Accredited official statistics

English Housing Survey 2024 to 2025: perceptions and impacts of housing quality

Published 9 July 2026

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 examines housing conditions using several different metrics, including whether homes meet the Decent Homes Standard or have problems with damp, as well as more subjective measures such as satisfaction with accommodation or repairs. It also considers additional factors relating to the home and the local area, including problems with noise and the neighbourhood.

It is split into five chapters, focusing on different areas of housing quality and household perceptions of the home. First, it explores the characteristics of households living in poor quality homes. It then examines subjective measures including satisfaction, household-reported damp and perceptions of indoor temperature. It also explores household satisfaction further in relation to repairs and complaints. Next it examines problems within the local area, including issues with noise and their effects on the household. Lastly, it considers the financial impacts associated with poor housing quality.

Main findings

From 2022 to 2024, there was an increase in the proportion of dependent children who lived in non-decent homes, from 1.5 million (13%) to 1.7 million (15%) and who lived in damp homes, from 0.8 million (7%) to 1.0 million (9%). In addition, there were 1.5 million people over 65 (15%) and 2.6 million with a long-term disability or illness (15%) who lived in homes that were non-decent.

In 2024, 13% of households reported being unable to keep warm during winter. In response to rising energy prices, 63% mentioned they reduced their heating and 43% limited their energy use. These households were more likely to live in a dwelling with damp.

Where households self-reported having issues with damp, renters were more likely to mention opening the windows to get rid of damp or condensation than owner occupiers.  

Higher levels of dissatisfaction with accommodation were seen where houses were in poor quality – where households felt unable to keep warm, had a problem with damp or experienced problems with noise, but not where households reported experiencing overheating. Satisfaction was also associated with wider factors such as tenure and length of residence.

Despite having higher levels of non-decency and damp, privately renting households were more likely to report being satisfied with repairs than other tenures. Being satisfied with repairs was more common when the home was managed by the landlord directly rather than by an agent or property manager.

In 2024, 46% of households reported experiencing noise problems at home, with 42% of these households saying it affected their sleep. Most commonly, noise problems were reported in relation to road traffic (22% of households).

Where rented sector homes did not meet the Decent Homes Standard, the median cost to landlords to make homes decent would be equivalent to five months of rent. Around 14% of these households would require the equivalent of one month of rent or less to remediate, a quarter (25%) would require one to three months’ worth of rent, and a third would require more than a year’s worth of rent to make decent.

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 2024-25 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, Joseph Clinton and Henry Robinson 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. Households in poor quality dwellings

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

The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) was introduced as a regulatory standard in the social rented sector in 2006. In the owner occupied and private rented sector, the DHS is not a regulatory standard, though it is tracked through the EHS. Regulatory standards in the private rented sector are assessed against the existing Housing Health and Rating System (HHSRS), i.e. Criterion A of the DHS.

On 28 January 2026, the government announced a new Decent Homes Standard to apply to both rented sectors from 2035. Failure rates for dwellings under this new standard for 2023 were published as part of an EHS Briefing. This report presents data on the existing Decent Homes Standard.

In 2024-25, 3.7 million (15%) households lived in a home that was non-decent. Private renters were most likely to be living in a non-decent home (22%), followed by owner occupiers (14%) and local authority renters (12%), with housing association renters (9%) the least likely to be in a non-decent home, Annex Table 1.1.

The HHSRS is a risk-based assessment that identifies hazards in dwellings and evaluates their potential effects on the health and safety of occupants and their visitors, particularly vulnerable people. The most serious hazards are 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, 2.1 million (8%) households were living in a home that had a Category 1 hazard present. Mirroring the findings for non-decent homes, private renters were typically most likely to have a Category 1 hazard present in the home (10%), followed by owner occupiers (9%), local authority renters (6%), and lastly housing association renters (4%).

In the EHS, 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.

Damp problems were present in 6% of all homes (1.4 million households). This was most prevalent in the homes of private renters (11%), followed by local authority renters (9%), housing association renters (6%), and lastly owner occupiers (4%).

Decent Homes Standard

Overall, the households that were more likely to be living in non-decent homes in the EHS 2024-25 were those with HRPs of ethnic minority backgrounds, HRPs that were unemployed, and those with incomes that fell into the lowest quintiles.

There was a greater prevalence of non-decent homes among households with a HRP of an ethnic minority background (17%) compared with a white HRP (14%). Further, households that had an unemployed HRP were more likely to live in a non-decent home (20%) than households with HRPs that were in full-time employment or were retired (both 14%). Lastly, households with incomes in the lowest 4 income quintiles were all more likely to live in non-decent homes (14% to 17%) than households in the highest income quintile (12%), Annex Table 1.2, Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Non-decent homes, by household characteristics, 2024-25

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

In 2024-25, there were no differences observed in the prevalence of non-decent homes between households with HRPs that were male or female. This differs from 2023-24, where it was found that households with a male HRP were more likely to live in a non-decent home than households with a female HRP.

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).

Around 940,000 households (14%) containing dependent children lived in non-decent homes. Among owner occupiers only, households with no dependent children present were more likely to live in a non-decent home (15%) than those with dependent children present (12%).

While not seen overall nor within any other tenure, there was a greater proportion of private renters in receipt of housing support living in non-decent homes (28%) compared with private renters who were not in receipt of housing support (20%).

Within each tenure, 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 those with HRPs aged 30 to 44 (12%). Among private renters, the proportion of households with HRPs aged 65 or over living in non-decent homes (27%) was greater than households with the youngest HRPs aged 16 to 29 (20%).

For social renters, HRPs of older age groups were more likely to live in non-decent homes (10% to 12%) than the youngest HRPs aged 16 to 29 years old (5%). This observation for social renters was not evident in 2023-24.

Previously, in 2023-24, households containing someone with a long-term illness or disability were more likely to live in a non-decent home than households without someone with a long-term illness or disability, however this finding was not significant for 2024-25.

Damp

Overall, the groups found more likely to be living in damp homes were households with younger HRPs, female HRPs, HRPs of ethnic minority backgrounds, households that contained dependent children, and households that were in the lower income quintiles.

Households with dependent children were more likely to have damp present in the home (8%) compared with those with no dependent children (5%). This trend was also statistically significant for owners, private renters, and housing association renters, Annex Table 1.3.

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 problems (8%) than households with a white HRP (5%). In particular, this was evident for Asian HRPs (9%) and black HRPs (8%) when compared with white HRPs.

Households with a HRP aged 16 to 29 (8%), 30 to 44 (6%), and 45 to 64 years old (6%) were more likely to have damp present in the home than households with a HRP aged 65 or over (3%).

Generally, households with retired HRPs were less likely to live in a damp home when compared with most other households. Households with a HRP that was in part-time work (9%), unemployed (9%), of other inactive status (7%), or in full-time work (6%), were more likely to have damp present in the home than households with HRPs that were retired (3%). Further, there was a greater prevalence of damp in homes of households with HRPs in part-time work compared with HRPs of other inactive status, or HRPs in full-time work, Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Homes with damp, by employment status, 2024-25

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

Typically, households with lower incomes were more likely to live in a home with damp problems present than households with higher incomes. Households with incomes in the first (lowest), second, third, and fourth quintiles had a greater prevalence of damp (7%, 7%, 6%, and 5%, respectively) than households with incomes in the fifth (highest) quintile (3%). While true for private renters and owner occupiers, this trend was less clear for social renters.

In 2024-25, there were no differences in the prevalence of damp in the home between households that did and did not contain someone with a long-term illness or disability. Similarly, households that were and were not in receipt of housing support were equally likely to live in a damp home. These observations differed from the findings in the 2023-24, where households containing someone with a long-term illness or disability, and households in receipt of housing support were more likely to have damp in their homes compared with those without someone with a long-term illness or disability and those that were not in receipt, respectively.

Dependent children living in poor quality homes

In 2024-25, there were a total of 11.8 million dependent children represented in the EHS, of which 2.9 million were aged under five and 8.9 million were five years old or over, Annex Table 1.4.

Overall, 1.7 million (15%) dependent children lived in non-decent homes in 2024-25, an increase in proportion since 2022-23 (1.5 million children, 13%). This comprised 449,000 dependent children under 5 years old and 1.3 million aged five or over.

A total of 1.1 million (10%) dependent children lived in homes that had Category 1 hazards present in 2024-25, similar to 2022-23 levels. This comprised 271,000 children aged under 5 years old and 873,000 that were five years old or over.

Around 1 million (9%) dependent children lived in damp homes in 2024-25, an increase in proportion from 2022-23 (0.8 million, 7%). This comprised 231,000 dependent children aged under 5 and 805,000 aged five years old or over, Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3: Number of dependent children living in poor quality homes, by age, 2024-25

^{Base: all dependent children
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.4
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Generally, when analysed by tenure, the patterns observed in the proportion of children living in poor housing in 2024-25 mirrored those seen across all households living in poor housing. Dependent children in the private rented sector were generally the most likely to live in homes that were non-decent (22%), had Category 1 hazards present (14%), or had damp problems (14%).

Dependent children aged five or over living in owner occupied homes were more likely to live in a damp home (6%) than their younger counterparts aged under five (3%). However, within the social rented tenure, children aged under five years old were more likely to live in a home with damp (15%) than older children aged five years or over (11%).

People aged 65 or over living in poor quality homes

In 2024-25, there were 10.5 million people aged 65 or over, represented in the EHS. The majority were owner occupiers (8.6 million), while 838,000 were housing association renters, 579,000 were private renters, and 509,000 were local authority renters, Annex Table 1.5.

A total of 1.5 million people aged 65 or over lived in a home that was non-decent (15%), 889,000 lived in a home that had Category 1 hazards present (8%), and 339,000 lived in a damp home (3%).

When analysed by tenure, the patterns observed in the proportion of people aged 65 or over living in poor housing mirrored those for all households living in poor housing. Private renters that were aged 65 or over were more likely to live in non-decent homes (27%), homes with Category 1 hazards (13%), and homes with damp (10%) compared with other tenures.

People with long-term illness or disability living in poor quality homes

Overall, there were over 17 million people living with a long-term illness or disability in the EHS 2024-25. Of these, 2.6 million (15%) lived in homes that did not pass the Decent Homes Standard, 1.6 million (9%) lived in homes with Category 1 hazards present, and 1.0 million (6%) lived in damp homes, Annex Table 1.6, Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4: Number of occupants with a long-term illness or disability living in poor quality homes, 2024-25

^{Base: all occupants with a long-term illness or disability
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 1.6
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

When analysing the prevalence of housing quality among people with long-term illnesses or disabilities by tenure, the findings mirrored the overall trends of housing quality by tenure. That is, private renters that were long-term ill or disabled were the most likely to live in a home that was non-decent (24%), had Category 1 hazards (13%), or was damp (11%) when compared with all other tenures.

2. Perceptions of housing quality

This chapter examines the household’s perception of the quality of their home, by focusing on satisfaction in relation to housing quality. It also examines the presence of damp, condensation, mould, and storm-related moisture damage, as well as the perceived temperature of the home.

Satisfaction with accommodation

Overall, 7% of households were dissatisfied with their accommodation. A further 5% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and the majority (87%) reported being satisfied, Annex Table 2.1.

Renters were most likely to report being dissatisfied with their accommodation compared with owner occupiers. In particular, local authority renters were the most likely to be dissatisfied with their accommodation (19%). This was followed by housing association and private renters (16% and 14%, respectively), with owner occupiers the least likely to be dissatisfied (3%).

Households were more likely to report dissatisfaction with their accommodation if their home was non-decent, had Category 1 hazards present, or was damp than if their home was decent, had no Category 1 hazards, or was not damp.

Decent Homes Standard

Across all households, 12% of those living in non-decent homes were dissatisfied with their accommodation, compared with 6% of those living in homes that were decent. This was also true for every tenure.

Local authority renters (30%), housing association renters (29%), private renters (20%), and owner occupiers (6%) living in non-decent homes each reported greater levels of dissatisfaction with their accommodation than their counterparts living in decent homes (18%, 15%, 12%, and 2%, respectively).

Category 1 hazards

The findings for homes with and without Category 1 hazards were very similar to those observed for non-decent homes - 12% of households living in homes with Category 1 hazards reported dissatisfaction compared with 7% of those that did not have any Category 1 hazards.

This was also observed for local authority renters (38% compared with 18%), housing association renters (30% compared with 16%), and private renters (23% compared with 13%). However, for owner occupiers, who were more likely to have Category 1 hazards present in the home than social renters, levels of reported dissatisfaction did not change with the presence of these hazards.

Damp

Households were more likely to report dissatisfaction with their accommodation if there was damp present in the home (22%) than if there was no damp (6%).

For local authority renters, 44% were dissatisfied with their accommodation if it had a problem with damp, compared with 17% of those that did not have damp in their home. This was also true for private renters (32% compared with 12%) and housing association renters (28% compared with 15%). Similarly, while owner occupiers generally had a lower prevalence of dissatisfaction compared with other tenures, those with damp homes were more likely to be dissatisfied (7%) than those without damp (3%), Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Dissatisfaction with accommodation, by damp and tenure, 2024-25

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

Length of residence

Households that had lived in their home for 3 to 9 years had a greater level of reported dissatisfaction with their accommodation (8%) than households that had lived in their home for 0 to 2 years (6%) or 10 or more years (5%). Further, households were more likely to be satisfied with their accommodation if they had lived there for 10 or more years (90%) than if they had lived there for up to 9 years (86 to 87%), Annex Table 2.2.

For private renters, those who had lived in their home for 3 to 9 years (13%) or for 10 years or more (11%) reported a higher level of dissatisfaction with their accommodation than those who had lived in their home for up to 2 years (8%), Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Dissatisfaction with accommodation, by length of residence and tenure, 2024-25

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

Similarly, among the social renters, those who had lived in their home for 3 to 9 years were more likely to be dissatisfied with their accommodation (20% for local authority and 17% for housing association) than their households that had lived in their homes for 2 years or less (13% and 12%, respectively).

Damp by heating and energy actions

The next few sections report on the prevalence of damp using three different measures, beginning with damp as reported by the household, followed by surveyor-assessed damp, and lastly the presence of the most serious HHSRS Category 1 damp and mould hazards.

The household-reported damp measure is subjective, while the surveyor-assessed damp and HHSRS Category 1 damp and mould hazard measures are more objective, in that they are assessed and recorded by a trained professional.

Levels of self-reported damp are substantially higher than levels of damp recorded by surveyors. This is likely to be for several reasons. Households may have reported problems with condensation, damp or mould during the EHS interview where these issues were present at lower levels (they were not significant enough to be taken into consideration in a HHSRS assessment), or in rooms rarely or never used by the household.

Additionally, damp, condensation and mould can be seasonal and transient, and therefore not necessarily observed at the time of an EHS physical survey, if issues were not present on the day or time the surveyor visited. Finally, the self-reported damp measure is a subjective rather than objective measure, and there will inevitably be differences in the level or type of damp that households consider problematic.

These damp measures are each examined by the households’ heating and energy actions. Firstly, by the household’s ability to keep comfortably warm in their living rooms during cold winter weather. Then, by the household’s response to rising energy prices. For this report, these responses have been grouped into two categories:

In 2024, 15.5 million households (63%) reduced their heating, Annex Table 2.9. This comprised 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”

In 2024, 10.7 million households (43%) limited their energy use, Annex Table 2.9. This comprised 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”

Household-reported damp

Households in the EHS were asked a series of questions about common problems experienced in the home, including problems with damp. Overall, 7.7 million households (31%) reported that they had an issue with condensation, damp, or mould in their home, Annex Table 2.3.

Private renters and local authority renters were most likely to report the presence of damp problems (47% and 46%, respectively) followed by housing association renters (39%), with owner occupiers the least likely (24%), Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Household-reported damp, by tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.3
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

For all households, a problem with condensation, damp or mould was more frequently reported if they also mentioned each of the heating and energy actions than if they did not.

In 2024, 3.2 million households (13%) reported they were unable to keep warm in winter, Annex Table 2.9. Over half of all households that were unable to keep warm in the winter reported they had a problem with damp in their home (58%). This was a greater proportion than those that were able to keep warm (27%). Across every tenure, households that were unable to keep warm were more likely to report damp than households that were able to keep warm.

For local authority renters that were unable to keep warm in the winter, 71% reported a problem with damp compared with 38% of those that were able to keep warm. This trend was also seen for private renters (68% compared with 42%) and housing association renters (61% compared with 33%). Owner occupiers were also more likely to report a problem with damp, condensation, or mould in their home if they were unable to keep warm in the winter (46%) compared with if they were able to keep warm (22%), Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Household-reported damp, by ability to keep warm and tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.3
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Households that mentioned they had reduced their heating were more likely to report a problem with damp (36%) than those that did not reduce their heating (23%). This was also observed across every tenure.

Local authority renters (54%), private renters (52%), housing association renters (46%), and owner occupiers (28%) that mentioned reducing their heating had a higher prevalence of household-reported damp compared with their counterparts that did not reduce their heating (29%, 39%, 27%, and 17%, respectively).

Among households that limited their energy use, 38% mentioned a problem with damp in their home. This was a greater proportion compared with those that did not limit their energy use (26%). All tenures saw a greater prevalence of household-reported damp if they mentioned limiting their energy use than if they did not.

Local authority renters who limited their energy use were more likely to report a damp problem (56%) than those that did not limit their energy use (36%). Similarly, 55% of private renters who limited their energy use reported a damp problem compared with 40% who did not limit their energy use. For housing association renters who limited their energy use, 46% reported damp, condensation, or mould in their home compared with 33% of those who did not limit their energy use.

Further, owner occupiers who limited their energy use were more likely to report a damp problem in their home (29%) than those who did not limit their energy use (20%).

Surveyor-assessed damp

As discussed in Chapter 1, 6% of all homes had a problem with damp recorded by the surveyor in the EHS in 2024-25. This section reports on the prevalence of surveyor-assessed damp, the main damp measure reported on in other chapters of this report.

Households were more likely to have damp in their home if they reported being unable to keep warm (11%) than if they were able to keep warm (5%). This was also observed for every tenure. Private renters (15%), local authority renters (13%), housing association renters (9%), and owner occupiers (8%) were each more likely to have damp present in their home if they were unable to keep warm than their counterparts that were able to keep warm (9%, 7%, 5, and 3%, respectively), Annex Table 2.4.

Overall, households that mentioned reducing their heating were more likely to have damp present in their home (6%) than those that did not mention reducing their heating (5%). When analysed by tenure, this was also seen for local authority renters (10% compared with 5%) and housing association renters (8% compared with 4%). Similarly, there was a greater prevalence of damp problems present in the home if households mentioned limiting their energy use (7%) than if they did not mention this (5%). This was only observed for private renters (13% compared with 9%) and housing association renters (8% compared with 5%), Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Homes with damp, by energy actions , 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.4
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

HHSRS Category 1 damp and mould hazard

This section reports on the most serious of damp and mould hazards, as assessed by the surveyor under the HHSRS. For more detail on the HHSRS assessment, see the EHS 2024-25 Technical report Chapter 5.

Category 1 damp and mould hazards were present in the homes of 142,000 households (0.6%) in 2024-25. There was a greater prevalence of Category 1 damp hazards in the homes of private renters and local authority renters (both 1%) compared with housing association renters (0.4%) and owner occupiers (0.3%), Annex Table 2.5.

Households that were unable to keep warm in winter were more likely to have a Category 1 damp hazard present in their home (2%) than those that were able to keep warm (0.4%). Private renters also observed a greater prevalence of having a Category 1 damp hazard in the home if they were unable to keep their home warm (4%) than if they were able to keep it warm (0.7%). This was also seen for local authority renters (3% compared with 0.8%), however for housing association renters sample sizes were too low.

A higher proportion of households that mentioned reducing their heating had a Category 1 damp hazard present (0.8%) compared with those that did not mention reducing their heating (0.3%).

Households that limited their energy use were more likely to have Category 1 damp hazards in their home (0.9%) than households that did not limit their energy use (0.3%). When analysed by tenure, only local authority renters observed the same pattern, with 2% of those that mentioned limiting their energy use having a Category 1 damp hazard present compared with 0.7% of those that did not mention limiting their energy use.

Dealing with damp and condensation

Households that reported a problem with condensation, damp or mould in their home were asked how they dealt with their damp issues.

For households that reported damp in the home, opening windows was the method most commonly reported to get rid of damp and condensation (83%), followed by using extractor fans (42%), and then trickle vents (20%). Households were more likely to use any of these methods than they were to use none of these (12%). This was also the same for every tenure, Annex Table 2.6.

Private, local authority, and housing association renters (84% to 86%) were all more likely to mention opening the windows than owner occupiers (80%), Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Measures taken to deal with damp and condensation, by tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.6
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Extractor fans were more frequently used as a method to get rid of damp and condensation by housing association (51%) and local authority renters (47%) than private renters (41%) or owner occupiers (39%).

Local authority renters (31%) and housing association renters (27%) were also most likely to mention the use of trickle vents, followed by owner occupiers (20%), with private renters the least likely to use trickle vents (14%).

Owner occupiers were most likely to use none of the listed methods to get rid of their damp and condensation (15%) when compared with private renters (9%) and housing association renters (8%).

Storm related moisture damage and damp

Overall, 4.3 million households (17%) reported they noticed new moisture damage in the home following a period of intense rain or storm in the past year. Local authority renters (24%) and private renters (22%) were more likely to have noticed new moisture damage than housing association renters (17%) and owner occupiers (15%), Annex Table 2.7.

The EHS 2024-25 Weather resilient homes factsheet, Chapter 2 also reports on storm-related moisture damage in relation to certain dwelling characteristics. It finds that dwellings with roof pitches at 16° to 39°, dwellings with disrepair to roofs, and dwellings with solid masonry walls were some of the dwelling characteristics that observed greater reports of moisture damage following a storm.

Of households that mentioned moisture damage following a storm in their home, 12% (523,000 households) were found by surveyors to have damp problems present and 2% (74,000 households) had a Category 1 damp and mould hazard present, Annex Table 2.8.

Similar to overall trends on the presence of damp in the home, for households with storm-related moisture damage, local authority renters (18%), private renters (18%), and housing association renters (14%) were more likely to have damp in their home than owner occupiers (8%). Private renters and housing association renters who mentioned moisture damage were also more likely to have a Category 1 damp hazard present in their home (4% and 3%, respectively) than similar owner occupiers (0.6%).

Temperature perception

Overall, 13% of households reported they were unable to keep comfortably warm in their living room during winter. The EHS also includes a subjective measure for gauging whether households feel any part of their home gets uncomfortably hot. In 2024-25, 12% of households mentioned that their home gets uncomfortably hot, Annex Table 2.9.

These measures are subjective and reflect a household’s perception of temperature within the home. Therefore, while these findings may be related to a dwelling’s characteristics, they may also be influenced by the household member’s circumstances and preferences.

Local authority renters were the most likely to report being unable to keep warm (25%). Housing association renters (22%) and private renters (21%) were also more likely to be unable to keep warm than owner occupiers (8%). Conversely, owner occupiers were more likely to find their home uncomfortably hot (13%) than private renters (11%) and housing association renters (10%), Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Temperature perception, by tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.9  
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Satisfaction with accommodation by temperature perception

There was a clear correlation between a household’s dissatisfaction with their accommodation and their ability to keep comfortably warm in the winter. Of households that were unable to keep warm, 23% were dissatisfied with their accommodation, compared with 5% of those that were able to keep warm. This pattern was observed for all tenures, Annex Table 2.10.

About a third of both housing association renters (36%) and local authority renters (33%) that were unable to keep warm were dissatisfied, compared with social rented households that were able to keep warm (11% and 14%, respectively). Similarly, private renters that were unable to keep warm were more likely to be dissatisfied (28%) than those that were able to keep warm (10%). Owner occupiers were also more likely to be dissatisfied with their accommodation if they were unable to keep warm (11%) than if they were able to keep warm (2%), Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Dissatisfaction with accommodation, by ability to keep warm and tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.10
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

There was generally no difference in the level of dissatisfaction between households that were and were not uncomfortably hot in their home. However, for housing association renters, those who were uncomfortably hot were more likely to be dissatisfied with their accommodation (23%) than those that were not uncomfortably hot (16%).

Rooms affected by overheating

Where households reported overheating, they were asked what rooms of their home were particularly affected. The figures here show the distribution of overheating for all households, therefore this analysis also includes households that did not experience overheating at all, as well as households without each of the room types present in their home.

Overall, 7% of households reported that they had a bedroom that got uncomfortably hot. This was the room type most frequently reported as overheating, followed by an overheating living room (4%), then a conservatory (3%), with an overheating attic (2%) the least likely to be reported. This was generally consistent across tenures, with bedrooms and living rooms the most frequently mentioned as overheating, Annex Table 2.11.

Local authority renters were generally the most likely to report a bedroom (9%) or living room (7%) as overheating, while owner occupiers were typically the least likely (6% and 4%, respectively).

However, owner occupiers were the tenure most likely to report a conservatory or attic affected by overheating (4% and 2%, respectively) compared with most other tenures.  This is likely influenced by the prevalence of these room types among each tenure.

Subjective overheating by age of occupants

Households containing a child under five years old were more likely to report their home got uncomfortably hot (16%) than households that did not contain someone under 5 years old (12%). This was only observed among owner occupiers, where 19% of those containing a child under five years old were uncomfortably hot compared with 13% of owner occupiers that did not contain a child aged under 5, Annex Table 2.12.

Overheating was more likely to be reported among households that did not contain a person aged 65 or older (13%) than households that did contain someone aged 65 or over (11%). This was consistent among owner occupiers (14% compared with 12%), local authority renters (13% compared with 9%), and housing association renters (11% compared with 7%).

Ability to keep warm in winter by age of occupants

Households were equally likely to report being unable to keep warm in the living room in the winter, whether there were children under the age of five present or not.

An inability to keep warm was more likely to be reported among households that did not contain a person aged 65 or older (15%) than households that did contain someone aged 65 or over (8%). This was consistent among local authority renters (30% compared with 13%), housing association renters (26% compared with 12%), private renters (22% compared with 15%), and owner occupiers (9% compared with 7%), Annex Table 2.13.

3. Repairs and complaints

This chapter investigates households’ satisfaction with repairs and maintenance of the home, in relation to housing quality and the responsibility for these repairs. It then examines the reasons for dissatisfaction and how it varies by tenure. Additionally, it looks into whether complaints have been made and the feelings towards the outcome of these complaints.

Satisfaction with repairs by housing quality

Overall, 61% of households with a freeholder, agent, residents group, or landlord were satisfied with the repairs or maintenance provided, while 28% were dissatisfied, Annex Table 3.1.

Private renters were most likely to report being satisfied with their repairs or maintenance (68%). Further, housing association renters were more likely to be satisfied (58%) than local authority renters (55%) or leaseholders (49%).

The same trend was mostly found for levels of dissatisfaction. Local authority renters (35%), leaseholders (33%), and housing association renters (31%) had higher levels of reported dissatisfaction with their repairs or maintenance compared with private renters (22%), Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Satisfaction with repairs, by tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all leaseholders and renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.1
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Decent Homes

Households living in non-decent homes were slightly more likely to be dissatisfied with their repairs or maintenance (32%) than households living in decent homes (27%). Similarly, where households lived in decent homes, reported levels of satisfaction were higher (62%) compared with households that lived in non-decent homes (54%).

This was consistent with private renters, where 70% of those living in decent homes were satisfied with their repairs or maintenance compared with 57% of those in non-decent homes. Similarly, 30% of private renters in non-decent homes were dissatisfied, compared with 20% of those in decent homes.

The same trend was seen for local authority renters. Those whose homes were decent were more likely to be satisfied (57%) than those that lived in non-decent homes (39%). Further, local authority renters living in non-decent homes were more likely to report dissatisfaction with their repairs or maintenance (44%) than those living in decent homes (33%).

There were no significant differences in the levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction between housing association renters living in non-decent homes and decent homes.

For those living in non-decent homes, local authority renters were the most likely to be dissatisfied with their repairs or maintenance (44%) compared with all other tenures (25% to 31%).

Damp

Households living in homes that did not have problems with damp were more likely to be satisfied with their repairs or maintenance (63%) than those living in homes with damp present (41%). Similarly, for households living in homes with damp, there was a greater level of dissatisfaction reported with repairs or maintenance (43%) compared with households that did not have damp homes (26%). All three rented tenures observed this general trend.

Local authority and housing association renters (57% and 49% respectively) with damp present in their homes were more likely to be dissatisfied with their repairs or maintenance than private renters with damp (36%).

This combined with the lack of difference in levels of satisfaction between housing association renters in decent and non-decent homes may suggest that damp may be a more important factor in household satisfaction with repairs and maintenance than non-decency. 

Figure 3.2: Satisfaction with repairs, by housing quality, 2024-25

^{Base: all leaseholders and renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.2
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Private renters’ satisfaction with repairs by who is responsible for repairs

Private renters who had a landlord who looked after property repairs were more likely to be satisfied with their repairs or maintenance (74%) than private renters that had an estate agent, letting agent, or property manager taking care of the property repairs (59%), Annex Table 3.2.

Furthermore, private renters were more dissatisfied with their repairs or maintenance if an estate agent, letting agent, or property manager looked after the repairs on the property (28%) than if there was a landlord that took care of the repairs (17%), Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Private renters’ satisfaction with repairs, by who is responsible for repairs, 2024-25

^{Base: all private renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.2
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Reason for dissatisfaction with repairs

In the following section, “landlord” has been used to refer to any of “freeholder, agent, residents group, or landlord”.

All households that were dissatisfied with their repairs were asked for the main reason for this dissatisfaction. Overall, households were most likely to report the landlord was slow to get things done (29%) or that the landlord did not bother (28%) as the reasons for dissatisfaction with repairs, compared with all other reasons (1% to 14%).

The next most common reason for dissatisfaction was that the landlord did the bare minimum (14%), followed by the work being of poor quality (11%). Further, 8% of households mentioned their dissatisfaction was due to the landlord only doing emergency repairs. ‘Other reasons’ for dissatisfaction and the landlord being difficult to contact (both 4%) were also mentioned more often than the landlord becoming hostile (1%), Annex Table 3.3.

For leaseholders, local authority, and housing association renters (37%, 32%, and 31%, respectively) the biggest reason for dissatisfaction with repairs was that the landlord was slow to get things done, the next biggest reason was that the landlord did not bother (16%, 31%, and 25%, respectively). For private renters, however, ‘the landlord did not bother’ (33%) was the main reason for dissatisfaction, which was more likely to be reported than the landlord being slow to get things done (23%), Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Reason for dissatisfaction, by tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all dissatisfied leaseholders and renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.3
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

‘The landlord does not bother’ was more likely to be given as the reason for dissatisfaction with repairs by private renters (33%) than housing association renters (25%) or leaseholders (16%). Local authority renters (31%) were also more likely to mention this than leaseholders.

Conversely, leaseholders, local authority, and housing association renters (37%, 32%, and 31%, respectively) were more likely to find that the landlord was slow to get things done than private renters (23%).

Housing association renters (17%) were more likely than local authority renters (9%) and private renters (8%) to say that the work done was of poor quality.

The landlord doing only emergency repairs was a more common reason for dissatisfaction with repairs among private renters (11%) compared with local authority (8%) or housing association renters (7%).

Complaints about repairs and safety issues

In the EHS, leaseholders, private renters, and social renters were asked about whether they considered making a complaint, each using slightly different questions. In this section, for simplicity and to allow for comparisons between tenures, these have been treated as if they were the same question. These questions were asked as follows

• Leaseholders - In the last 12 months, have you considered making a complaint to your freeholder or management company?
• Private renters - In the last 12 months, have you considered making a complaint to your landlord or letting agent?
• Social renters - In the last 12 months, have you considered making a complaint to your landlord or the tenant management organisation about repairs or safety issues?

Those who considered making a complaint were also asked if they had gone on to make a complaint. The analysis here is presented as a proportion of all households.

Overall, 29% of leaseholder and renter households considered making a complaint in the last 12 months. This comprised 23% of all households that did make a complaint, and 6% of households that considered making a complaint but did not go on to make a complaint, Annex Table 3.4.

Local authority and housing association renters were more likely to mention they considered making a complaint (33% and 31%, respectively) when compared with private renters (27%).

Similarly, a greater proportion of local authority renters and housing association renters said they did complain (27% and 25%, respectively) compared with private renters (22%). Additionally, local authority renters (27%) were more likely to complain than leaseholders (21%), Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Complaints about repairs and safety issues, 2024-25

^{Base: all leaseholders and renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 3.4
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

In total, 83% of households that complained did so about either repairs or the quality of their home, Annex Table 3.5.

Households may also have selected that their complaint was about administration, their neighbours, antisocial behaviour in the area, the behaviour of the landlord/freeholder, or the behaviour of the management company/letting agent/tenancy management organisation.

Local authority renters who complained were more likely to say they complained about repairs or the quality of their home (92%) than all other tenures. Further, housing association renters (87%) and private renters (86%) were more likely to complain about repairs or the quality of their home than leaseholders (60%).

Whether they had complained about repairs, the quality of their home, or something else, 60% of all households that complained were not happy with the response to their complaint.

The tenures most likely to have been unhappy with the response to their complaint were leaseholders (71%), local authority renters (63%), and housing association renters (61%), when compared with private renters (54%).

4. Noise and neighbourhoods

This chapter focuses on some common issues experienced by households in their homes and neighbourhoods. It first considers noise-related concerns and their impact on the household, and then it examines the presence of some typical problems in the local area around the home, including traffic, vandalism, and litter.

Types of problems with noise

Households in the EHS were asked if they’d had any problems with noise from the following sources in the last year:

• Immediate neighbours or people in the common areas of flats
• Other neighbours or people in the street
• Road traffic (cars, buses, motorbikes, or lorries)
• Trains
• Aeroplanes
• Car alarms or burglar alarms
• Factories or workshops
• Building sites
• Road works
• Pubs, clubs, or entertainment
• Animals
• Other

Around 11.3 million households (46%) reported experiencing a problem with noise within the last year. Local authority renters (52%), private renters (49%), and housing association renters (48%) were more likely to report experiencing problems with noise than owner occupiers (44%), Annex Table 4.1.

The most prevalent source of noise problems, across all households, was road traffic (22%). This was followed by other neighbours or people in the street, and immediate neighbours or people in common areas (both 10%). This same order of prevalence was reflected among private renters, local authority renters, and housing association renters.

For all households, noise problems from animals (8%), followed by car or burglar alarms (8%) and road works (7%), were also generally more common than problems from other sources (3%), Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Prevalent types of noise problems, all households, 2024-25

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

When looking at owner occupiers, the most common source of noise problems was road traffic (21%) followed by animals, other neighbours or people in the street, and immediate neighbours or people in common areas (each 8%).

Local authority renters (25%) and private renters (23%) were more likely to report a problem with noise from road traffic than both owner occupiers (21%) and housing association renters (20%).

Problems with noise from immediate neighbours and common areas were most common for housing association (19%) and local authority (18%) renters, followed by private renters (11%) and finally owner occupiers (8%). A similar pattern was also seen looking at problems with noise from other neighbours and people on the street, with local authority (17%) and housing association (16%) renters most likely to report this issue, followed by private renters (13%), with owner occupiers (8%) least likely to report this problem, Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Types of noise problems, by tenure, 2024-25  

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

These differences among tenures may relate to stock profile trends, namely that owner occupied dwellings were more likely to be detached houses or be in rural areas than other tenures, and therefore may be less affected by noises from neighbours, 2024-2025 Headline findings on demographics and household resilience.

Problems with noise from animals were most prevalent among local authority (11%) and housing association (10%) renters, followed by owner occupiers (8%), while private renters (7%) were least likely to report this problem.

Noises from aeroplanes were more likely to be reported as a problem among owner occupiers and local authority renters (both 6%) than private renters (4%) and housing association renters (3%).

Private renters (5%), local authority renters (5%), and housing association renters (4%) were all more likely to report pubs, clubs, and entertainment as a source of noise problems than owner occupiers (3%).

Satisfaction with accommodation

Overall, households that reported a problem with noise were more likely to be dissatisfied with their accommodation (9%), than those who did not report a problem with noise (4%). This trend was also true for every tenure, Annex Table 4.2.

Effects of noise problems

Households that mentioned a problem with noise were asked if that affected any of the following aspects of their life at home:

• Sleep
• Work
• Leisure activities in the home
• Other
• None of these areas

Across all tenures, it was most likely that households that experienced noise problems did not mention the noise affecting their life at home (44%). Considering areas that were affected, noise was most likely to affect sleep (42%), followed by leisure activities in the home (19%), work (13%) and finally any other aspects of home life (3%). This was true for owner occupiers. However, for each of the three rented tenures, households were more likely to mention that noise affected their sleep than to mention that no aspect of home life was affected, Annex Table 4.3, Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Effects of noise problems on household, by tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households that mentioned a problem with noise
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.3
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Owner occupiers were most likely to report being unaffected by noise problems (49%), compared with private renters (37%), housing association renters (36%), and local authority renters (32%).

Local authority renters (56%) and housing association renters (54%) were most likely to have their sleep affected by noise problems, with private renters (49%) following, and owner occupiers (36%) being the least likely.

For the impact of noise on work in the home, private renters (17%) were the most likely to be affected, followed by owner occupiers (13%), and then housing association (10%) and local authority renters (9%).

Noise was more likely to affect leisure activities in the homes of housing association renters (23%) than owner occupiers (19%) and private renters (18%).

Local authority renters were more likely to have other aspects of home life affected by noise (7%) than all other tenures (3 to 4%).

Local area

Satisfaction with area

Households were asked how satisfied they were with the area around their home as a place to live. Overall, 87% of households were satisfied with the area around their accommodation and 8% (1.9 million households) were dissatisfied, Annex Table 4.4.

Dissatisfaction with the area around the accommodation was most prevalent among local authority renters (14%) and housing association renters (12%), followed by private renters (9%), with owner occupiers (6%) the least likely to report dissatisfaction.

Household perception of problems in the local area

Households were asked the extent to which each of the following issues were a problem in their area:

• noisy neighbours or loud parties
• rubbish or litter lying around
• vandalism, graffiti, or other deliberate damage to property or vehicles
• the general level of crime
• people being drunk or rowdy in public

Possible responses were ‘a serious problem in this area’, ‘a problem in this area, but not serious’, or ‘not a problem in this area’.

Households from all tenures were most likely to report a serious problem with rubbish or litter (12%) in their local area, followed by the level of crime (8%), vandalism or graffiti (5%), drunkenness and rowdiness (5%), and noisy neighbours or loud parties (3%). For each individual tenure, rubbish or litter was the most prevalent problem regarded as serious, Annex Table 4.5.

Across all local area problems that were collected in the EHS, social renters were most likely to report the issue as serious, followed by private renters, with owner occupiers being least likely to report a serious issue, Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Serious problems in the local area, by tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 4.5
Source: English Housing Survey, full household sample}

Surveyor observation of problems in the local area

In addition to the respondent-reported measures, EHS surveyors also assess problems in the local area of the surveyed dwelling. These assessments account for the expected severity of the problems over the course of a typical day and are scored on a scale of 1 (no problem) to 5 (major problem). For the analysis in this section, the issue is considered a problem if the surveyor scored a 4 or 5. The 17 problems assessed in the EHS are:

• litter, rubbish, or dumping
• graffiti
• vandalism
• dog or other excrement
• condition of dwellings
• vacant sites
• intrusive industry
• non-conforming uses
• vacant or boarded up buildings
• ambient air quality
• heavy traffic
• intrusion from motorways or main roads
• railway or aircraft noise
• nuisance from street parking
• scruffy gardens or landscaping
• scruffy or neglected buildings
• condition of road, pavements, and street furniture

The most prevalent problems in the local area as observed by EHS surveyors, for all dwellings, were nuisances from street parking (5%), followed by the condition of roads, pavements and street furniture (3%), then heavy traffic (3%), and intrusion from motorways or main roads (2%). These were also the most likely to be observed for owner occupied dwellings, Annex Table 4.6.

Across all dwellings, the least prevalent problems were vacant boarded up buildings (0.2%), vacant sites (0.1%), and non-conforming uses where domestic dwellings were being used inappropriately, for example as scrap yards (0.1%), Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: Surveyor observed problems in the local area, all households, 2024-25

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

Among private rented dwellings, the most prevalent problems in the local area as observed by surveyors were nuisances from street parking (7%), followed by heavy traffic, litter and rubbish, the condition of road, pavement and street furniture, and intrusion from motorways or arterial roads (each 4%).

For local authority dwellings, nuisances from street parking (6%) and scruffy gardens or landscaping (5%) were the most commonly observed problems, with the condition of roads, pavements and street furniture (3%), litter or rubbish (2%), and railway or aircraft noise (2%) the next most common.

While for housing association dwellings, the most common problems in the local area, observed by surveyors, were nuisances from street parking (6%), followed by litter and rubbish (4%), scruffy gardens or landscaping (3%), and the condition of road or pavement and street furniture (3%).

Problems from the intrusion of motorways or main roads were most likely to be observed by surveyors among private rented dwellings (4%) compared with other tenures (all 2%). The same trend was seen for problems with heavy traffic in the local area and ambient air quality, with private rented dwellings (4% and 3%, respectively) the most likely to have these problems compared with all other tenures (1% to 2%).

Owner occupied dwellings were generally the least likely to have any problem described as serious by a surveyor when compared with other tenures.

5. Costs and finances

This chapter focuses on the financial costs relating to poor housing quality, by region and by tenure. It reports how much it would cost to make all non-decent homes meet the Decent Homes Standard and 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 months of rent required to cover the cost to make decent for rented dwellings. Finally, it reports on the prevalence of non-decent 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. In 2024, the mean cost to bring a non-decent dwelling up to Standard was £11,162 and the median cost was lower at £4,598, Annex Table 5.1.

The mean and median can differ where there are outliers within the data. The mean considers every value in its calculation, so relatively large or small values can skew it higher or lower. In contrast, the median is the middle value when the data is ordered, so it is less affected by outliers.

The mean costs for non-decent owner occupied and private rented dwellings to be brought up to standard at £12,150 and £10,569, respectively, were higher compared to local authority (£7,201) and housing association (£6,918) dwellings. The median cost required to make non-decent owner occupied dwellings decent was £4,653, and for private rented dwellings the median was £4,878. Further, the median costs were £3,167 and £2,256 for local authority and housing association dwellings, respectively.

Across the housing stock, non-decent dwellings in the North West region had a mean cost of £16,561 to be made decent. This was higher than all other regions (£8,053 to £11,629). This pattern was mostly similar for non-decent owner occupied dwellings but was not reflected for non-decent dwellings in the rented tenures.

The median cost varied by region, ranging from £1,843 in Yorkshire and the Humber to £6,359 in the North West. In London, the median cost was £6,189, Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Median cost to make decent, by region, 2024

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

Non-decent owner occupied dwellings in the North West had the highest mean cost to reach the standard at £19,149 when compared with all other regions (£8,088 to £12,391) except the South West (£12,494). For owner occupied dwellings that were non-decent, the median cost to be brought up to standard ranged from £1,381 in Yorkshire and the Humber to £8,756 in the East.

Among private rented dwellings, there were no significant differences in the mean cost to make decent between the regions, with costs ranging from £8,348 in the East to £13,775 in the East Midlands. Non-decent social rented dwellings in the East (£11,487), London (£10,149), and the South East (£8,636) had higher mean costs to become decent than those in Yorkshire and the Humber (£4,460), South West (£4,429), and the West Midlands (£4,037).

Occupied dwellings

The mean cost to make decent can be skewed by high repair costs for vacant dwellings. To better understand the effect of these vacant dwellings on the cost to make decent, the analysis was repeated on occupied dwellings with vacant dwellings excluded. When examining occupied dwellings only, the mean cost to make decent was £10,152 and the median cost was £4,282, Annex Table 5.2. By comparison, the mean cost with vacant dwellings included was £11,162 and the median cost was lower at £4,598.

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 2024, the mean cost to make a dwelling safe was £4,179, with a lower median cost of £1,757. Across the housing stock, there were no significant differences in the mean cost to make a dwelling safe between tenures, with the mean costs ranging from £5,448 for local authority dwellings to £4,039 for owner occupied dwellings, Annex Table 5.3, Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Median and mean cost to make safe, by tenure, 2024

^{Base: all dwellings with Category 1 hazards
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.3
Source: English Housing Survey, dwelling sample}

Months of rent required to cover the cost to make decent

For all households  that paid rent and lived in non-decent homes, the cost to make decent was divided by the monthly rent to determine how many months of rent would be required to cover the cost. This analysis excluded owner occupiers, shared owners who pay both a rent and a mortgage, and households with nominal rents of less than £1 per week which are not meaningful  and can skew results.

Overall, the median cost to make decent was equivalent to 5 months of rent for renters living in non-decent homes. The mean was 15 months of rent, reflecting a skewed distribution in the cost to make decent. For each tenure, the median amount of rent required to cover the cost to make decent was between five and six months. 

For the majority of renters living in non-decent homes (52%), the cost to make decent was equivalent to six months of rent or less. In 14% of households that rented non-decent homes, the cost to make decent was equivalent to 1 month of rent or less. This was less than the 25% of households that rented non-decent homes where the cost to make decent was equivalent to between 1 and 3 months.

Further, 16% of non-decent homes had a cost to make decent that was equivalent to between one and two years’ worth of rent, a greater proportion compared with those that required three or more years rent (11%) or two to three years rent (8%) to cover the cost, Annex Table 5.4.

This was generally the same for each tenure, with the homes of private renters (53%), housing association renters (52%), and local authority renters (51%) most likely to be made decent with the equivalent of six months’ worth of rent, Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: Months of rent required to make decent, by tenure 2024-25

^{Base: all non-decent renters
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.4
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Additionally for private renters living in non-decent homes, a greater proportion had a cost to make decent equivalent to between one and two years’ rent (16%) and six to twelve months’ rent (13%) than two to three years’ rent (7%).

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. 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.

Households that were in relative low income were more likely to be living in a non-decent home (807,000, 18%) than households that were not in relative low income (14%), Annex Table 5.5.

Owner occupiers in relative low income were more likely to be living in a home that was non-decent (20%) than if they were not in relative low income (13%). This was also evident with local authority renters (14% and 10%, respectively), but not private renters or housing association renters, Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4: Non-decent homes, by relative low income and tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.5
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Total number of dependent children in relative low income

In 2024-25, there were 4.1 million dependent children represented in the EHS living in relative low income households. Of those in relative low income households, 1.6 million dependent children were in the private rented sector, 1.1 million were in owner occupation, 832,000 were in housing association accommodation and 549,000 were in local authority accommodation, Annex Table 5.6.

Overall, 771,000 dependent children living in low income households lived in a non-decent home (19%), 476,000 dependent children from low income households lived in a home with at least one Category 1 hazard present (12%), and 468,000 dependent children from low income households were living in homes that had damp problems (11%).

Dependent children living in low income private renter (335,000 dependent children, 21%), owner occupied (230,000 dependent children, 21%) and local authority (105,000 dependent children, 19%) households were more likely to live in a non-decent home than their counterparts in housing association households (102,000 dependent children, 12%).

There was a larger proportion of dependent children from low income private renter households (14%) living in a home with a Category 1 hazard present compared with those from housing association households (8%).

Some 234,000 dependent children from low income private renter households (15%) were living in a damp home, as were 71,000 dependent children from low income local authority households (13%). These were both more likely to live in damp homes than dependent children from low income housing association (82,000 dependent children, 10%) and owner occupied (81,000 dependent children, 7%) households.

Vulnerable households

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

In 2024-25, there were around 1 million vulnerable households living in a non-decent home. Non-decency was more prevalent for vulnerable households (16%) than households that were not vulnerable (14%). This was only observed for private renters, Annex Table 5.7.

Vulnerable private renters (26%) were more likely to live in homes that were non-decent than non-vulnerable households within the same tenure (20%). There were no significant differences found with any other tenure, Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5: Non-decent homes, by vulnerable households and tenure, 2024-25

^{Base: all households
Note: underlying data are presented in Annex Table 5.7
Source: English Housing Survey, household subsample}

Technical notes and annex tables

Further details on the English Housing Survey methodology and glossary of terms can be found in the Technical Notes and glossary.

Underlying data for this report are published as Annex Tables