures (46% to 51%).

Presence of home-workers

The presence of a home-worker in the household generally indicated lower prevalence of non-decency and damp in the home. It is important to note these findings will be related to the income, working and economic status of households, and how these vary by tenure. Overall, private renters had the highest proportion of households with HRPs in full-time work (65%) compared with all other tenures. See EHS 2022 to 2023 Headline Report and EHS 2023 to 24 Headline Findings on Demographics and Household Resilience Report, Annex Table 1.3.

Decent Homes Standard

Around 12% of households (1.0 million) where someone in the household was a regular home-worker lived in a non-decent home, however the majority of home-workers were occupying a decent home (88%), Annex Table 5.9.

Households where no one regularly worked at home were more likely to live in a non-decent home (16%, 2.5 million) than households containing someone regularly working from home (12%). This was also observed for private renters (24% compared with 15%), owner occupiers (16% compared with 11%), and housing association renters (10% compared with 5%), Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9: Non-decent homes, by whether someone regularly works from home and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.9
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Damp

Around 4% of households containing someone working regularly from home lived in a damp home (363,000). Households where no one regularly worked from the home were more likely to live in a damp home (6%, 937,000) than households that had someone regularly working from home (4%). This was also observed for private renters (11% compared with 7%) and local authority renters (10% compared with 5%).

A greater proportion of private renters were living in damp homes compared with owner occupiers and housing association renters, regardless of whether there was a regular home-worker present in the household or not.

Social housing waiting list

Decent Homes Standard

Around a quarter of households with at least one person on a waiting list for social housing were living in a non-decent home (24%, 169,000). Those with a household member on a waiting list were more likely to be living in a non-decent home than households with no one on a waiting list for social housing (14%), Annex Table 5.10.

All renters were more likely to be living in a non-decent home if someone in the household was on a social housing waiting list than if no one was on a waiting list. For private renters, three in ten of those with a household member on a waiting list were in non-decent homes (29%) compared with two in ten of other private renters (20%). This relationship was similar for local authority renters (20% compared with 12%) and housing association renters (17% compared with 8%).

Damp

Overall, 17% of households with at least one person who was on a waiting list for social housing were living in a damp home (121,000). Households containing someone on a waiting list were more likely to be living in a damp home than households with no one on a waiting list (5%). When analysed by tenure, this pattern was the same for private renters (24% compared with 9%) and local authority renters (19% compared with 9%).

Remember seeing an EPC on moving in

A domestic Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) provides potential buyers and tenants with an indication of the energy efficiency of a dwelling. The certificate contains information about the dwelling’s energy costs based on standardised assumptions about occupancy and energy use in dwellings of a similar size and type which may not reflect how individual occupants consume energy. It also recommends ways to improve the energy efficiency of the dwelling. The requirement for dwellings to have an EPC when sold or rented was fully implemented by October 2008.

In the interview survey component of the EHS, households that moved into their home after October 2008 were asked if they saw the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) before they moved in. It is important to note the condition (decent or damp status) of their home in 2023-24 may have changed since the EPC was completed.

Overall, households that did not remember seeing an EPC before moving in were more likely to live in a non-decent or damp home at the time of the survey than those that remembered seeing the EPC when moving in. However, this was not the case for owner occupiers.

In addition, findings varied among the different renter tenures according to whether the analysis related to non-decent or damp homes. Private renters were generally more likely to live in a non-decent or damp home at time of survey than those in other tenures, irrespective of whether they had seen the EPC before moving in or not.

Decent Homes Standard

Overall, of households that remembered seeing the EPC of their home before they moved in, 12% were living in a non-decent home (1.2 million). Households that did not remember seeing the EPC (17%, 715,000) or reported they did not know if they had seen the EPC before moving in (16%, 207,000) were more likely to live in a non-decent home at time of survey than those that remembered seeing the EPC, Annex Table 5.11.

This trend was similar for all renters. Prevalence of non-decent homes was higher for private renters that did not remember seeing the EPC before moving in (28%) or reported they did not know if they saw the EPC before moving in (25%) than those that reported they remembered seeing the EPC (15%). Similarly, local authority and housing association renters were more likely to be living in a non-decent home if they say they did not remember seeing the EPC before they moved in (15% and 9%, respectively) than if they remembered seeing the EPC (7% and 8%, respectively), Figure 5.10.

Figure 5.10: Non-decent homes, by whether remember seeing an EPC and tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.11
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample} 

Private renters were the most likely to be living in non-decent homes regardless of whether the household remembered seeing the EPC before moving in, compared with all other tenures.

Damp

Households that said they did not remember seeing the EPC before moving in were more likely to be living in a damp home (8%, 341,000) than households that remembered seeing the EPC (5%, 472,000) or reported not knowing if they had seen the EPC (4%, 56,000). Similarly, private renters were more likely to live in a damp home if they said they did not remember seeing the EPC before moving in (13%) compared with those that reported remembering it (7%). This finding was similar for local authority renters (11% and 6%, respectively).

Owner occupiers who reported they either did not remember seeing their EPC (5%) or remembered seeing their EPC (3%) were more likely to have damp in their home than owner occupiers that did not know if they had seen the EPC (0.8%).