Accredited official statistics

English Housing Survey 2023-24: rented sectors

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

This report focuses on the two rented sectors – the social rented sector and the private rented sector – and is split into three chapters. The first chapter gives an overview of 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 second chapter focuses on housing histories and future housing aspirations, including current accommodation, duration of residence, reasons for moving, tenancy termination, and tenancy types. The chapter also looks at homelessness and concludes by discussing tenancy refusal and deposits.

The third chapter examines private and social renters’ neighbourhoods and local areas. It covers satisfaction with the area, feelings of belonging, trust, and how well people with different backgrounds get along. Additionally, it examines factors that can cause problems for an area, feelings of safety when home alone, perceptions of fire safety, area deprivation and specific issues affecting these neighbourhoods.

Main findings

While more social renters are in the lowest income quintile compared to private renters, private renters in the lowest two income quintiles were more likely to spend more than 30% of their income on rent, compared to social renters and mortgagors.

• On average, 71% of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their gross household income on rent, compared to 33% of mortgagors and 42% of social renters.
• In London, 96% of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their income on rent, compared to 65% of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles outside of London.
• However, private renters in London (26%) are more likely to be in the highest income quintile, when compared to private renters in the rest of England (10%).

Fewer households report being in arrears, and more report having savings over the past decade. The number of households that were not in arrears in the last year increased over time. The number of private and social renters who had savings has also increased over the last ten years.

• In 2023-24, 95% of private rented households and 85% of social rented households said they had not been in arrears over the past year. This was an increase when compared to 2019-20, where 92% of private renters and 80% of social renters had not reported arrears, and 2013-14 where 91% of private renters and 70% of social renters did not report arrears.
• In 2023-24, 52% of private renters had savings, more than the 33% that did in 2013-14. Social renters were more likely to have savings in 2023-24 (28%) than in 2013-14 (16%).

The majority of private and social renters reported finding it easy to pay rent, but this has varied over time.

• The majority of private (68%) and social (72%) renters reported it was easy to pay rent.
• The proportion of private renters who reported it was easy to pay rent in 2023-24 has decreased over the past 5 years. In 2019-20, 73% of private renters reported that it was easy to pay rent.
• The number of social renters who reported it was easy to pay rent in 2023-24 (72%) has remained stable since 2019-2020 (73%) but increased compared to 10 years ago (2013-14), where 59% of social renters found it easy to pay rent.

Owner occupiers reported staying in their homes for longer periods of time compared to private and social renters. Around 20% of private renters had been in their current home for less than one year, compared to 6% of social renters and 4% of owner occupiers

• The main reasons owner occupiers gave for considering moving were to move to a larger house (21%) or to buy a home (21%). For private renters, the main reasons were moving to a better area (14%) or a larger house (12%), and job-related reasons (12%). For social renters, the primary reasons for moving was the unsuitability of their previous accommodation (17%) and other family/personal reasons (16%).

Social renters were more likely to have experienced homelessness than private renters. Of those who experienced homelessness, lone men and women, and lone parents with dependent children were the most likely household types to do so.

• Just under one in 10 (8%) of social renters reported experiencing homelessness in the last few years, a higher proportion than private renters (4%) and owner occupiers (less than 1%).
• Of the total households that had experienced homelessness in the last few years, a higher proportion were lone men (29%), followed by lone parents with only dependent children (23%) and lone women (18%). Other household types that experienced homelessness include couples with only dependent children (11%) and couples with no children (7%).

Nearly two-fifths (39%) of private renters (1.8m households) paid rent in advance in addition to a deposit. Most of those who did, paid one month or less (79%).

• Of those who paid rent in advance, 79% paid one month or less, with smaller proportions paying more than one month and up to two months (6%), more than three months and up to four months (2%), and 12% paying more than four months in advance

Most households across all tenures felt satisfied with their local area as a place to live. Households in urban areas over 10k were least likely to report they were very satisfied with their local area.

• Overall, more than half of households (57%) felt very satisfied with their area as a place to live, while only 2% felt very dissatisfied. Owner occupiers were the most satisfied, with 60% feeling very satisfied with their area, higher than 52% of private renters and 48% of social renters.
• Rented households in urban areas over 10k were less likely to report they were very satisfied with their local area, compared to those in villages and hamlets, or those in towns and fringes. Around 46% of social rented households and 51% of private rented households in urban areas reported being very satisfied with their local area.

Social and Private renter HRPs were more likely to say they felt unsafe when home alone, compared to owner occupiers. Single female households were the most likely household type to feel unsafe when at home alone.

• In 2023-24, social renters (8%) and private renter HRPs (5%) were more likely to agree they felt unsafe when home alone compared to owner occupiers (2%).
• Overall, households with a single female HRP (6% compared to 2-4%) were the most likely to report that they felt unsafe when at home alone.

Households in the most deprived 20% of areas were typically the most affected by factors such as rubbish, vandalism, and crime.

• Overall, households in the most deprived 20% of areas, irrespective of tenure type, reported being most affected by factors such as rubbish (59%), vandalism (37%), and crime (56%), compared with the least affected being those in the least deprived 20% of areas (24%, 19% and 26% respectively).

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 Bethany Chapman, Olivia Cottis Black, and Honor Mitcheson at The National Centre for Social Research, in collaboration with Caitlin Bailey 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 Caitlin Bailey. Contact via ehs@communities.gov.uk.

1. Housing costs, affordability and resilience

This chapter provides an overview of housing costs and affordability. It begins with a discussion of some demographic characteristics, then details household income by region and various demographic characteristics, before moving on to housing costs, measures of affordability, receipt of housing support, ease of paying rent, arrears, and presence of savings. Additionally, the presence of lodgers, sub-letting, and under-occupation are also explored.

1.1 Nationality of HRP

The English Housing Survey (EHS) collects information about the characteristics of households, such as the nationality of the HRP. Across all tenures, 88% of HRPs were from the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland (ROI), 5% were from the European Union (excluding ROI and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)) and 6% were from other nationalities, Annex Table 1.1.

Within tenures, 65% of HRPs in private rented households were from the UK or Republic of Ireland, while 14% were from the EU. A higher proportion of private renters came from other nationalities originating from the rest of the world (20%), compared with social renters (6%) and owner occupiers (2%).

There was a noticeable reduction in UK and Irish national HRPs in the private rented sector, from 70% in 2022-23 to 65% in 2023-24. This change was mirrored by an increase in the proportion of individuals from other nationalities, rising from 16% in 2022-23 to 20% in 2023-24, Annex Table 1.1 and Annex Table 1.5 2022-23.

1.2 Income

All households are divided into 5 equal groups based on their income (i.e. those in the bottom 20%, the next 20% and so on). These groups are known as quintiles. These can be used to compare income levels of groups to the overall population.

Private renters were more evenly spread across income quintiles, with slightly more appearing in quintiles 2 and 3 (24% and 22%, respectively) than the higher income quintiles 4 and 5 (20% and 15%). Social renters were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile (47% vs. 20% of private renters and 13% of owner occupiers), while owner occupiers were more likely to be in the highest income quintile (26% vs. 14% of private renters and 3% of social renters), Figure 1.1 and Annex Table 1.2.

Figure 1.1: Proportion of households in each income quintile by tenure, 2023-24

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

Region

In 2023-24, 26% of private renters in London were in the highest income quintile, compared to 42% of owner occupiers and 7% of social renters. Social renters in London, however, were most likely to be in the lowest income quintile than other tenures (43% vs. 15% of private renters), Annex Table 1.2.

Private renters in the rest of England (excluding London) were more likely to be in the lowest three quintiles (22%, 25%, and 24%, respectively) than those in London (15%, 19%, and 19% respectively). Of private renters who lived in London, 26% were in the highest income quintile, compared to 10% of those who lived in the rest of England.

Receipt of housing support

Nearly half (46%) of private rented households in receipt of housing support were in the lowest income quintile, compared to 14% in quintile 3 and 1% in income quintile 5. A similar pattern appears for social rented households, where 60% of households in receipt of housing support were in quintile 1, 9% in quintile 3, and 1% in quintile 5, Annex Table 1.3.

Of those in the social rented sector in receipt of housing support, 60% were in the lowest income quintile. In comparison, of those in the private rented sector in receipt of housing support, 46% were in the lowest quintile.

For households in the private rented sector not in receipt of housing support, 12% were in income quintile 1, 25% in quintile 3, and 19% in quintile 5. Comparatively, for social renters, 25% were in quintile 1, 22% in quintile 3, and 7% in quintile 5.

Economic status

Around 11% of social renters with an HRP who worked full-time were in the lowest income quintile. In the private rented sector, 4% of full-time working HRPs were in the lowest income quintile, with 2% of full-time working owner occupiers in the lowest income quintile. Owner occupiers in full-time work were more likely to be in the highest income quintile (41%) compared to full-time workers in the private and social rented sector (21% and 10% respectively). Annex Table 1.4.

Private renters who worked full-time were more likely to be in the highest income quintile (21%) than the lowest income quintile (4%). Conversely, private renters who worked part-time were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile (28%) than the highest (2%). Private renters who worked part-time were more likely to be in lowest income quintile than owner occupiers who worked part time (28% vs. 15%).

Age

Across all age groups, social renters were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile, compared to private renters. Social renters in all age groups were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile compared to private renters with a HRP in the same age groups, Annex Table 1.5.

Owner occupiers were more likely to be in the highest income quintile than private renters across most age groups (e.g. 35-44, 41% vs. 19%), except those aged 16 to 24 and 75 and over.

Younger private renters aged 16 to 24 were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile (28%) compared to the highest (5%). This pattern was found for all age groups except age 25-34, where no significant difference was found.

Dependent children

A higher proportion of private rented households without dependent children were in the lowest income quintile (23%) than were in the highest (14%).

Those with dependent children in the social rented sector were more likely to be in the lowest income quintile (27%) compared to those with dependent children in the private rented sector (14%) and the owner occupied sector (2%), Annex Table 1.6.

Figure 1.2: Income quintiles, by presence of dependent children, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.6
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

1.3 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 because they pay both rent and mortgage and results are therefore difficult to compare.

On average, private renters had higher weekly housing costs, paying a mean weekly rent of £237 (median: £196), compared to the mean payment of £222 by mortgagors (median: £185) and £118 by social renters (median: £107). Annex Table 1.7.

Age

Across all tenures, older households generally spent less on housing than younger households. For private renters, the mean weekly rent decreased with age, with those aged 16 to 24 paying a mean of £270 per week (median: £219), compared to those aged 75 or over paying a mean weekly cost of £190 (median: £163).

In the social rented sector, a similar pattern was observed, whereby social renters aged 25 to 34 paid a mean weekly cost of £124 (median: £111) compared to older renters aged 75 or over who paid a mean of £105 (median: £100).

Economic status

Private renters in full-time work paid more on average per week (mean: £249, median: £208) than those in part-time work (mean: £233, median: £212). Private renters in full-time work also paid on average around £120 more per week than social renters who worked full-time (£249 vs £126).

In the social rented sector, full-time workers also paid more on average per week (mean: £126, median: £114) than social renters who were retired (mean: £106, median: £100).

Region

At a regional level, private renters in London paid the highest weekly costs across all tenures, with a mean weekly cost of £368 (median: £346). This was more per week on rent than social renters in London (mean: £157, median: £140).

Private renters in the North East paid the least per week (mean: £133, median: £121), although this was still higher than social renters in the same area, who paid a mean of £94 a week (median: £91).

Figure 1.3: Mean weekly rent costs, private renters, by region, 2023-24

^{Base: all private renters paying rent
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.7
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Income

Overall, there was a linear increase in housing costs as household income increased. For private renters, the average weekly rent increased from £183 (median: £154) for households in the lowest income quintile to £371 (median: £323) per week for households in the highest quintile.

Private renters in the highest income quintile had the highest weekly housing costs (mean: £371, median: £323) compared to both social renters (mean: £150, median: £133) and mortgagors (mean: £288, median: £253) 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.

Private renters receiving housing support paid on average £48 less per week than those not receiving support (mean of £201 per week vs. £249 per week). Similarly, in the social rented sector, those receiving support paid a mean of £117 per week (median: £105), compared to £121 per week (median: £111) for those not receiving support.

Private renters who received support were paying on average £84 more per week (mean: £201, median: £173) than social renters (mean: £117, median: £105).

Dependent children

Private renters with dependent children had average housing costs of £238 per week (median: £208), with those with dependent children paying a mortgage incurring similar costs (mean: £245, median: £208). Social renters with dependent children paid the least out of all tenures with children, on average spending £129 per week (median: £115).

1.4 Proportion of income spent on housing costs

For this measure, we have used the mean proportion of gross household income spent on housing costs. This measure reflects the total income available to a household, assuming all household members contribute to the rent or mortgage.

Figure 1.4: Mean proportion of income spent on rent, by age, 2023-24

^{Base: all households paying rent
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.8
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Age

Younger private renters aged 16 to 24 spent the highest proportion of their income on rent across tenure types and age groups, on average spending half (50%) of their income on rent.

Within private renters, those aged 35 to 44 paid the smallest proportion of their income on rent (28%), compared to all other age groups (16 to 24: 50%, 25 to 34: 34%, 45 to 64: 34%, 65 to 74: 32%, 75 or over: 38%). A similar pattern appears for social renters, with those aged 16 to 24 spending a higher proportion of their income on housing (32%), compared to those aged 35 to 44 (24%). Annex Table 1.8.

Economic status

Overall, households with a HRP in full-time work spent the lowest proportion of their income on housing costs (ranging from 17% in the social rented sector to 26% in the private rented sector), followed by those with a HRP who had retired (18% for mortgagors to 38% for private renters). Private renters who were retired were, on average, spending a higher proportion of their income on rent (38%) than owner occupier retirees were paying for a mortgage (18%).

Private renters in full-time work spent an average of 26% of their income on rent, compared to 19% for social renters and 17% for mortgagors. Private renters in full time education spent the highest proportion of their income on rent (90%), a higher proportion than any other economic group and significantly greater than the proportion spent by social renters in full-time education (36%). However, it is worth noting the sample size for those in full time education are small which may impact the accuracy of the differences.

Region

Private renters in London spent 46% of their income on housing costs, a higher proportion than social renters in London (31%) and mortgagors (24%).

The average proportion of income spent on rent by private renters in other regions ranged from 25% in the North West to 33% in the South West and South East. Social renters and mortgagors in the North East spent 23% and 15% of their income on rent, respectively, compared to 28% for private renters.

Income

Overall, the proportion of income spent on rent or mortgage payments decreased as weekly household income increased, regardless of tenure type.

For private renters, the proportion of income spent on rent or mortgage payments dropped from 63% in income quintile 1 to 17% in quintile 5. A similar trend appears for social renters (36% to 9%) and mortgagors (54% to 13%).

Receipt of housing support

Private renters in receipt of housing support spent the highest mean proportion of their income on rent (37%), compared to 33% for private renters who did not receive housing support. Social renters followed a similar pattern, with 28% of income spent on housing costs for those receiving support, and 23% spent for those without housing support.

Dependent children

For both social and private rented tenures, households without dependent children spent a higher proportion of their income on rent (28% and 36%, respectively) compared to those with dependent children (22% to 30%, respectively).

National Statistics Socio-economic Classification

To analyse tenure by 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.

Private renters were more likely to be in higher or lower managerial and professional occupations (47%) compared to those in the social sector (21%), but less likely than owner-occupiers (58%). Private renters were also less likely to be in semi-routine and routine occupations (25%) than social renters (50%), Annex Table 1.9.

Private renters were less likely to be in routine occupations (11%) and intermediate occupations (10%) than in higher or lower managerial and professional occupations (47%). Social renters, however, were more likely to be in routine occupations (24%) and semi-routine occupations (26%) than in higher or lower managerial and professional occupations (21%).

Figure 1.5: NS-SEC by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.9
Source: English Housing Survey, 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.

Most private renters were in comfortable communities (29%) or financially stretched areas (28%). Private renters were less likely to be affluent achievers (4%) compared to owner occupiers (14%), according to the ACORN categorisation. Annex Table 1.10, Figure 1.6

A higher proportion of private renters and owner occupiers were in comfortable communities (both 29%) than social renters (8%). Social renters were more likely to live in areas designated as ‘non-private households’ (45%), compared to private renters (17%) and owner occupiers (7%).

Figure 1.6: ACORN by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.10
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

40/30 ratio

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

There was a higher proportion of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles paying 30% or more of their income on housing costs than any other tenure type (71%). This is more than double the proportion of mortgagors in the lowest two income quintiles paying more than 30% of their income (33%), and higher than social renters (42%), Annex Table 1.11.

Region

In London, 96% of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles spent more than 30% of their gross household income on rent, as did 60% of mortgagors, and 64% of social renters.

This is more than any other region for all three tenures. In England, excluding London, 65% of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles paid more than 30% of their income on rent, compared to 31% of mortgagors and 37% of social renters.

In contrast to London, for private renters in the lowest two income quintiles in the North West, just over half of low income private renters paid 30% or more of their income on rent (52%), exceeding the proportions for both mortgagors (14%) and social renters (35%).

Figure 1.7: 40/30 ratio, by region, 2023-24

^{Base: households in the lowest two income quintiles spending 30% or more of their income on rent
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.11
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Age

Among private renters, 78% of those aged 16 to 24 in the lowest two income quintiles reported paying more than 30% of their income on rent compared to 64% of 65 to 74 year olds.

Of private renters aged 35 to 44, 65% were paying 30% or more, compared to 38% of social renters in the same age group.

Economic status

Unemployed private renters and private renters in full time education in the lowest two income quintiles were the most likely to pay more than 30% of their income on rent (93% and 90%).

Of those private renters in the lowest two income quintiles who were unemployed, nearly all (93%) paid 30% or more of their income on rent, compared to 65% of social renters.

As expected, private renters in the lowest two income quintiles with a HRP who worked full-time were the least likely economic group to pay more than 30% (60% vs. 71% to 93% for other economic statuses). Similarly, 26% of social renters who were working full-time paid over 30% of their income on rent, the lowest proportion among social renters.

Figure 1.8: 40/30 ratio, by economic status, 2023-24

^{Base: households in the lowest two income quintiles spending 30% or more of their income on rent
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.11
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Receipt of housing support

Around 72% of private renters in the lowest two income quintiles who received housing support spent 30% or more of their income on rent, compared to just 41% of social renters.

Similarly, private renters not receiving housing support were more likely than social renters to pay over 30% of their income on rent (71% vs. 43%).

Dependent children

Private renters with at least one dependent child in the lowest two income quintiles were more likely to spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs (67%) than mortgagors (39%) and social renters (32%).

Similarly, a higher proportion of private renters with no dependent children in the lowest two income quintiles paid more than 30% of their income on housing costs (73%), followed by social renters (45%) and owner occupiers (32%).

1.5 Receipt of housing support

Receipt of housing support was recorded in each household if either or both the HRP or their partner received housing support, though this section describes receipt based on the characteristics of the HRP only. This is important to note to explain why certain households who would otherwise be ineligible, such as those with HRPs in full-time education, appeared to receive housing support. It will also undercount the proportion of households in receipt of housing support, as it will not capture cases where an adult who is neither the HRP or their partner is in receipt of support.

Overall, about 1.1 million private and 2.5 million social renting households were in receipt of housing support, according to the EHS. Just under one in four (24%) of privately renting households received housing support, a lower proportion than the 63% of social renters, Annex Table 1.12.

Figure 1.9: Receives housing support, by income quintiles, 2023-24

^{Base: all renters in receipt of housing support
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.12
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Region

There was a similar proportion of private renters who lived in London (22%) who received housing support as there were in the rest of England (25%).

Age

Older private renters aged 75 and over, were more likely to say they received housing support (36%) than younger private renters aged 16 to 24 (8%).

Income

As expected, those in higher income quintiles were less likely to receive housing support, regardless of tenure.

Fifty-five percent of private renters who were in lowest income quintile, received housing support, compared to only 1% in the highest household income quintile. Similarly, 80% of social rented households in the lowest household income quintile received housing support, compared to 14% in the highest income quintile.

Looking across tenures, a higher proportion of social renters in the lowest income quintile received housing support (80%) than private renters in the same quintile (55%).

Economic status

One in ten (10%) full-time workers living in private rented housing received housing support, compared to 53% of part-time workers. In the social rented sector, 21% of full-time workers received housing support, compared to 68% of part-time workers.

Household type

For private renters, lone parents with dependent children only were more likely to be in receipt of housing support (81%) than couples with dependent children only (23%).

In the social rented sector, couples with dependent children only were more likely to receive housing support (54%) compared to private renting couples in the same household type (23%).

Dependent children

Of private renters with at least one dependent child, 41% received housing support, compared with 70% of social renters with at least one dependent child. Sixteen percent of private renters without dependent children received housing support, while 84% did not.

Figure 1.10: Receives housing support, by presence of dependent children, 2023-24

^{Base: all renters in receipt of housing support
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.12
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

1.6 Ease of paying rent

The question on ease of paying rent had answer options of very easy, fairly easy, fairly difficult, and very difficult. For analytical purposes, the categories of very easy and fairly easy were combined into a single category labelled ‘easy,’ while the categories of fairly difficult and very difficult were combined into a single category labelled ‘difficult.’ It is important to note that there is no middle category, and respondents were required to choose one of the four provided options.

Overall, social renters were more likely to report they found it easy to pay rent compared to private renters (72% vs. 68%). Conversely, private renters were more likely to report finding it difficult to pay rent than social renters (32% vs. 28%), Annex Table 1.13.

Region

Private renters who lived in the rest of England (excluding London) found it easier to pay their rent, compared to those living in London (72% vs. 56%). A similar pattern appeared for social renters (74% vs. 62%).

Age

Private renters aged 75 and over reported they found it easier to pay their rent (80%) than private renters aged 45-64 (63%).

Among social renters aged 25 to 34, 80% said they found it easy to pay their rent, compared to 73% of private renters of the same age.

Income

Around 58% of private renters and 69% of social renters in the lowest income quintile reported finding it easy to pay their rent. In contrast, 79% of private renters and 80% of social renters in the highest income quintile found it easy to pay their rent.

Economic status

Seventy-three percent of private renters in full-time work found it easy to pay their rent, while only 54% of part-time workers did. Nearly half (48%) of unemployed private renters found it easy to pay their rent, compared to 67% of unemployed social renters.

Receipt of housing support

Overall, private renters not receiving housing support found it easier to pay their rent than those who did (72% vs. 55%). A higher proportion of social renters in receipt of housing support found it easy to pay rent (72%) than private renters in receipt of housing support (55%).

Dependent children

Around 61% of private renters with at least one dependent child found easy to pay their rent compared to 71% of private renters without dependent children. A higher proportion of social renters with dependent children found it easy to pay their rent, compared to private renters with dependent children (69% vs. 61%). However, there was no significant difference between social and private renters without dependent children.

Comparison to 2013-14 and 2019-2020

In 2023-24, 68% of private rented households found it easy to pay their rent. This was a decrease from 2019-20, when 73% of private renters said they found it easy. In 2013-14, 67% of private renters found it easy to pay their rent, which was similar to 2023-24, Annex Table 1.14.

1.7 Arrears

Overall, a higher proportion of social renters said they were currently in arrears or had been in arrears in the last year (15%) compared to private renters (5%), Annex Table 1.15.

Region

Across regions, the proportion of those in the private rented sector that were currently or previously in arrears in the past year varied from 10% in the North West to 2% in the South West.

Age

Among private renters aged 25 to 34, 4% were currently or previously in arrears, compared to 25% of social renters of the same age. For social renters, this was a higher proportion than the 6% of social renters aged 65-74 who were currently or previously in arrears.

Among private renters, 7% of those aged 45 to 64 reported being currently or previously in arrears, compared to 2% of those aged 65 to 74. In the social rented sector, 25% of those aged 25 to 34 were currently or previously in arrears in the past year, while only 3% of those aged 75 and over were.

Income

Around one in ten (11%) private rented households in the lowest income quintile said they were currently in arrears or had previously been in arrears, compared to 15% of social renters in the same income quintile. Similarly, a smaller proportion of private renters in the highest income quintile were currently in arrears or had been in arrears in the last 12 months (2%), compared social renters in the highest income quintile (16%).

Economic status

Both full-time and part-time working social renters were more likely to currently or previously be in arrears than private renters, with significant differences for full-time workers (full-time:18% for social renters vs. 4% for private renters and part time:21% for social renters vs.7% for private renters). 

Receipt of housing support

A smaller proportion of private renters who were in receipt of housing support said they were currently or had previously been in arrears than social renters (11% vs. 17%).

Dependent children

Similarly, a smaller proportion of private renters with dependent children reported that they were currently in or had previously been in arrears (7%), compared to social renters with at least one dependent child (23%).

Private renters with dependent children were more likely to have been in arrears currently or in the last year (7%) than those without dependent children (4%). A similar pattern emerged between social renters with and without dependent children (23% and 12%, respectively).

Ethnicity

Within the social rented sector, those with a white HRP were less likely to report that they were currently in or had previously been in arrears than those with an ethnic minority HRP (15% vs. 18%). This difference was not seen in the private rented sector.

Comparison to 2013-14 and 2019-20

In 2023-24, 95% of households in the private rented sector and 85% of households in the social housing sector had not been in arrears in the past year. This represented an improvement compared to 2019-20 and 2013-14. In 2019-20, 92% of people in the private rented sector and 80% of people in the social rented sector were not in arrears in the past year. In 2013-14, 91% of private renters and 70% of social renters were not in arrears, Annex Table 1.16.

1.8 Affordability of rent and payment of energy bills

The way a household pays for energy costs can have an impact on the affordability of utilities, as those paying by pre-payment meter frequently pay a higher unit cost for their energy. To better understand this, we take a closer look at households who are struggling with rental costs, and their means of paying for energy bills.  

Method of payment for gas and electric

Overall, 54% of private renters and 45% of social renters paid their gas bill by direct debit, making it the most common method of payment for all tenures. Similarly, 66% of private renters and 52% of social renters paid for their electricity by direct debit, Annex Table 1.17 and 1.18.

Around 14% of private renters and 29% of social renters used a pre-payment method to pay their gas bill. Additionally, 17% of private renters and a third (33%) of social renters paid for their electricity using a pre-payment method.

Ease of paying rent

As the difficulty paying rent increased, more private renters used pre-payment methods to pay for gas: 11% of those who found it very easy to pay rent used pre-payment, rising to 24% among those who found it very difficult. Regardless of ease of payment, 17% of private renters had no mains gas, compared to 13% of social renters, Annex Table 1.17.

Difficulty paying rent was also related to electricity payment methods. Among private renters, 29% of those who found it very difficult to pay rent used a pre-payment method for electricity, compared to only 15% of those who found it very easy to pay rent. This relationship is similar for social renters, where 38% of those who found it fairly difficult to pay rent used pre-payment methods, compared to 32% of those who found it very easy.

Although direct debit remains the most common method of payment for electricity across all tenures, with 66% of private renters and 52% of social renters paying this way, the likelihood of using a pre-payment method increased with difficulty in paying rent. Rising from 14% of private renters and 32% of social renters who found it very easy to pay rent using a pre-payment method, to 29% of private renters and 39% of social renters of those who found it very difficult to pay rent. Among those in the private rented sector who found it very difficult to pay rent, 52% paid by direct debit, compared to 70% who found it very easy to pay rent, Annex Table 1.18.

Arrears

Among private renters currently in arrears, 48% paid for their gas by direct debit, while only 26% of social renters in arrears did the same. Conversely, nearly half of social renters (46%) who were currently in arrears used a pre-payment method for gas, compared to 29% of private renters who were currently in arrears. These proportions were higher than renters who were not currently in arrears, with 28% of social renters and 13% of private renters reporting they used a pre-payment method for their gas. Renters not in arrears were more likely to pay by direct debit (46% of social renters and 55% of private renters), Annex Table 1.19.

Much like gas payment methods, private renters currently in arrears were most likely to pay for their electricity by direct debit (55%), compared to social renters in arrears (30%). However, a higher proportion of private renters currently in arrears used a pre-payment method (33%) than those not in arrears (16%). A similar pattern appears for social renters, where 53% of those currently in arrears paid by pre-payment method, compared to 31% who were not in arrears, Annex Table 1.20.

Private renters not in arrears were less likely to use a pre-payment method (16%) and more likely to pay by direct debit (67%) than social renters not in arrears (31% and 54%, respectively).

1.9 Savings

More than half (52%) of private renters reported having savings. Private renters were more likely to have savings compared to social renters (28%), but less likely compared to owner occupiers (79%), Annex Table 1.21, Figure 1.11

Figure 1.11: Presence of savings by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.21
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Region

The proportion of private renters with savings varied by region, ranging from 60% in the South West to 36% in the North West. Private renters in London were more likely to have savings (59%) than private renters in the rest of England (49%). Mirroring the overall pattern, more private renters in London had savings compared to social renters in London (59% vs. 29%).

Economic status

Unsurprisingly, full-time workers who lived in owner occupied and private rented housing were more likely to have savings (75% and 59%, respectively) than not (25% and 41%). However, the opposite is true for social renters who worked full time who were less likely to have savings (64% did not, 36% did).

Receipt of housing support

Private renters who did not receive housing support were more likely to have savings than those who were in receipt of support (62% vs. 21%). Similarly, social renters who did not receive support were also more likely to have savings than those who did (44% vs. 19%).

Age

For private renters, 62% of HRPs aged 75 and over reported having savings, compared to those aged 45 to 64 who were the least likely age group to report having savings (43%). Private renters aged 25 to 34 were more likely to have savings (56%) than social renters (18%), but less likely than owner-occupiers (72%).

Household type

Private renter couples without dependent children were the most likely among all private renters to have savings (68%), while lone parents with dependent children were the least likely (19%). Mirroring the overall pattern, private renter couples with dependent children were more likely to have savings (45%) than social renter couples with dependent children (17%) but were less likely than owner occupier couples with dependent children (71%).

1.10 Expectations to buy

The EHS asks respondents whether they expected to eventually buy a home in the UK, as well as if they have any savings. This could be savings for buying a home or just general savings. Frequently, households report that the main barrier to buying a home is the requirement for a deposit and most full-time buyers use savings to fund a deposit (see 2023-24 Headline Findings on Demographics and Resilience). This section looks at the extent to which households expecting to buy had savings.

In 2023-24, around 2.5 million private renters and 972,000 social renters expected to buy a property.

Private renters who expected to buy were more likely to have savings (60%), compared to social renters who expected to buy (29%). Private renters who expected to buy and had savings most commonly had amounts between £5,000 and £15,999 (16%), while the least common amount saved was less than £1,000 (5%).

Social renters who expected to buy and had savings were most likely to have between £1,000 and £4,999 (7%) and least likely to have £50,000 or more (1%). Relatedly, social renters who said they expected to buy were more likely to have no savings than private renters (71% vs. 40%), Annex Table 1.22.

Comparatively, private renters who did not expect to buy a home were most likely to have no savings (61%), although this was less than social renters with no expectation to buy, where 72% had no savings. Among private renters with no expectation to buy but who had some savings, the most common amount saved was between £5,000 and £15,999 (10%).

Comparison to 2013-14

In 2023-24, 52% of private renters had savings, an increase when compared to 10 years ago where 33% of private renters had savings. Similarly, 48% of private renters in 2023-24 did not have savings, which was a decrease from 67% in 2013-14. Social renters were also more likely to have savings in 2023-24 (28%) than in 2013-14 (16%), Annex Table 1.23 ^{[footnote 1]}.

1.11 Ease of paying rent by savings and dependent children

Private renters with dependent children who had savings were more likely to report it was easy to pay rent (71%) than difficult (29%). Private renters with savings, but those with no dependent children, were even more likely to find it easy to pay rent (80%) than difficult (20%). Private renters with no savings and no dependent children still reported finding it easier to pay rent than finding it difficult (63% vs. 37%), though to a lesser degree.

Around 6 in 10 (61%) of private renters with dependent children who had no savings found it easy to pay rent and 39% found it difficult. Those with dependent children and no savings were more likely to find it difficult to pay rent (39%) compared to those with no children and savings (29%), Annex Table 1.24.

1.12 Presence of lodgers and casual sub-lettings

Fewer than 1% of private renters in England had lodgers paying rent in their accommodation. This was approximately 44,000 households, Annex Table 1.25.

Households were also asked if they had rented out their own home or part of their home in the past 12 months. A small proportion of private renters reported sub-letting their accommodation on a casual basis, approximately 203,000 households (4%). Private renters were more likely not to be subletting on a casual basis (96%) than to be subletting (4%), Annex Table 1.26.

1.13 Under-occupation

Levels of 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 available to the household. Overcrowded households are those that are one or more bedrooms below bedroom standard. An under-occupied household is two or more rooms above bedroom standard. See the glossary for further information.

Where private renters underoccupied their home, the HRP was most often in the age groups of 25-34 (21%), 35 to 44 (21%) and 45 to 64 (30%). For social renters, the age profile was generally older, with 44% of those underoccupying their home being aged 45 to 64 and 23% being aged 65 to 74, Annex Table 1.27.

2. Housing history and future housing aspirations

This chapter provides an overview of housing histories and future housing aspirations for owners, private renters, and social renters in 2023-24. It begins with an examination of current accommodation and the duration of residence, followed by reasons for moving, tenancy termination, and tenancy types. The chapter also reports on homelessness, and concludes by discussing tenancy refusal, and deposits.

2.1 Length of residence in current home  

Tenure

Owner occupiers tend to reside in their homes for longer periods compared to renters. Just over a fifth (21%) of owner occupiers lived in their current home for more than 30 years, whereas this is true for 8% of social renters and 1% of private renters, Annex Table 2.1.

Social renters were more likely than those in other tenures to remain in their homes for durations between 10 -19 years. A quarter (25%) of social renters had lived in their home for 10-19 years. This compared to 20% of owners and 9% of private renters. Those in the private rented sector are the most mobile, with 20% being resident at point of survey for less than one year, compared to 6% of social renters and 4% of owners.

Dependent children

The English Housing Survey defines a dependent child as any person aged 0 to 15 in the household (whether or not in a family) or a person aged 16 to 18 in full-time education and living in a family with his or her parent(s) or grandparent(s). It does not include any person aged 16 to 18 who has a spouse, partner or child living in the household.

Overall, the presence of dependent children was associated with the length of residence.

Around a quarter (26%) of social renters with dependent children said their length of residence was between 5-9 years. This was higher than the proportion of social renters without dependent children living in their residence for the same length of time (20%), Annex table 2.2.

Owner occupiers without dependent children tended to live in their homes for a longer period compared to owner occupiers with dependent children. For owner occupiers, 29% with dependent children had been in their home for 5-9 years and 27% had been in their home for 10-19 years. Only 2% of owners with dependent children had been in their home for 30+ years – which is unsurprising, given the age associated with being a dependent child. For owners without dependent children, 26% had been in their home for 30+ years, 19% had been in their home for 10-19 years, and 18% for 20-29 years.

Private renters with dependent children tended to have lived in their homes for longer than private renters without dependent children. Around 24% of private renters with dependent children had lived in their home for between 3-4 years. A further 24% of private renters had lived in their home for between 5-9 years. A fifth (22%) of private renters with no dependent children had lived in their home for less than one year compared to 16% of private renters with children.

Reasons for staying

Residents who had lived in their current home for more than five years and do not plan to move in the next six months were asked why they chose to stay in their current home. Respondents were able to select multiple reasons.

For owner occupiers, the primary reason was their home met their needs (77%). For private renters, the most common reason was that they liked the local area (62%) and that the home met their needs (55%). Social renters also cited the local area (54%) and the home meeting their needs (52%) as common reasons for staying.

While residents had many different reasons for staying in their current home across all tenures, the home meeting their needs was consistently mentioned.  Across all tenures, respondents also said they stayed because they liked the size or features of their current home (69% of owner occupiers, 46% of private renters and 47% of social renters), Annex Table 2.3.

Reasons for moving

Households that had lived in their current home for fewer than three years were asked why they had recently moved, with respondents able to select multiple reasons.

Most owners had moved because they had wanted a larger home (33%), because they had wanted to live in a better area (31%) or because they had wanted to buy (30%). A higher proportion of owners had moved to live in a better area (31%) than private renters (20%) and social renters (16%).

For private renters, job-related reasons (22%), moving to a better neighbourhood/area (20%) and wanting a larger house/flat (19%) were most commonly given as reasons for moving, whereas 19% of social renters had moved because their previous accommodation was unsuitable and 19% for other family or personal reasons. Moving due to unsuitable accommodation was more common for social renters than for private renters (8% moved due to unsuitable accommodation) and owners (5%). Around 19% of social renters also moved for family or personal reasons, Annex Table 2.4.

Those who selected more than one reason for moving were asked to choose the main reason why they had moved. When asked to select the main reason for moving, owner occupiers were most likely to have moved for a larger home (21%), or to buy a home (21%). For private renters, the main reasons for moving included moving to a better area (14%), a larger home (12%), and job-related reasons (12%). Among social renters, the primary reasons for moving were the unsuitability of their previous accommodation (17%), again higher than for private renters (4%), and owners (1%), as well as wanting a larger house/flat (12%) and to live closer to friends or relatives (10%), Annex Table 2.5, Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Main reasons for considering moving by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: all households resident less than three years
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.4
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Around 6% of owner occupiers, 7% of private renters and 10% of social renters reported that the main reason for moving was to live closer to friends or relatives, Annex Table 2.5. Respondents who answered this were asked to elaborate on why this was. Overall, the most common reason owner occupiers and private renters gave for moving closer to friends and family was wanting to be near people they know - over half of owners (58%) and private renters (55%). Social renters also said they wanted to be near people they know (43%) as well as wanting to move to receive care now or in the future (26%).

There was also little difference across regions. Wanting to move to be near known people was one of the most selected reasons across all regions (55%), Annex Tables 2.6. and 2.7.

2.2 Tenancy type and end of tenancy within the private rented sector

Private renters who had had a tenancy end in the last 12 months were asked why their last tenancy ended. Overall, 60% of private renters said they decided to end their last tenancy because they wanted to move. Other reasons given by private renters included: that the tenancy was for a fixed period (14%), the tenancy ended by mutual agreement (14%) or they were asked to leave by their landlord or agent (10%), Annex Table 2.8.

Private renters were also asked about their tenancy type and length. To improve sample sizes, two years of the full household sample EHS were combined in the analysis. Most private renters (81%) had an assured shorthold tenancy, with 13% selecting ‘other type of let’ as their tenancy type. Around 3% of private renters had a resident landlord, 2% of private renters had an assured tenancy (for tenancies starting between 1989-1997), 0.4% had a tenancy let by an educational institution and 0.3% had a regulated tenancy (that started in 1988 or earlier), Annex Table 2.9.

An assured shorthold private tenancy (AST) grants right of occupancy for a fixed term (usually 6 months or a year). During this period the tenancy cannot be terminated on ‘no fault’ grounds. After that period, the landlord has the right to terminate the tenancy with notice.

For private renters with assured shorthold tenancies who had been in their current property for fewer than three years, 61% had a 12-month initial tenancy agreement. This was the most common length. Around a quarter (24%) had a 6-month tenancy and 4% had an 18-month tenancy. A further 11% of private renters with an assured shorthold tenancy reported that their tenancy length was ‘other’, Annex Table 2.10.

Within the private rented sector, the most frequently reported notice period was for 2 months (50%), followed by a notice period of less than 2 months and more than two months (both 21%). Half (51%) of unfurnished and 45% of furnished residences had a two-month notice period. More renters in furnished residences had no notice period (15%) compared to unfurnished residences (7%). Renters in unfurnished residences were more likely to have a notice period of more than 2 months (22%) compared to furnished residences (15%), Annex Table 2.11.

Private rented households were asked their opinions on notice periods. Nearly half (49%) of private renters with a notice period of two months felt it was possibly too short to find a new place to live, and a further 17% believed two months was definitely too short, Annex Table 2.12.

More than a half of private renters who had more than a 2 month notice period thought that it gives them enough time to move on (58%), about a third thought it was possibly too short to find a new place (30%) and a fifth thought that it was definitely too short to find a new place (12%).

Around 8% of private renters reported having no formal notice period, Annex Table 2.11. However, nearly three-quarters (73%) thought that this gave them enough time to move on, Annex Table 2.12.

2.3 Experiences of homelessness

In the English Housing Survey, respondents were asked if they had experienced homelessness in the past few years, defined broadly to include staying in hostels, temporary accommodation, or with friends and family due to losing their home or having no accommodation to go to. For some tables in this section, two years of the EHS full household sample have been combined to provide sample sizes large enough for analysis. Analysis that uses two years of the full household sample are noted in the text and tables where applicable.

Overall, just under one in ten (8%) social renters reported experiencing homelessness in the past few years, a higher proportion than private renters (4%) and owner occupiers (fewer than 1%). Annex Table 2.13. Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Experiences of homelessness in past few years, by tenure, two-years analysis, 2022-24

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.13
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample 2022-24}

Contacted the council

Of households with a HRP who reported experiencing homelessness in the past few years, renters were more likely to have reported contacting the council for help, with 90% of social renters and 70% of private renters doing so, compared to 39% of owner occupiers. Social renters were also significantly more likely to have asked for help from the council (90%) compared to private renters (70%), Annex Table 2.14.

Hosted someone homeless

Private and social renters were more likely to report having hosted someone homeless in the past 12 months (both 3%), compared to owner occupiers (2%), Annex Table 2.15.

Gender of homeless person hosted

Of those who had hosted someone homeless in the past 12 months, social renters (61%) and private renters (57%) were more likely to have hosted a male homeless person than owner occupiers (49%), Annex Table 2.16.

Age of homeless person hosted

Private renters were most likely to have hosted a homeless person between the age of 25 to 34 years (39%) and 35 to 54 years (33%) in the past 12 months. Social renters were most likely to have hosted someone aged between 35 to 54 (35%), 25 to 34 (32%) and 16 to 24 (24%) in the past 12 months.

Social renters were more likely to have hosted someone between the age of 16 to 24 (24%) in the past 12 months than owner occupiers (15%), Annex Table 2.17.

2.4 Experiences of homelessness

The rest of this chapter makes use of the EHS full household sample (one year).

Region

Of those who reported experiencing homelessness in the last few years, 19% were currently living in London. This was a higher proportion than in other regions, except the North West and South East (both 16%), which were similar to London, Annex Table 2.18.

Household type

Of those who experienced homelessness in the past few years, those living without a partner were more likely to report experiencing homelessness. Of those who reported experiencing homelessness, 29% were lone male households, higher than lone female households (18%). Furthermore, 23% were lone parents with only dependent children. Annex Table 2.19.

A higher proportion of those who had experienced homelessness were lone parents with dependent children only (23%) than couples with dependent children only (11%).

2.5 Tenancy refusal within the private rented sector

Tenants can report within the English Housing Survey whether they have been refused a tenancy in the last 1 months for reasons such as having children, having pets or being in receipt of housing support.

Household type

Overall, approximately 87,000 (2%) of households in the private rented sector reported experiencing tenancy refusal in the last 12 months due to having children, Annex Table 2.20.

Around 6% of lone parents with dependent children (31,000 households) and 4% of couples with dependent children (42,000 households) reported they had been refused a tenancy in the last 12 months because of having children in the home.

Pets

The vast majority (93%) of private renters had not been refused tenancy due to pets, while 7% had, representing around 320,000 households, Annex Table 2.21.

Receipt of housing support

Most private renters (95%) in receipt of housing support said they had not been refused a tenancy due to benefits receipt. The 5% of private renters who reported being refused because they were in receipt of housing support represented 59,000 households, Annex Table 2.22.

Region

Tenancy refusal rates of any type (regarding children, pets or receipt of housing support) also varied by region. Of those who had been refused a tenancy for any of the given three reasons, 20% lived in London. This was a greater proportion than the 4% who had been refused a tenancy and lived in the North East, Annex Table 2.23 and Figure 2.3. It is worth noting that these regional differences likely reflect the higher number of renters in London, compared to other regions in England.

Age

Of private renters who reported being refused a tenancy (due to having children, pets or being in receipt of housing support), 37% were aged between 25-34 and 31% were aged between 35-44. Only 7% of those tenants who had been refused a tenancy were 16 to 24 years old, Annex Table 2.24 and Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Tenancy refusal in the past 12 months, by age of HRP, 2023-24

^{Base: all private renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.24
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

2.6 Deposits and rent in advance in the private rented sector

Current private renters were asked if they paid a deposit when moving in. Approximately 3.6 million private renting households (78%) paid a deposit when starting their current tenancy, Annex Table 2.25.

Of those who paid a deposit, 77% said it was protected under one of the government’s authorised tenancy deposit schemes, 17% did not know, and 6% (208,000 households) reported their deposit was not protected, Annex Tables 2.26.

Over half (54%) of those who paid a deposit paid an amount equivalent to one calendar month’s rent or four weeks’ rent, a higher proportion than those who said they paid less than a week’s rent (1%) or six weeks or more rent (20%), Annex Table 2.27.

Private renters were also asked if they were asked to provide a guarantor for their tenancy. Most private renters (78%) reported not being asked to provide a guarantor, however just under 1 million (984,000 households or 22%) private renting households reported being asked to provide a guarantor for their tenancy, Annex Table 2.28.

Private renters were also asked whether, in addition to their deposit, they had to provide rent in advance. Just under two-fifths (39%) of private renters reported paying rent in advance in addition to a deposit, representing about 1.8 million households, Annex Table 2.29.

The proportion of respondents who reported paying rent in advance varied by region. For example, 45% of private renters in the East Midlands reported paying in rent in advance, higher than 30% in the West Midlands but similar to other regions, Annex Table 2.30 and Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Rent paid in advance in addition to or instead of a deposit by private renters across England 2023-24

^{Base: all private renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.30
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Private renters aged 75 or over were the least likely age group to report paying rent in advance, with 18% reporting they paid rent in advance in addition to or instead of a deposit. Other age groups ranged from 38% to 42%. There was no significant difference between the other age groups, Annex Table 2.31.

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 (79%) paid one month or less, with smaller proportions of private renters reporting they paid more than one and up to two months’ rent (6%) and more than three months and up to four months (2%). Around 12% of private renters paying rent in advance reported paying more than four months’ worth of rent in advance, Annex Table 2.32 and Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5:  Proportion of rent paid in advance by private renters 2023-24

^{Base: all private renters who paid rent in advance
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.32
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

3. Neighbourhoods and local areas

This chapter provides an overview of neighbourhoods and local areas for both private and social renters. It begins with a discussion on satisfaction with area, followed by feelings of belonging, trust in the area, and how well households with different backgrounds get on. The chapter also reports on factors that cause problems for an area, feelings of safety when home alone, and perceptions of fire safety. It then concludes by looking at area deprivation and specific problems affecting these neighbourhoods.

3.1 Satisfaction with area

Much like previous years, households were asked about their level of satisfaction with their area as a place to live. Overall, more than half of households (57%) felt very satisfied with the area as a place to live, while only 2% felt very dissatisfied, Annex Table 3.1.

Following expected trends, owner occupiers were the most satisfied with their area, with 60% feeling very satisfied. This compared to 52% of private renters and 48% of social renters. Private renters were also more likely to report being very satisfied with their local area compared to social renters (52% vs. 48%). Those in the social rented sector were most likely to cite that they felt very dissatisfied with their area as a place to live (6%), compared to both private renters (3%) and owner occupiers (1%), Figure 3.1.

Within the social rented sector, households who were renting from a housing association (51%) were more likely to say they felt very satisfied with their area than those who were renting from a local authority (43%).

Figure 3.1: Satisfaction with area, by tenure, 2023-24

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

Region

Overall, a higher proportion of owner occupiers felt very satisfied than private and social renters, Annex Table 3.2.

At a regional level there were also differences in households’ satisfaction. Among private renters, those in the East of England (61%) and South West (58%) had a higher satisfaction with their area as a place to live, compared with those in London (50%), the North West (49%) and West Midlands (49%). Satisfaction among private renters was higher than for social renters in some regions (East of England: 61% vs. 50% and South West: 58% vs. 49%, respectively).

Owner occupiers were more likely to say they felt very satisfied than those in the private rented sector in most of the Northern regions (North West: 61% vs. 49%, Yorkshire and the Humber: 66% vs. 53%), and parts of the rest of England (South East: 59% vs. 52%, South West: 69% vs. 58%, East Midlands: 61% vs. 52%).

A similar pattern emerged between owner occupiers and social renters, whereby a higher proportion of owner occupiers (56% to 69%) felt very satisfied with their area as a place to live compared to social renters (44% to 51%) in all regions, except London.

Within the social rented sector, housing association renters were more likely to report they were very satisfied with their area than local authority renters in the East Midlands (53% vs. 39%) and the South East (55% vs. 41%).

Rural urban classification

Looking across all tenures, both households in villages, hamlets, and isolated dwellings (very satisfied: 72% of owner occupiers, 68% of private renters and 66% of social renters) and households in town and fringe areas (very satisfied: 71% of owner occupiers, 64% of private renters and 62% of social renters) showed a similar level of satisfaction with their area.

In all tenures, these were higher than those households in urban areas with populations over 10K (very satisfied: 57% of owner occupiers, 51% of private renters and 46% of social renters), Annex Table 3.3.

More than half of owner occupiers who lived in urban areas felt very satisfied with the area (57%), a higher proportion than private renters (51%) and social renters (46%).

Within the social rented sector, housing association renters in urban areas were more likely than local authority renters to say they felt very satisfied (48% vs. 42%).

Owner occupiers who lived in town and fringe areas were more likely to report that they felt very satisfied than social renters (71% vs. 62%).

3.2 How the area has changed over the past two years, by region

Across all tenures, households in the rest of England were less likely than those in London to say the area they lived in had improved over the last two years^{[footnote 2]}, Annex Table 3.4.

Of those in the private rented sector who lived in London, 16% said the area had improved, compared to 8% of those in the rest of England. A similar pattern appears for social renters and owner occupiers, whereby those who lived in London (16% and 14%, respectively) were more likely to say their local area had improved over the past two years than those in the rest of England (10% and 9%, respectively).

3.3 Feeling of belonging by length of time in area and tenure

Around a third of households (32%) across all tenures felt they very strongly belonged in their immediate neighbourhood, while fewer than one in ten (7%) felt they did not strongly belong at all, Annex Table 3.5.

Overall, feelings of belonging in the immediate neighbourhood increased with the length of time spent living in the area. This pattern was consistent among owner occupiers, private renters, and social renters.

Compared to social renters (33%), a higher proportion of private renters (60%) and owner occupiers (42%) who had lived in their neighbourhood for 20 to 29 years felt they very strongly belonged. Conversely, social renters who lived in the area for 5 to 9 years were more likely to report they very strongly belonged (31%) than private renters who lived in the area for the same amount of time (21%). Similarly, owner occupiers who lived in their area between 2 and 9 years were more likely to say that they felt they very strongly belonged than private renters who lived in their homes for the same amount of time (owner occupiers: between 30% and 31%, private renters: between 14% and 21%).

3.4 How often do you chat with neighbours by tenure

Overall, 28% of households said they chatted with their neighbours more than to just say hello on most days, 39% chatted once or twice a week, and 17% chatted once or twice a month. A small proportion, fewer than one in ten households said they chatted with their neighbours less than once a month (9%) or never (8%), Annex Table 3.6.

Social renters were the most likely to chat with their neighbours on most days (33%), compared to owner occupiers (28%) and private renters (20%). Owner occupiers more frequently chatted with their neighbours once or twice a week (42%) or on most days (28%) than private renters (33% and 20%, respectively). Nearly a fifth of private renters (18%) said they never chatted with their neighbours, higher than 11% of social renters and just 4% of owner occupiers. Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: How often do you chat with neighbours by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: half of all households in sample
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.6
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

3.5 Trust in area

Overall, 4% of households said that no-one in their neighbourhood can be trusted. More than half of households (59%) said that most of the people in their neighbourhood can be trusted, while 26% said only some people can be trusted, and 11% said that a few people can be trusted ^{[footnote 3]}, Annex Table 3.7.

Owner occupiers had the highest levels of trust in their neighbourhood, followed by private renters and then social renters. Of owner occupiers, 68% said most of the people in their neighbourhood can be trusted, compared to 45% of private renters and 36% of social renters. Private renters were more likely to trust most of the people in their neighbourhood than social renters (45% and 36%, respectively), Figure 3.3.

Social renters were the more likely to say that ‘a few can be trusted’ (21%) or that ‘no-one can be trusted’ (10%), compared with private renters (18% and 6%, respectively) and owner occupiers (7% and 1%, respectively). Private renters were more likely to report distrust than owner occupiers.

Within the social rented sector, perceptions of trust in the area were similar between local authority and housing association renters.

Figure 3.3: Trust in area by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: half of all households in sample
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.7
Respondents who selected ‘just moved here’ were excluded from the analysis
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

3.6 How well different backgrounds get on in area

Across all tenures, 80% of households said they either definitely agree or tend to agree their local area was a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together. Among those in the private rented sector, 81% agreed that their local area was a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together, higher than 77% of social renters. Owner occupiers were also more likely than social renters to agree that their local area was a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together (80% vs. 77%), Annex Table 3.8.

Conversely, social renters (15%) were more likely to (tend to or definitely) disagree that their local area was a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together, compared to private renters (10%) and owner occupiers (7%). Compared with private and social renters (both 6%), owner occupiers were the most likely to report that ‘people in this area are all of the same background’ (10%).

Within the social rented sector, a higher proportion of housing association renters (7%) said that ‘people in this area are all of the same background’ compared to local authority renters (4%).

3.7 Factors that cause problems for an area

Households were asked a series of questions relating to factors such as noisy neighbours, rubbish, and vandalism that can cause problems for people in their area ^{[footnote 4]}. In general, social renters tended to be the most affected by these problems, with private renters and owner occupiers experiencing fewer problems.

Noisy neighbours

Noisy neighbours or loud parties were more likely to be seen as a problem by social renters, compared to private renters and then owner occupiers. Among social renters, 8% felt that noisy neighbours or loud parties were a serious problem in their area, compared to 5% of private renters and just 2% of owner occupiers. Related to this, a higher proportion of private renters reported noisy neighbours or loud parties as a serious problem than did owner occupiers (5% and 2%, respectively), Annex Table 3.9.

Rubbish

Households in the social rented sector were the most likely to say that rubbish or litter was a serious problem in their area (21%), compared to households in the private rented sector (15%) and owner occupiers (10%), Annex Table 3.10. 

Vandalism

Vandalism tended to be seen as most problematic for households in the social rented sector. Almost one in ten social renters (9%) said vandalism was a serious problem in their area, compared to 7% of private renters and just 4% of owner occupiers, Annex Table 3.11.

Within the social rented sector, a higher proportion of households who were renting from a housing association (73%) said vandalism was not a problem in their area, compared to households who were renting from the local authority (67%).

General level of crime

The general level of crime affected social renters more than the other tenure groups. Among social renters, 14% said crime was a serious problem in their area, compared to 10% of private renters and 6% of owner occupiers, Annex Table 3.12, Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: General level of crime by tenure, 2023-24

^{Base: half of all households in sample
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.12
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

Within the social rented sector, a slightly higher proportion of housing association renters said general level of crime was not a problem in their area compared to local authority renters (56% vs. 50%).

Drunk or rowdy behaviour in public

Much like the other factors that can cause problems for people in their local area, drunk or rowdy behaviour in public followed a similar trend, whereby social renters reported being the most affected, followed by private renters and then owner occupiers. Around one in ten social renters (11%) felt that drunk or rowdy behaviour in public was a serious problem in their area, higher than 8% of private renters and only 3% of owner occupiers. A higher proportion of private renters said that drunk or rowdy behaviour in public was a serious problem compared to owner occupiers (8% and 3%, respectively), Annex Table 3.13.

3.8 Feeling safe when home alone

Households were asked how safe they felt generally when they were at home on their own ^{[footnote 5]}. Overall, 72% of households said they felt very safe at home on their own, while 1% said they felt very unsafe (approximately 107,000 households), Annex Table 3.14.

Owner occupiers were most likely to report feeling safe when they were at home on their own, followed by private renters and then social renters. Among owner occupiers, 76% felt very safe at home, compared to 65% of private renters and 60% of social renters. A higher proportion of private renters felt very safe at home on their own compared to social renters (65% and 60%, respectively).

Conversely, social renters were roughly three times as likely to report that they felt very unsafe at home (3%), compared to both private renters (1%) and owner occupiers (<1%).

Gender of HRP

Households with a male HRP were generally more likely than those with a female HRP to report they felt safe when at home alone, regardless of whether they were living as a single household or as part of a joint household (where two people are on the tenancy or mortgage agreement). Of joint households with a male HRP, 77% felt very safe at home alone, compared to 70% of joint households with a female HRP and 64% of households headed by a single female HRP.

Similarly, a higher proportion of single male HRP households felt very safe when at home alone (74%) compared to single female HRP households (64%), Annex Table 3.15, Figure 3.5.

Compared to joint households with a female HRP, households headed by a single female HRP were roughly twice as likely to say they felt (very or fairly) unsafe when they were at home on their own (3% or 57,000 joint households with a female HRP vs. 6% or 200,000 households with single female HRP). Single female HRP households were also more likely to report they felt very or fairly unsafe at home than single male HRP households (6% or 200,000 single female HRP households vs. 4% or 92,000 single male HRP households). Overall, households with a single female HRP tenant were the most likely to report that they felt very unsafe when at home alone.

It’s important to note these findings are only representative of the HRP’s gender and not the gender of any other members of the household. The HRP’s perception of safety when they are at home on their own does not necessarily reflect the views of other household members. Furthermore, these findings could be confounded by other factors such as the age of the HRP or the length of time they have lived in their home. 

Figure 3.5: Safe alone by gender of HRP, 2023-24

^{Base: half of all households in sample
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.15
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

3.9 Perceptions of feeling safe from fire

Households were asked their level of agreement with the statement, ‘I do not feel safe at home because I fear a fire may break out’^{[footnote 6]}. In 2023-24, social renters (8%) and private renters (9%) were more likely to agree they felt unsafe compared to owner occupiers (5%).

Dwelling type

A similar proportion of private renters (9%), social renters (10%), and owner occupiers (11%) living in flats said they felt unsafe in their home due to fear of a fire breaking out, Annex Table 3.16.

Among private renters living in houses or bungalows, 9% agreed that they felt unsafe at their home, compared to just 4% of owner occupiers in similar dwellings. Similarly, social renters in houses or bungalows (7%) were more likely than owner occupiers (4%) to agree they felt unsafe at home.

Within the social rented sector, local authority renters living in flats (16%) were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they felt unsafe in their homes than housing association renters in the same dwelling types (5%). 

Region

At a regional level, there were differences in perceptions of fire safety across tenures. A higher proportion of private renters in London (13%) felt unsafe due to fire compared to the East of England (4%). Similarly, private renters in the South East were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they felt unsafe than those in the East of England (10% vs. 4%), Annex Table 3.17. 

Among private renters in London, 13% said they felt unsafe because they feared fire, compared to 3% of owner occupiers in the same region. In the social rented sector, a higher proportion of renters in the South West (11%) and East Midlands (10%) felt unsafe due to fire than owner occupiers in the same regions (4% and 3%, respectively).

Within the social rented sector, local authority renters in the West Midlands (20%) and South East (17%) were nearly three times as likely to feel unsafe compared with housing association renters in the same regions (6% and 5%, respectively).

Age

In general, private and social renters in most age groups were more likely to agree that they did not feel safe at home because they feared a fire may break out than were owner occupiers, Annex Table 3.18.

Among social renters with an HRP aged 45 to 64, more than one in ten (11%) felt unsafe at home due to fire fears, compared to 5% of owner occupiers in the same age group. Similarly, private renters with an HRP aged 45 to 64 were more than twice as likely to feel unsafe as owner occupiers of the same age (13% vs 5%). Young private renters aged 25 to 34 (10%) were also more likely to report they felt unsafe at home due to fire, compared to young owner occupiers in the same age group (4%).

Regardless of age group, social renters and private renters reported similar levels of feeling unsafe at home due to fears of fire. However, within the social rented sector, local authority renters with an HRP aged 35 to 64 (aged 35 to 44: 17% and aged 45 to 64: 15%) were more likely to feel unsafe at home than housing association renters of the same age (aged 35 to 44: 5% and aged 45 to 65: 9%).

Household type

With regards to household type, social renting lone parents with dependent children (7%), single female households (10%), and other multi-person households (12%) were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they felt unsafe at home because they feared that a fire may break out, compared to owner occupiers of the same household type (2%, 5% and 5%, respectively), Annex Table 3.19.

Following a similar pattern, private renting lone parents with dependent children (9%) and single female households (16%) were more likely to report they felt unsafe than owner occupiers of the same household type (2% and 5%, respectively). Also, private renting couples with dependent children (10%) were more than twice as likely to (strongly or tend to) agree they felt unsafe compared to owner occupiers of the same household type (4%).

In the private rented sector, single female households were most likely to (strongly or tend to) agree they felt unsafe (16%), while couples with no dependent children were least likely (6%). In the social rented sector, agreement was fairly similar across household types (6% to 12%). Among owner occupiers, households with a single male HRP were most likely to agree that they felt unsafe (8%), while lone parents with dependent child(ren) were least likely (2%).

Disability/illness

Among households who had a household member with a long-term illness or disability, those in the private rented sector were most likely to say that they felt unsafe at home because they fear that a fire may break out, followed by social renters and then owner occupiers, Annex Table 3.20.

Of private renters who had someone in the household with a long-term illness or disability, more than one in ten (12%) felt unsafe at home due to fear a fire may break out, compared to just 4% of owner occupiers. Similarly, social renters with a household member with a long-term illness or disability (9%) were more than twice as likely to agree that they felt unsafe at home than owner occupiers (4%).

Local authority renters with a household member with a long-term illness or disability were twice as likely to say they felt unsafe at home than housing association renters with someone in the household with a long-term illness or disability (13% vs. 6%).

Across all tenures, the proportion who felt unsafe due to fear a fire may break out was similar between those who had a household member with a long-term illness or disability and those who did not.

Ethnicity

Compared to owner occupiers with a white HRP (5%), social renters (9%) and private renters with a white HRP (8%) were more likely to (strongly or tend to) agree that they did not feel safe at home due to fear that a fire may break out. Similarly, a higher proportion of private and social renters with an ethnic minority HRP (12% and 10%, respectively) felt unsafe, compared to owner occupiers with an ethnic minority HRP (5%), Annex Table 3.21.

Within the social rented sector, local authority renters with a white HRP (13%) were almost twice as likely to agree they felt unsafe at home compared to housing association renters with a white HRP (7%).

Across all tenures, the proportion of households who felt unsafe at home was similar for those with a white HRP and those with an ethnic minority HRP.

3.10 Area deprivation and specific problems with area

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).

Overall, households in the most deprived 20% of areas, irrespective of tenure type, were typically the most affected by factors such as noisy neighbours, rubbish, vandalism, drunk and rowdy behaviour in public, and crime. Those in the second, third, and fourth most deprived area followed, with the least affected being those in the least deprived 20% of areas, Annex Table 3.22. Figure 3.6.

Consistent with the overall findings, a higher proportion of private renters in the most deprived 20% of areas were affected by issues such as rubbish (56% vs. 20%), noisy neighbours (32% vs. 15%), vandalism (40% vs. 25%), crime (51% vs. 16%), and drunk and rowdy behaviour in public (46% vs. 17%) compared with those in the least deprived 20% of areas, Figure 3.6.

Similarly, social renters in the most deprived 20% of areas were at least twice as likely as those in the least deprived 20% of areas to report problems with crime (58% vs. 13%), drunk and rowdy behaviour in public (41% vs. 13%), rubbish (60% vs. 25%), noisy neighbours (36% vs. 16%), and vandalism (36% vs. 18%).

Among those in the social rented sector in the most deprived areas, 36% felt noisy neighbours were a problem, compared to 25% of owner occupiers in the same areas. Drunk and rowdy behaviour in public was also more of a problem for social renters (41%) and private renters (46%) than for owner occupiers (34%) in the most deprived areas. However, owner occupiers in the most deprived 20% of areas faced comparable problems with rubbish (61%), vandalism (36%) and crime (55%) as social renters (60%, 36% and 58%, respectively) and private renters (56%, 40% and 51%, respectively).

Figure 3.6: Area deprivation and specific problems with area, all tenures, 2023-24

^{Base: half of all households in sample
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.22
Source: English Housing Survey, household sample}

1. Annex table 1.22 and Annex table 1.23 are based on different questions within the survey and are derived from separate variables, leading to variations in the base figures. ↩

2. Respondents who had lived in the area for less than two years were excluded from analysis. ↩

3. Respondents who selected ‘just moved here’ were excluded from this analysis. ↩

4. This series of questions was asked of half the sample. ↩

5. This question was asked of half of the household sample ↩

6. These questions were completed by half the sample recruited for the physical survey. ↩