# data[].attributes.body
In collaboration with Izzi, we present an innovative campaign entitled “…….”. This transformative initiative boldly confronts the raw truths of the housing crisis and homelessness through a dynamic blend of art and activism. At it’s core lies a symbol: a meticulously crafted house constructed from plywood materials. This structure, imbued with aspirations of countless individuals facing housing insecurity, stands as a powerful testament to resilience and the human spirit.

The structure aims to go beyond traditional limits, encouraging audiences to interact with its message on numerous levels. Our goal is to challenge perceptions, elicit empathy, and inspire action through an immersive art installation, almost like a performance with interactive displays. By focusing attention on the pressing concerns of housing instability and homelessness, we hope to spark a communal reaction based on compassion and solidarity.

As our project progresses, it becomes more than just a physical embodiment of refuge; it is a mirror that reflects the harsh truths of our society. It calls on landlords and legislators to face their disproportionate power and unbridled greed, which fuel the cycle of homelessness and housing instability. Through strategic collaboration and grassroots activism, “……..” seeks to dismantle oppressive structures and advocate for housing justice. Let us work together to create a world in which the basic human need for shelter takes precedence over business, housing is a right rather than a privilege and compassion wins over greed.

In our ambitious plan, we seek to place the ‘house’ squarely in front of letting agencies, shining a harsh light on their involvement in increasing the housing crisis. Together, we aim to curate intriguing publications that will not only decorate the interior of the tiny house, but will also end up in the hands of landlords. These publications will include candid interviews with the public, offering an unfiltered platform for voices that are frequently repressed by the power dynamics of the housing industry.

We hope to fulfil two important goals with these publications. First, we want to educate letting agencies and landlords about the common perception that their tactics are exploitative and ethically flawed. We hope to remove the veil of apathy that frequently surrounds people in positions of power by highlighting the genuine and uncensored thoughts of those affected by the housing crisis.

Secondly, we want to influence landlords’ perspectives, asking them to abandon their sense of entitlement and address the terrible reality that many people ensure when trying to find stable homing. Through genuine testimonials and captivating storytelling, we hope to persuade landlords to reconsider their priorities, asking them to prioritise tenant well-being over profit margins.

Finally, our project seeks to catalyse genuine change in the housing business by cultivating a culture of accountability, empathy, and social responsibility. By presenting letting agencies and landlords with the unvarnished truths about the housing crisis, we hope to spark a collective call to action, motivating stakeholders to actively participate in deconstructing oppressive structures and championing housing for all. The project represents a bold and innovative approach to addressing the housing crisis through art, activism, and community engagement. By challenging societal norms, confronting biases, and advocating for systemic change, we aim to build a more equitable and compassionate society where everyone has a place to call home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Discover the historical significance of the Housing Act 1980, legislation that induced remarkable transformations in Britain's housing policies. This article delivers an in-depth, chronological study of the Act, comparing it with The Housing and Community Development Act, outlining crucial milestones, and examining its influence on present-day Britain. It also delves into Margaret Thatcher's role in the creation and implementation of the Act, particularly the much-debated Right to Buy Scheme. Lastly, gain a thorough understanding of both immediate and long-term consequences manifesting from the Act on Britain's housing system.

Introduction to the Housing Act 1980

Roll the time back to the United Kingdom in the 1980s. There was a significant legislation passed during this time that forever changed the face of social housing - you've guessed it right, it's the Housing Act of 1980! But before digging deep into its nitty-gritty details, let's get familiar with what it is broadly about.

The Housing Act 1980 is a UK legislation that gave five million council house tenants the right to buy their home at a discounted price. This act was introduced under the government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and it is considered a cornerstone of Thatcherism and a key component in the transition from state socialism to a market economy with an emphasis on individual ownership.

Overview of 1980 Housing Act History

Most of you might wonder, how did a legislation like the Housing Act 1980 come into existence and what was its relevance during those times. So let's go on a journey together to learn about the emergence and implementation of this act.

The Housing Act 1980 is symbolic of a pivotal time in modern British history. The post-war period saw a significant rise in state-owned social housing, organised and overseen by local councils. However, by the 1980s, increasing emphasis was placed on individual homeownership, which fuelled the drive for government policies supporting this transition. The Housing Act 1980 struck a significant blow towards state socialism and came to represent the shift towards a more market-based economy.

Emergence and Implementation

If you delve into the history of this Act, you will find that the origin of the idea for the right to buy social housing actually traces back to the late 1950s, yet it only became law in 1980. Below let's explore the steps leading to the formulation and execution of the Housing Act 1980.

Proposition: In the year 1959, Conservative party manifesto first proposed the idea of giving council tenants the right to buy their homes.

Enforcement: The Council Housing Act was then enforced in 1974, but with strict limitations.

Legislation: The limitations were finally lifted with the introduction of the Housing Act 1980, which formally legislated the right to buy scheme.

For a better understanding, consider this: you're a council tenant in a modest three-bedroom house in the 1980s. Prior to the 1980 Housing Act, if you wished to buy your council house, your ability to do so would be significantly restricted. But with the passage of the 1980 Housing Act, you would suddenly have the right to buy your home at a significant discount, paving the way for you to experience homeownership, something that was previously out of reach for many ordinary people.

Right to Buy Scheme: This program, introduced by this act, enabled social tenants to buy the home they were living in at a discounted price, thus promoting the idea of ownership of property among the masses.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1980

Not to be confused with its British counterpart, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 was a significant legislation passed in the United States. The purpose of the Act was to provide a coordinated, comprehensive strategy to meet the housing needs of the low- and moderate-income American families, thus reflecting the intricacies of balancing societal welfare with the market economy.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 is a United States federal law that made amendments to the housing and community development act of 1974. It sought to encourage community development and enhance housing supply through providing grants and subsidies.

Comparing the Housing Act 1980 and The Housing and Community Development Act

If you compare the Housing Act 1980 with the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, the most obvious similarity is that both acts were instrumental in the housing policy of their respective countries. Nonetheless, they exhibit significant differences in their approaches and impacts.

Housing Act 1980

UK

Promoted homeownership among council house tenants

Significant increase in private homeownership, reduced size of public housing sector

Housing and Community Development Act 1980

US

Provided a comprehensive strategy to meet the housing needs of the low- and moderate-income families

Improved housing conditions for low-income families, spurred community development

While the Housing Act 1980 sought to promote homeownership among council house tenants by giving them the right to buy their homes at a subsidised price, the Housing and Community Development Act 1980 aimed at improving the living conditions of lower and moderate-income families by offering subsidies and grants for housing and community development. The British Act led to a surge in private homeownership but also a decline in social housing stock. The American Act, on the other hand, stimulated community development and improved housing supply for low-income families.

How both Acts affected Modern Britain

You might wonder, how did two different housing acts, one across the pond in the United States, affect modern Britain? Well, to answer that, let's delve into the effects of both these acts.

Globalisation: In the era of globalisation, economic and policy changes in one country often have far-reaching impacts on others. The housing policies adopted by the UK and US during the 1980s were no exception.

The Housing Act 1980 considerably increased homeownership in Britain, yet concurrently resulted in a severe decline in the social housing sector. This created a housing crisis for those in the lower income bracket, engendered an increase in homelessness and led to greater social inequality in property ownership.

On the other hand, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 in the US, through its comprehensive strategy, aimed to meet the housing needs of lower and moderate-income households. While this policy approach wasn't directly adopted by the UK, it did influence global discussions on the role of state support in housing for lower income groups and stimulated policy debates within the UK too.

The impact of the Housing Act 1980 is still seen today in the form of higher house prices, given the significant decline of social housing stock. The disequilibrium between supply and demand for affordable housing has been a long-standing issue in contemporary Britain. On a global scale, the struggles faced by Britain and the contrasting policy approaches by the US as seen in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 illustrate the complexities and challenges in formulating housing policies.

Key Events in the Housing Act 1980 Timeline

If you're intrigued about the evolution of the Housing Act 1980, you're in for a treat. Let's take a stroll down memory lane and discover key events that significantly contributed to the development and implementation of this monumental act.

Timeline Details of the 1980 Housing Act

Plunge right into the unfolding of the Housing Act 1980 by visualising the sequence of events. The timeline of this Act reflects the socio-political environment of the time and offers intriguing insights into how this landmark legislation came to be.

Timeline: A representation of a sequence of events that allows for a better understanding of historical, production or any other type of process.

The comprehensive narrative of the Housing Act 1980 begins in the post-war period, extends over several decades, and keeps affecting UK's housing policy to this day. Let's unpack the timeline:

1950s: The concept of right to buy for council tenants was initially proposed. However, it didn't gain much traction during this time.

1970s: The idea was revisited and the Council Housing Act was enforced in 1974 with strict limitations.

1980: The consequential limitations were lifted with the passage of the Housing Act 1980, which formally legislated the right to buy scheme.

1980-Present: The Act led to a vast number of council tenants becoming homeowners, significantly altering the housing landscape of the UK.

Significant Milestones in the Housing Act 1980 Implementation

As you explore the timeline, you'll encounter several key milestones that marked the implementation of the Housing Act 1980. Each phase is crucial in understanding the overall impact and legacy of this legislation.

The process of passing and implementing the Housing Act wasn't simple or linear - it involved a series of debates, discussions and policy changes, reflecting the various interests and ideologies at play. As we look back at these milestones, it becomes clear how the Housing Act 1980 marked a radical shift in UK's housing policy, shaping the socioeconomic environment and influencing individuals' lives in multiple ways.

To illustrate this, consider a council tenant living in a small flat in London in the pre-1980 era. Before the passage of the Act, they might have had little aspiration or hope of owning their home. However, with the Housing Act 1980, they suddenly had the option to purchase their flat at a substantially discounted price. As they navigated through the process and finally became homeowners, their life prospects drastically changed - and they were one among millions whose lives were transformed through this Act.

Margaret Thatcher and the Housing Act 1980

An article about the Housing Act 1980 would certainly be incomplete without acknowledging the indispensable role of Margaret Thatcher - the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during that time. Thatcher's policies and political ideology played an instrumental role not just in the creation of this Act but its successful implementation throughout the 1980s.

Margaret Thatcher's Role in the 1980 Housing Act

Margaret Thatcher, known as the Iron Lady, was at the helm when the Housing Act 1980 was introduced. Recognizing the significance of homeownership as a form of wealth, empowering individuals and navigating the nation towards a market driven economy, she was instrumental in crafting and enforcing this legislation.

Margaret Thatcher: The first woman Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, serving from 1979 to 1990. She was a leading figure in the Conservative Party and is known for her policies promoting privatisation, individual ownership and a free-market economy, collectively known as Thatcherism.

Formulation: Thatcher backed the proposal of the Housing Act 1980, recognising the momentum from tenants and the wider public to own their homes.

Implementation: After passage, Thatcher ensured a smooth implementation despite resistance from some local authorities who were reluctant to sell off their housing stocks.

Aftermath: Post-implementation, Thatcher's government continued to promote the act, resulting in millions of council house tenants becoming homeowners.

Thatcher played a pivotal role in the Housing Act 1980, right from accurately gauging the public sentiment towards homeownership to overseeing its successful implementation. Under her leadership, the act transformed not just the housing landscape of the UK, but the socioeconomic fabric of British society as a whole, imbuing millions with the pride and financial security that comes with homeownership.

How Thatcher's Policies Influenced the Housing Act

Thatcher's policies and ideology provided the guiding framework within which the Housing Act 1980 was born. Her approach towards economics, social structure and the role of the state had a profound influence on the drafting and implementation of this act.

Imagine being a council tenant living in a small flat in London during Thatcher's era. Thatcher's policies promoting a free-market economy and individual rights allowed you the unprecedented ability to buy your own home. With the introduction of the Housing Act 1980, you now had the right to buy your house and become a homeowner - a clear illustration of how Thatcher's policies directly influenced this legislation and in-turn, the lives of many Britons.

The Right to Buy Scheme in the Housing Act 1980

The 'Right to Buy' scheme, a cornerstone of the Housing Act 1980, reshaped Britain's housing landscape by providing council house tenants with the right to buy their home at a discount. It was a radical shift in housing policy which continues to have significant implications until today.

Detailed Look at the Housing Act 1980 Right to Buy Clause

Delving into the Housing Act 1980, the 'Right to Buy' clause stands out prominently. Essentially, this provision allowed most council tenants to buy their council home at a discount, considerably altering the dynamics of housing in the United Kingdom.

Right to Buy: A policy in the United Kingdom which gives secure tenants of councils and some housing associations the legal right to buy, at a large discount, the home they are living in.

Here's how the scheme worked:

Tenants who had been residing in their council homes for three years or more were eligible to apply.

The discount ranged from 33% to 50% for houses and from 44% to 70% for flats, depending on the length of occupancy.

The scheme applied across all territorial jurisdictions within the UK.

Consequently, imagine being a long-term council tenant in the late 1980s era. Based on the 'Right to Buy' scheme, you could make an application to buy your home. If you had been living there for 10 years, you'd be entitled to a considerably large discount. This initiative brought homeownership within reach for many council tenants who might have found it unaffordable otherwise.

An additional feature of the Act was the implementation of cost floor rules. These rules prevented the sale of homes at a price which was less than the cost of their building or maintenance, thus ensuring that public money wasn't wasted.

The introduction of the 'Right to Buy' scheme represented a significant shift in the housing policy of the UK. It was an ideological leap towards promoting homeownership and reducing the role of the state in providing housing. Despite immediate scepticism, the scheme successfully led to a significant increase in homeownership rates, with over a million council homes sold within a decade of the act being passed.

The Impact of the Right to Buy Scheme on Modern Britain

The repercussions of the 'Right to Buy' scheme, exemplified in the Housing Act 1980, are far from subtle in modern Britain. Whether viewed from the prism of homeownership, social equality, housing affordability or the shape of our urban landscapes, its impact remains unmistakeable.

Impact: The long-term effects, outcomes or changes brought about by an event, policy or action.

Consider the change in the landscape of a typical British council estate - rows of uniform council homes. Before the Housing Act 1980, this was a common scene in many parts of Britain. Yet, post the enactment, you'd witness the transition of these estates as council tenants became homeowners and personalised their homes, reflecting their new status. Simultaneously, fewer new council houses were built resulting in a visible scarcity of such estates. These transformations, triggered by the 'Right to Buy' scheme, hold lasting imprints on the urban spaces of Britain.

The 'Right to Buy' scheme, embedded within the Housing Act 1980, marked a robust drive towards privatisation and homeownership in Britain. Its impact, still discernible in modern Britain, serves to remind us of the power of progressive policy making.

The Impact of the Housing Act 1980

The Housing Act 1980, with its landmark 'Right to Buy' scheme, had a profound influence on Britain's housing scene. Its effects unraveled over decades and are still visible in the present day UK housing scenario. Understanding its varied impact is instrumental in comprehending the trajectory of UK's housing policy.

Immediate Consequences of the Housing Act 1980

Freshly enacted, the Housing Act 1980 sparked numerous immediate outcomes. The most notable catalytic effect was the dramatic increase in homeownership rates, which shook up the existing housing patterns in the UK.

Immediate Consequences: The outcomes that can be directly observed or experienced right after the enforcement of an event, policy or action.

Below are some direct results set into motion by the Housing Act 1980:

Uptake of the 'Right to Buy' scheme was immediate and significant, with tenants flocking to buy their council homes at huge discounts.

Councils started losing their houses and flats on a large scale, reducing the stock of available social housing.

Homeownership rates throughout the UK skyrocketed, particularly amongst those who were traditionally less likely to own property such as the lower and middle-income groups.

For instance, consider a typical council tenant family living in a small flat in Birmingham in 1980. With the implementation of the Housing Act, they now had the opportunity to purchase their very own flat at a discounted price. Imagine the transformative effect this had on their lives and on many others, as they went from being tenants to homeowners, thus experiencing a first-hand immediate consequence of this sweeping legislation.

The initial success and reach of the Act far exceeded expectations. Council house sales nearly doubled between 1980 and 1982, with particularly high uptake in economically deprived areas such as East London and Northern England. This illustrates the tangible thirst for homeownership that existed amongst the UK's working-class populations and their ability to quickly mobilise with the introduction of enabling legislation.

Long-term Effects of the Housing Act 1980 on Britain's Housing System

It's crucial to delve into the lasting imprint of the Housing Act 1980 on Britain's housing system. These long-term effects, shaping housing trajectories decades later, reiterate the profound impact of this landmark legislation.

Long-term Effects: Consequences or outcomes that remain or continue over an extended period, often shaping or influencing long-term trends or policies.

In the wider scope, these effects include:

Imagine a scenario twenty years post the enactment of the Housing Act 1980. A former council tenant, now a homeowner, had the opportunity to sell his house making a significant profit due to rising housing prices. On the other hand, a tenant who couldn't afford to buy his council house, found himself still renting, but now with fewer affordable options. These contrasting scenarios provide a clear picture of the mixed long-term effects of the Housing Act 1980.

The legacy of the Housing Act 1980 is deeply rooted in the UK's current housing landscape. The swift and extensive embrace of the 'Right to Buy' scheme drove a seismic shift in housing policies and personal aspirations towards homeownership. This had a profound impact on not just housing trends, but also social mobility and wealth distribution in Britain. These long-term effects continue to reverberate, moulding the debates and policy decisions surrounding housing in the UK today.

From skyrocketing homeownership rates to severe social housing shortage, the Act's impacts span a broad spectrum. As you delve deeper into British housing history, you'll appreciate the multiplicity of effects triggered by this legislation - both immediate and long-term - and understand why the Housing Act 1980 is revered as a watershed moment in British housing policy.

Housing Act 1980 - Key takeaways

The Housing Act 1980 significantly increased private home ownership in Britain, however, it led to a dramatic decline in the social housing sector, leading to higher rates of homelessness and greater property ownership inequality.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 in the United States aimed to improve the living conditions of lower and moderate-income families by offering subsidies and grants for housing. While its policy approach wasn't directly adopted by the UK, it influenced global discussion on state support in housing.

Margaret Thatcher, the UK's Prime Minister at the time, played a crucial role in the creation and successful implementation of the Housing Act 1980, promoting the emphasis on homeownership and privatisation, principles central to her political ideology known as Thatcherism.

The Housing Act 1980 included the Right to Buy scheme, which enabled council tenants to buy their homes at a discount, the scheme was applicable to tenants residing in their homes for three or more years and the discount varied depending on the length of occupancy and type of dwelling (house or flat).

The impact of the Housing Act 1980, and particularly, the Right to Buy scheme, is still noticeable in modern Britain with the effects varying across homeownership rates, the social housing sector, housing affordability and changes in the character of urban communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Housing Act 1980: ✓ History ✓ Development ✓ Timeline ✓ Thatcher's Role ✓ Right to Buy ✓ Impact. StudySmarterOriginal!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Background

In the last decade the number of people sleeping rough on England's streets has more than doubled, increasing by 165%. The street homeless are the tip of the iceberg of a far wider housing crisis that exists across Britain, but which is particularly acute in London, and other major cities.

There are now over 135,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation, without a home to call their own.

In London 40% of households have no housing wealth at all. Home ownership peaked at 71% in 2003, and has steadily declined to 64%. This decline in home ownership has been among younger households which have not been able to afford a home.

This trend means nearly a million fewer under-40s own their own home than was the case a generation ago. The IFS reported in 2018 that for 25-34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. The sharpest decline was in London.

In roughly the same period, the number of households renting in the private sector in England has doubled to 4.6 million. Many renters are also living in overcrowded accommodation. The right-to-buy policy, introduced under the Thatcher government in the 1980s, has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of homes with secure tenancies and regulated rents. It is estimated that 40% of the council homes sold off in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords.

The average price of a UK home in February 2020 was £234,742, while median full-time earnings are £30,420 a year. So the average house price is nearly 8 times the median wage.

Landlords have been crowding out first-time buyers in the housing market, as house price rises have outstripped wage rises for a generation - meaning only those with significant wealth are able to put down the necessary deposit in order to get a mortgage.

In 2010 housing benefit would pay the rent in full for homes up to the 50th percentile of the local housing market. That was cut to the 30th percentile and then frozen, meaning housing benefit has lost value in real terms and is paying a lower proportion of rent. The bedroom tax also took away further housing benefit from council and housing association tenants if the property was deemed to have a spare room. In addition the household benefit cap has socially cleansed low income renters from many areas.

And despite pledging to end no fault evictions in 2019, the Government has yet to bring forward legislation.

More than three years on from Grenfell, hundreds of thousands of people spent lockdown in homes covered in flammable cladding that had still not been removed.

Most mortgage policies allow for a payment holiday - with the deferred payments added to the end of the repayment term or alternatively higher monthly repayments over the same term. The Government acted swiftly on mortgages in March to give all mortgage holders the option of a three month payment holiday, and extended support in May to give the option of a further 3 month payment holiday.

The Government later put a moratorium on evictions for renters. The government says that it intends to introduce a protocol on landlords to reach out to their tenants, discuss their situation, and try to find an affordable repayment plan, but landlords are not expected to accept any losses in rent payments in the long-term. This means that landlords have been protected like no other businesses - many of which have suffered huge losses of income. Landlords are neither productive nor job creators nor particularly vulnerable, and yet this is the sector that has been most insulated from any financial losses.

The Government restored housing benefit to the 30th percentile of the local housing market (but not to the 50th), but has left the benefit cap and the bedroom tax in place. For homeless people sleeping rough, the Government brought in an 'Everybody in' policy, working with hostels and hotels to try to accommodate all rough sleepers, but that policy was ended in May, and the Government has not confirmed what will happen to those former rough sleepers.

For many university students living away from home, they have continued to be charged rent on properties in which many are no longer living in, as they returned home.

The London Renters' Union is working to collectivise renters who are already unable to pay their rent, and have nearly 4,000 renters signed up to their 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' campaign. Shelter estimates that 227,000 private renters in England have fallen into arrears during the period, while the StepChange debt advice charity estimated that by late May 590,000 household had fallen into rent arrears.

The temporary ban on evictions is due to end on 24 August, and many housing campaigners fear largescale evictions unless further protections are given by Government. The government committed itself in December's Queen's Speech to abolish s.21 "no fault" evictions but has failed to publish legislation or announce a timetable for doing so. This means that from 24 August, landlords will be able to start eviction proceedings against tenants without giving any reason to the court. And the Courts will be powerless to prevent the eviction, however unfair it may be.

Millions of renters will exit lockdown with substantial housing debt. Many have either lost their jobs or been furloughed, losing 20% of their income. Unemployment has risen dramatically and is likely to stay high for some time.

There is no viable alternative to cancelling housing debt: an intensified homelessness crisis is not a price worth paying. The Government should legislate to cancel rent debt built up during the crisis - forcing landlords, not renters, to take the economic hit. No other business or worker has been insulated from the crisis. If, as the government claims, we are all in this together, then landlords must bear some of the burden too.

Housing benefit has been repeatedly cut over the last decade and it is insufficient to ensure people have a secure home of good standard.

Housing benefit should be restored to 50% of local market rent, the bedroom tax scrapped and the benefit cap abolished. The Government should implement recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to bring forward its promised legislation to abolish no fault evictions (also known as 'Section 21') and to give Courts the ability to consider the reasons for rent arrears when landlords claim possession on mandatory grounds. All grounds for possession should be amended so no one can be evicted for arrears accrued during the Coronavirus pandemic.

Housing campaigns, such as Crisis and Shelter, have called for the government to commit to emergency accommodation for all homeless people for a further year, for homelessness to be prevented by giving the Courts discretion not to evict where arrears were accrued due to coronavirus and for the benefit cap to be suspended. The moratorium on the Courts making possession orders or permitting evictions should continue until legislation protecting renters has been passed.

The crisis has proved that it is possible to end rough sleeping. Having allowed street homelessness to increase by 165% in the last decade, the government must now act to end rough sleeping permanently by providing emergency accommodation and support for all rough sleepers - and allocate 8,000 additional homes for people with a history of rough sleeping. But the Government cannot continue to shrug its shoulders about tenure. Ownership matters. The aim of Government should be as John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1936, "the euthanasia of the rentier" in the economy.

Landlordism is an even greater scourge today than it was when Keir Hardie wrote in 1907, "Socialism proposes to abolish capitalism and landlordism". Around 11 million people in 4.6 million households rent from a private landlord, paying far higher rents than those in council or social housing, and often making higher monthly payments than mortgage holders. We should not be neutral, and must increase the taxes on property and rental profits, and bring forward new regulations that contribute to curtailing and ending landlordism.

Housing should be a human right for all, not an investment opportunity for a few. There must be no evictions of tenants due to arrears accumulated during the Coronavirus crisis. Many renters do not have the financial capacity - especially post-crisis - to be able to make debt repayments. Landlords not tenants should be taking the hit.

Landlords have been able to take mortgage holidays for the duration of the crisis. And if they have no mortgage on the property they are renting out then they face no risk of debt. As well as reversing the burden of debt, the government should also restore rent controls and security of tenure in the private rented sector, and require councils to introduce landlord licencing.

Taxes and regulations to curtail landlordism could include:

1. Increasing capital gains tax on second homes

2. Banning the purchasing of homes by companies

3. Limiting the number of homes that can be owned by an individual

In the short-term, we must promote and encourage renters to join tenants' unions like Acorn, London Renters' Union, Living Rent and others. Councils must also be given powers and resources to licence landlords and enforce minimum standards to ensure all homes for rent are fit for human habitation.

The Government should also end the hostile environment in the housing market, which requires landlords to check immigration status - and results in greater race discrimination. The 'no recourse to public funds' policy denies basic rights to housing and support, and must end.

In 1945, the incoming Labour government promised to "proceed with a housing programme with the maximum practical speed until every family ... has a good standard of accommodation".

In the UK currently, millions of families are without a safe, secure and affordable home - and that figure risks growing unless urgent and co-ordinated action is taken.

Housebuilding will have ground to a virtual halt during lockdown, and UK construction of new housing was already insufficient to meet demand before the crisis began.

A nationally co-ordinated programme of mass council house building could help to ease the housing crisis, and to provide jobs and training. This programme needs to be part of a co-ordinated green investment programme to ensure all new builds meet a zero carbon homes standard. This should be accompanied by a new Decent Homes Standard programme by Government to ensure all homes for rent are of a decent standard, with improvements funded by landlords in the private rented sector.

This needs to be accompanied by the creation of a new agency with powers to purchase land and to make public land available for low-cost housing. In addition 'use it or lose it' taxes need to be applied to developers that are land-banking.

The Coronavirus crisis also showed that homelessness is a political choice. The Government provided the funding and resources to get every rough sleeper off the streets during a health pandemic. It can do the same to end the injustice of rough sleeping.

The Government must also fund the removal of all flammable cladding from residential homes. This was predominantly a failure of regulation, and should not be paid for by renters, leaseholders or even landlords. In the long term, this money could be recouped from any developers or builders found to have been negligent in installing the cladding. But the problem is too urgent to wait for lengthy court cases to be decided.

Government should also legislate to abolish leasehold, based on the five point plan put forward by Labour in 2019:

1. End the sale of new private leasehold houses with direct effect and the sale of private leasehold flats by the end of our first term in Government.

2. End ground rents for new leasehold homes, and cap ground rents for existing leaseholders at 0.1% of the property value, up to a maximum of £250 a year.

3. Set a simple formula for leaseholders to buy the freehold to their home, or commonhold in the case of a flat, capped at 1% of the property value.

4. Crack down on unfair fees and contract terms by publishing a reference list of reasonable charges, requiring transparency on service charges and giving leaseholders a right to challenge rip-off fees and conditions or poor performance from service companies.

5. Give residents greater powers over the management of their homes, with new rights for flat-owners to form residents associations and by simplifying the Right to Manage.

Whether they are homeowners, leaseholders or renters, everyone must have the right to a safe, secure and affordable home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the last decade the number of people sleeping rough on England's streets has more than doubled, increasing by 165%. The street homeless are the tip of the iceberg of a far wider housing crisis that exists across Britain, but which is particularly acute in London, and other major cities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The end of landlords: the surprisingly simple solution to the UK housing crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mass-scale housebuilding isn’t necessary – there is already enough housing stock. But we need to learn the wisdom of the last century when it comes to landlordism

# data[].attributes.body
"Where Adam Smith and Karl Marx found common ground was in the idea that everyone’s interests are aligned against landlords: they are an economic deadweight. Even if we leave aside the appalling conditions and precarity that private renters face, anyone with an interest in lower taxes, lower wage bills and increasing the number of first-time buyers must equally be interested in smashing the private rented sector to bits. Homebuyers are now forced to compete with landlords, who chase sensational yields in our unregulated rental market, and £85.6bn a year (which comes, of course, from wages and taxes) is wasted on rent. A renewed collapse of landlordism would represent not just the tenants’ revenge for the housing crisis, but a much broader and more valuable moment of social progress."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Planned investment by housing associations drops due to budget pressures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Image: Getty/ DenisTangneyJr)

Thousands of homes across Bristol are either sitting empty or used as second homes, and the numbers are rising. There are a total of 2,472 houses in our city which are classed as second homes.

These are properties that are unlived in, but are fully furnished. They can include holiday lets like AirBnBs, as well as 'buy-to-leave' properties, which are purchased as investments that are left unoccupied in the expectation that their value will rise.

This number has increased by 16% compared to 2022, according to research by the organisation Action on Empty Homes. Meanwhile, a further 1,881 are classed as being long-term empty homes.
READ MORE: Fresh hope for Clifton Village's empty eyesore site To read more property news by Bristol Live, click here
These are defined as a property that has been empty for more than six months, and doesn't have a statutory exemption from council tax. This is also a 16% increase compared to last year.

It means that one out of every 48 homes in Bristol is either sitting empty or used as a second home. That's roughly the same as the national average of one in every 49 homes. Over a quarter of a million homes are sitting empty in England, with another quarter being used as second homes.

Director of action on Empty Homes Rebecca Moore said: "It beggars belief that while children are growing up sharing beds in temporary accommodation, our nation has over a quarter of a million homes sitting empty.

"To say this is a national disgrace is a profound understatement. After more than a decade of intense housing crisis, it is shocking to see long-term empty homes in England rise to over 261,000 - another 12,500 more wasted empties, while nearly 100,000 families are trapped in Temporary Accommodation, costing the nation over £1.7 billion pounds a year.

"A new national empty homes programme is long overdue - government needs to step up to the plate and offer funding and incentives to get these homes back into use. Long-term empties are a huge missed opportunity to invest in green retrofit and create new jobs

"Action on Empty Homes calls on Government to introduce a new national empty homes programme to create additional housing supply for those in most housing need, utilising properties currently left vacant or in need of renovation."
Use our interactive map to see how many empty homes there are in your area:
There are a total of 524,507 homes in England which are either second homes or long-term empty properties. This works out as one out of every 49 houses across the country. The number of long-term empty homes has increased by 5% from 248,633 in 2022 to 261,189 this year. While figures show that second homes have increased by 2% from 256,913 last year to 263,318 in 2023.

UK-wide, empty homes have increased in every region last year. In some regions though, one in nine properties are either second homes or long-term empty, while in the City of London it's one in four.

There are a total of 7,976 homes in the City of London, the capital's 'Square Mile' and epicentre of the financial industry. Some 261 of those (just over 3%) are classed as being long-term empty, while 1,783 (just over 22%) are second homes.

It means that 2,044 houses (26%) in the City are either second or long-term empty homes. That's the largest proportion of any local authority in England. North Norfolk has the next highest percentage of second homes in the country at 10%. Another 1% of homes there are classed as being long-term empty, which means one out of every nine properties in the area is either a second home or empty.

One out of every nine homes in Kensington and Chelsea are also either long-term empty or second homes, as are those in the Isles of Scilly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Beggars belief' as thousands of properties empty in Bristol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"After more than a decade of intense housing crisis, it is shocking to see long-term empty homes"

# data[].attributes.headline
English private landlord survey - Gov website

# data[].attributes.subject
English private landlord survey - Gov website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction and main findings

1. The English Private Landlord Survey (EPLS) is a national survey of landlords and letting agents who own and/or manage privately rented properties in England. It was commissioned by the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

2. The aim of the EPLS is to inform government understanding of the characteristics and experiences of landlords and how they acquire, let, manage and maintain privately rented accommodation. Similar surveys of private landlords were carried out by the department in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2010 and 2018.

3. The private rented sector is characterised by diversity and looks very different now than it did more than a decade ago. The number of households in the sector rose by 45% between 2008-09 and 2020-21, from 3.1 million to 4.4 million households. The private rented sector is now the second largest tenure in England, and is home to 19% of all households, compared to 14% in 2008-09, when it was smaller than the social rented sector. The private rented sector contains a wide range of different sub-markets, serving a wide range of different types of households across all incomes, including an increasing number of families. In 2020-21, 30% of households in the private rented sector included dependent children (1.3 million households). There are high rates of turnover in the private rented sector, with the number of house moves significantly higher than in the owner occupied and social rented sectors, both within the sector and between it and the other sectors.

5. Since the 2018 EPLS we have of course had the COVID-19 pandemic, with its related restrictions and subsequent impact on households' financial security, income, attitudes towards the homes and future planning. In addition, some specific policies were introduced in response to the pandemic, for instance restricting landlords' means of evicting tenants, and providing grants to those at risk of losing their homes.

6. This report provides an overview of the private landlord population in England in 2021. The first chapter covers the characteristics of landlords, why and how they became a landlord and how they view their current role. Chapter two presents an overview of landlords' portfolios - private rented dwellings and the households living in them, including the types and location of rented homes and the types of tenants. It also explores how landlords set rents and the circumstances around how tenancies end. The third chapter examines landlord attitudes, including the willingness of landlords and agents to let to different types of tenants and views on longer tenancies. It also presents findings on compliance with current legal requirements. The fourth chapter looks at the impact of COVID-19 on the experiences and practices of private landlords, and the final chapter provides evidence regarding the likely future of the private rented sector by setting out findings about landlords' stated future plans.

8. The EPLS is a survey of both landlords and agents. In 2021, we received responses from 300 or so agents. Given this relatively low number these responses are not reported on here. In addition, roughly 900 individuals who were identified as agents in the TDP data were in fact landlords (or both landlords and agents) and chose to participate from their landlord perspective. However, in many instances these participants were speaking about properties / tenancies separate to those from which they were sampled. Given this complexity, we have not included these cases in this analysis. The accompanying technical report gives more information about this.

Main findings
There are approximately 3.9 million live deposits registered with one of the three government-backed Tenancy Deposit Protection (TDP) schemes that operate in England. These correspond to an estimated 438,000 registrants (landlords and agents), only some (about 408,000) were landlords who had registered the deposits themselves.

It is estimated that the TDP schemes cover between 59% to 77% of households in the private rented sector .
Just under half of all landlords owned one rental property, though nearly half of tenancies were owned by landlords with five or more properties. Landlords who operated as individuals had smaller portfolios than those that operated as companies or organisations. Individual landlords are more likely to identify as male than female. Male landlords are more likely to report having larger portfolios. While more than half of landlords bought their first property with the intention of letting it out, just over a third originally bought their first rental property to live in themselves.
Landlords setting rents for new tenants were more likely to increase rent above the level at which the property was last let. Landlords setting rents for renewals of existing tenancies were most likely to keep the rent at the same level.
Landlords evicting tenants in the last year most commonly did so by means of s. 21 (no fault eviction) notice. About a quarter said they used a s. 8 notice, meaning the tenant had broken the terms of the tenancy agreement[footnote 9]. Most landlords returned all or some of the deposit at the end of their last tenancy. Few said they returned none of the deposit. Landlords were asked, based on a list of different characteristics of tenants, to which they were not willing to rent. Most landlords were unwilling to let to at least one type of tenant, most commonly, those with a history of rent arrears. Just 8% of landlords said they were willing to let to all groups of tenants on the list. On average, landlords reported having one tenant in arrears due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Landlords with larger portfolios reported having more tenants in arrears. Most landlords reported that no tenants requested a new rent arrangement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of those who did, the most common arrangements consisted of a reduced rent, or deferred rent with a repayment plan. When asked about future plans for their portfolio, nearly half of landlords said that they would keep their portfolio the same. Two fifths of landlords said they had not yet made plans. A similar number of landlords said they would increase their portfolios as said they would decrease or sell off their portfolio.
Acknowledgements and further queries

9. The authors would like to thank the landlords and agents who gave up their time to complete the survey. We are indebted to colleagues from the three government-backed TDP schemes, without whom the survey would not have been possible. We are grateful to our colleagues at BRE who provided valuable advice and insight at both the questionnaire development and reporting stages of the project.

10. The research was conducted by NatCen Social Research in partnership with The Building Research Establishment (BRE). The project was led by Sarah Frankenburg and David Hussey of NatCen Social Research in close collaboration with DLUHC.

11. The EPLS has recently been given the status of 'Official Statistics'. This designation means that the statistics were produced in accordance with the governance and operational arrangements set out in statistical legislation, and in compliance with the standards of best practice set out in the Code of Practice for Statistics. The methodology used to produce the statistics has not changed substantially from the 2018 EPLS.

12. If you have any queries about this report or would like any further information, please contact EPLS@levellingup.gov.uk.

13. The responsible analyst for this report is: Chauncey Glass, Housing and Planning Analysis Division, DLUHC who can be contacted via EPLS@levellingup.gov.uk.

Chapter 1: Profile of private landlords

1.1. This chapter presents findings on the types and characteristics of landlords, their finances, their motivations for becoming a landlord and their perceived role as a landlord.

Landlord types

1.2. Landlords were asked how they currently let their property. The majority (94%) let property as an 'individual or a group of individuals', with 5% 'as part of a company' and the remaining 1% both as an individual/group of individuals and as part of a company, or 'other'[footnote 10], Figure 1.1.

1.3. Most (84%) tenancies were represented by individual landlords, with companies representing 13% and those with both or other organisations 3%. In 2018, the picture was largely the same, Annex Table 1.3.

1.4. Landlords were asked how many rental properties they own in England. Almost half (43%) owned one rental property, representing 20% of tenancies.

A further 39% owned between two and four rental properties, representing 31% of tenancies. The remaining 18% of landlords owned five or more properties, representing almost half (48%) of tenancies, Figure 1.2.

1.5 The portfolios of individual landlords were considerably smaller than those of companies and organisations. Most individual landlords (85%) owned between one and four properties, with just under half (45%) owning only one rental property. The remaining 15% of individual landlords owned five or more properties. By comparison, 44% of landlords operating as companies owned between one and four properties, with only 11% owning one rental property. Just over half (56%) owned five or more rental properties, including 13% who owned 25 or more, Annex Table 1.4 and 1.5.

1.6 Landlords with Buy-to-let mortgages were more likely to have multiple properties than those who have other types of loans, or those who do not have loans.[footnote 11] One in three (33%) landlords with a Buy-to-Let mortgage owned one property, with the remaining two thirds (67%) owning two or more properties. Nearly two thirds (62%) of landlords with other kinds of loans owned one property, up from half (51%) in 2018. For those with no borrowing, 53% of landlords had one property, and 47% had more than one property, Annex Table 1.6.

1.7 Landlords who had been letting for longer tended to have larger portfolios. Of landlords with eleven or more years' experience, 68% had two or more properties, compared with 45% of those who had been letting for four to 10 years and 19% of those who had been a landlord for three years or less, Annex Table 1.7.

Age, ethnicity and time spent as a landlord

1.8 Individual landlords were asked questions about their personal characteristics and landlord journey.

1.9 The median age of individual landlords was 58 years old. This is older than the general population. At the time of the 2011 Census, the median age for the population of England and Wales was 39 years[footnote 12]. Almost two thirds (63%) of landlords were aged 55 or older, representing 68% of tenancies, Figure 1.3.

1.10. In terms of ethnicity, 88% of landlords identified as White, with 4% Indian, 2% Black, 1% Pakistani or Bangladeshi and the remaining 5% Other. Ethnicity did not vary much by portfolio size, Annex Table 1.10. In the 2011 Census statistics for England and Wales, 86% of the population identified as White, 3% Indian, 3% Black, 3% Pakistani or Bangladeshi and the remaining 5% Other[footnote 13].

1.11. 55% of landlords were male, 44% were female and 1% identified as 'other', Annex Table 1.13. Male landlords tended to own more rental properties than female landlords, Annex Table 1.12.

1.12 Less than half (47%) of landlords had been landlords for 10 years or less. In 2018, a higher proportion of landlords had been letting property for 10 years or less (56%), Figure 1.4.

Becoming a landlord and perceptions of the role

1.13 Landlords were asked to select the reasons they originally became a landlord. The two most prevalent reasons were a preference for investing in property rather than other investments (42%) and as a pension contribution (40%). Around a third (35%) said they wanted to supplement earnings or income. Smaller proportions said it was to provide a home for a relative, child or friend (6%), or because they inherited or were given their first rental property (6%). Only 4% originally became a landlord in order to let property as a full-time business, Figure 1.5. These figures are similar to findings for the 2018 survey.

1.14 Landlords were asked how they acquired their first rental property. Although just over half (52%) bought it with the intention of renting it out, over a third (35%) bought it to live in themselves. Few landlords acquired their first rental through inheritance (7%) or as a gift (1%), Figure 1.6.

1.15 Landlords who had bought or built their first rental property were asked about the sources of funding for this purchase or build. Three quarters (75%) reported using a mortgage, 32% used personal savings and 8% used an inheritance, Figure 1.7. Landlords with different portfolio sizes were equally likely to have used a repayment buy-to-let mortgage or an interest only conventional mortgage, but landlords with portfolios of five or more properties were more likely to have used interest only buy-to-let mortgages. Landlords with one rental property were more likely to have used a conventional repayment mortgage than landlords with multiple rental properties, Annex Table 1.17.

1.16 Landlords were asked how they viewed their role as a landlord. The most common role was 'as a long-term investment to contribute to their pension' (54%). More landlords viewed their role 'as an investment for rental income' (48%) than for capital growth (27%). The proportion of landlords who viewed their roles as a part-time business (14%) was slightly lower than those who viewed themselves as a residential landlord (19%). Few stated that their role as a landlord was as a full-time business (5%) or as a temporary investment (4%), Figure 1.8.

1.17 In the 2021 survey, 5% of all landlords as full-time landlords said they were full-time landlords, with the remaining 95% part-time landlords. Nearly half (48%) of landlords considered their properties as an investment for rental income. Over half (54%) of landlords considered their properties a long-term investment to contribute to their pension. 27% saw their properties as an investment for a capital growth.

1.18 Buy-to-let landlords were more likely to view their role as landlord as a long- term pension investment (58%) compared to those with other kinds of loans or those with no debts or borrowing (44% and 51%). They were also more likely to view their role as a business, either full-time (7% vs 3% for landlords with other kinds of loan, and 2% for landlords with no borrowing), or part-time (18% vs 10% and 9%). They were more likely to view their role as an investment for capital growth (34% vs 25% and 19%), Annex Table 1.20.

1.19 Landlords were asked whether they currently used an agent to let or manage their properties. Nearly half (49%) said they did not use an agent. A similar number (46%) used an agent for letting services, up from 34% in 2018. One in five (18%) used an agent for management services. Landlords with one property were more likely to say they did not use an agent (64%) compared to landlords with two to four properties (41%) or landlords with five or more properties (31%), Annex Table 1.21.

Membership of professional organisations

1.20 Landlords were asked if they currently or previously had belonged to one or more of the main rental property related professional organisations. The majority of landlords (71%) reported no current or previous membership of any organisation. This is down from 75% in 2018. One in five (21%) reported current or previous membership of the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA). Eight percent reported current or previous membership of a landlord accreditation scheme, and three percent reported membership of some other professional rental or property organisation, Annex Table 1.23.

Economic activity and income

1.21 In 2021, 30% of landlords were employed full-time and 10% part-time. Over a third of landlords (35%) were retired. Less than a fifth (15%) of landlords were self-employed (not as a landlord), with a further 13% self-employed as a landlord[footnote 15]. Landlords with five or more properties were much more likely to be self-employed (as a landlord) (39%) compared to landlords with one property only (5%) or landlords with two to four properties (13%). Landlords with five or more properties are also less likely to be full-time employed (17% vs 37% and 26%), Figure 1.9 and Annex Table 1.24.

1.23 Landlords were also asked for their total gross rental income over the previous 12 months[footnote 18]. The median rental income was £17,200. This has gone up from £15,000 in 2018. Over half (56%) of landlords had gross rental income of less than £20,000, and over a quarter (29%) reported between £20,000 and £49,999. Fifteen percent reported a gross rental income of £50,000 or more, Annex Table 1.27.

1.24 Total gross rental income over the previous 12 months varied regionally from a median of £10,500 in the North East to £22,000 in London, Annex Table 1.28.

1.25 Nearly one in five (18%) of landlords had a total income of over £100,000 in the last twelve months when this survey was taken. This percentage was highest (22%) for 45-54 year old landlords, Annex Table 1.30.

1.26 Looking at both income from rent and income from other sources, on average landlords received nearly half (47%) of their total income from rental property. This number was 42% in 2018.

Property values and borrowing

1.27 Landlords were asked the approximate value of their total rental property portfolio. The median total market value of landlord rental portfolios was £410,000. In 2018 it was £400,000. One in five (19%) landlords had portfolios they valued as less than £200,000. A further 36% had portfolios they valued from £200,000 to £499,999. Nearly a quarter (24%) had a portfolio they valued from £500,000 to £999,999, with the remaining 20% having rental property portfolios valued at £1 million or more, Annex Table 1.32.

1.29 Landlords who reported using borrowing or loans to fund their rental property were also asked the approximate value of such borrowing[footnote 21]. The average (median) value of loans or borrowing was £200,000. This figure was £180,000 in 2018. One in four (24%) landlords using borrowing had loans of less than £100,000, with a further 37% having loans of between £100,000 and £300,000. The remaining two fifths (39%) had loans of £300,000 or more, Annex Table 1.34.

1.30 The median equity or net value of all landlord rental portfolios was £220,000, calculated from the median value of landlord rental portfolios minus median value of loans or borrowing.

1.31 For those who had existing loans or borrowing, the loan-to-value ratio of the borrowing was calculated using the landlord's estimate of their portfolio's market value. The median loan-to-value ratio for these landlords was 48%. In other words, landlords had, on average, paid for just over half of their portfolio, and were in debt for the rest of the value. Over a third (36%) of landlords with debt or borrowing on their rental properties had a loan to value ratio of 39% or less, with another third (34%) between 40 and 59%. Nearly a quarter (22%) had a loan-to-value ratio of between 60 to 79%, with a further 4% having a loan-to-value ratio of 80% to 99%. 4% of landlords had an estimated loan-to-value ratio of 100% or more, Figure 1.10.

1.32 Landlords were asked which, if any, types of loans or borrowing they currently have to fund their rental property. Over half (57%) of landlords had a Buy-to- Let mortgage. More than a third (38%) of landlords had no debt or borrowing. Smaller proportions had a commercial loan (3%) or a loan from family or friends (2%), Figure 1.12. Landlords with five or more properties were more likely to have used each type of borrowing, with the exception of conventional mortgages. Landlords with one rental property were most likely to have used a repayment conventional mortgage, Annex Table 1.36.

Chapter 2: Profile of dwellings and households

2.1 This chapter presents findings on the types of dwellings that private landlords let and the households that live in them. It also provides findings on recent rent setting practices, the reasons for ending tenancies and the use of deposits.

Profile of dwellings

2.2 In 2021, there were 1,023,762 deposits registered by landlords. As noted, these don't necessary correlate directly with the number of properties that landlord may own, as some properties will have more than one deposit registered (for example HMOs) and some properties may not have a deposit registered at all, Annex Table 2.1.

2.3 Landlords were also asked to indicate any type of rental property they currently owned, let or managed across their whole portfolio.

2.4 Terraced properties were the most commonly let (46% of landlords), followed by purpose-built flats (39%), semi-detached houses (32%), converted flats (21%), detached houses (12%) and bedsits, rooms or flatlets (4%), Figure 2.1.

Profile of households

2.5 Landlords were asked to indicate which types of tenants they currently let to.

2.6 The most common demographic types of tenants that landlords let to were couples without dependent children (48%), with dependent children (42%), and single occupants (47%). Relatively fewer landlords and agents reported letting to any lone parents (24%), house sharers (17%) or extended families (4%).

2.7 The most common economic type of tenant that landlords currently let to is white collar, clerical or professional workers (60%), followed by blue collar or manual workers (39%). Around one in six landlords let to people in receipt of Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance (17%), people in receipt of Universal Credit (16%) and retired people (16%). Around one in nine let to students (11%) and non-UK workers (10%). Fifteen percent of landlords say that they do not let to any of these types of tenants, Annex Table 2.4.

2.8 Landlords were asked whether any of their current tenants received Housing Benefit, Local Housing Allowance or Universal Credit. Seventeen percent of landlords stated that at least one of their tenants claimed one of these benefits, Figure 2.3.

2.9 Of landlords who have a tenant who receives housing support, landlords with fewer properties are more likely to have a higher proportion of their portfolio who receive housing support. For three in five (63%) landlords with two to four properties who had a tenant receiving housing support, over half of their portfolio received housing support. This number was one in four (24%) for landlords with five or more properties who had a tenant receiving housing support, Annex Table 2.6.

Figure 2.3: Whether any current tenants receive benefits

Base: all landlords Notes:
1) for landlords most recent letting
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.5
3) benefits include Housing Benefit, the Local Housing Allowance and Universal Credit Source: English Private Landlord Survey 2021
Setting rents and contracts

2.10 Landlords were asked, for their last letting to a new tenant, whether they had increased, decreased or kept the rent the same, compared to the previous tenancy. Nearly half (45%) of landlords increased the rent, just over one third (35%) kept the rent the same, and 8% decreased the rent[footnote 22], Figure 2.4.

2.11 Landlords were also asked, for the last time they renewed or extended a tenancy, whether the rent had been increased, reduced or kept the same. Nearly two thirds of landlords (64%) kept the rent at the same rate, just over a quarter (26%) increased it, and a small number of landlords (4%) decreased the rent[footnote 23], Annex Table 2.8.

2.12 Nearly three quarters of landlords said that market rents in the local area was a factor that influenced their rent setting (71%), making this the most common factor. Agent advice was the next most common factor, with 34% of landlords citing this as a factor. One fifth (20%) cited tenant demand or lack of demand, Annex Table 2.9.

2.13 For landlords who increased their rent above their previous rent setting, or landlords who kept rent the same, market rents in the local was the most commonly cited influencing factor (82% and 63% respectively). The most frequently given reason for decreasing rent was to avoid a lengthy void period (50%), Annex Table 2.10.

Tenancies that ended

2.14 Landlords who reported a tenancy ending within the last two years were asked why this tenancy (or these tenancies) had ended.

2.15 The most common reason, selected by nearly half (47%) of landlords was that the tenant gave notice to end their periodic tenancy. Under a third (30%) reported that it was the end of the tenancy and the tenant decided not to renew. Sixteen percent of landlords reported that tenants had moved out before the end of the tenancy.

2.16 Other reasons for tenancies ending included the landlord or agent asking the tenant to leave (6%), the landlord or agent evicting the tenant (3%) and it being the end of the tenancy and the landlord decided not to renew (3%), Figure 2.6.

2.17 The proportion of tenancies ending for these reasons did not vary much by different landlord type or portfolio size, Annex Tables 2.13 and 2.14.

2.18 Where landlords and agents reported that they had chosen to end a tenancy in the last two years either by asking the tenant to leave, not renewing a tenancy or evicting a tenant, they were asked to select the reasons for this.

2.19 The most common reason to end tenancies, selected by nearly half (46%) of landlords, was that the tenant was in arrears. Roughly two in five (39%) landlords chose to end a tenancy because the property was not cared for, and a just under a third (32%) because the tenant engaged in anti-social behaviour.

2.20 Other reasons for ending the tenancy included to refurbish the property and re- let it (13%), to sell the property (25%) and because the tenant had too many complaints about the property (7%). Two percent of landlords ended a tenancy to let the property at a higher rate, Figure 2.7.

2.21 Of landlords who had evicted tenants in the last year, over two thirds (67%) gave their tenants a section 21 notice. One in four (25%) gave a section 8 notice. This is the notice that landlords can give if tenants have broken the terms of their tenancy. Over one quarter (27%) asked their tenants to leave informally, and one in twenty (5%) offered to pay the tenants to leave, Annex Table 2.16.

Figure 2.7: Reasons tenancies were ended by the landlord or agent

Base: all landlords who ended a tenancy in the last two years Notes:
1) tenancies were ended by the landlord or agent if they did not renew the tenancy, asked the tenant to leave, or evicted the tenant
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.15
3) multi-code question. Responses add up to more than 100% Source: English Private Landlord Survey 2021
Deposits

2.22 Landlords were asked how much the deposit was for their most recent letting. Because all of the landlords in EPLS have registered deposits, we expect the proportion of landlords who did not take a deposit for their last letting will be lower than in the general landlord population[footnote 24]. As expected, most (96%) landlords in the EPLS took a deposit for their last letting.

2.23 Almost half of landlords (48%) took a deposit that was up to four weeks' rent. Most other landlords (42%) took a deposit that was more than four and up to five weeks' rent. A deposit of more than five weeks' rent was taken by 6% of landlords, Figure 2.8.

2.24 If they had had a tenancy that ended in the last two years, landlords were asked whether and how much of the deposit was returned to the tenant for the most recently ended tenancy. The majority of landlords returned all or some of the deposit to the tenant, with 62% returning all and 22% returning part, Annex Table 2.18.

2.25 More than a tenth of landlords (12%) say they did not return any of the deposit, with 9% not returning any deposit where the costs they faced exceeded the value of the deposit. 4% of landlords reported that there was no deposit on their most recently ended tenancy, Figure 2.9.

2.26 Landlords who ended a tenancy because they wanted to sell the property were most likely to return the deposit in full (46%). Landlords whose tenants did not care for the property or were in arrears were the least likely to return the deposit in full (13% and 11% respectively), Annex Table 2.19.

2.27 Landlords who did not return the deposit for their most recently ended letting (either in part or at all) were asked why. The most common reasons were due to damage to the property or contents (62%) and to clean the property for the next tenant (55%).

2.28 Other common reasons for retaining deposits included failure to maintain the property (36%), unpaid rent (31%) and to dispose of unwanted items left behind (30%), Figure 2.10.

Figure 2.10: Reasons for not returning deposits for most recently ended tenancy

Base: all landlords who had a tenancy end in the last two years Notes:
1) for the last tenancy that ended in the past two years
2) underlying data are presented in Annex Table 2.20
3) multi-code question. Responses add up to more than 100% Source: English Private Landlord Survey 2021
Chapter 3: Landlord attitudes and practices

3.1 This chapter presents findings on landlord attitudes to letting to a range of different types of tenants and towards offering longer tenancies. It also explores landlord compliance with a range of different legal requirements and best practice concerning the letting, management and maintenance of their properties.

Willingness to let

3.2 Landlords were asked, from a list of different types of tenants, which, if any, they were not willing to let to. The findings about the number of tenancies affected by these practices are available in Annex Table 3.2.

3.3 Most respondents reported being unwilling to let to at least one type of tenant listed, while 8% reported being willing to let to all types of tenants, Annex Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1. This is a lower proportion than found in the 2018 survey, where 26% of landlords reported being willing to let to all types of tenants listed. It is worth noting however that the 2021 question included a longer list of tenant types than 2018, which may have contributed to this change.

3.4 Tenants who landlords were unwilling to let to included those with a history of rent arrears (84% unwilling) and those in receipt of Housing Benefit or Universal Credit (44% unwilling).

3.5 Furthermore, around half (48%) were unwilling to let to students, and 44% and 45% were unwilling to let to people requiring adaptations to the property and people with pets, respectively.

3.6 More than a third (37%) of landlords with five or more properties were unwilling to let to people receiving Housing Benefit or Universal Credit. Landlords with either one or two to four properties showed less willingness (both at 45%) to let to these tenants. Landlords with smaller portfolios also reported being less willing to let to people with dependent children, with pets, or requiring adaptations to the property, than landlords with five or more properties, Annex Table 3.3.

3.7 Landlords who were not willing to let to tenants on particular benefits[footnote 25] were asked to select the reasons they were not willing to do so.

3.8 The most frequently selected reason was a perceived greater risk of delays in payment or unpaid rent. This was selected by 69% of landlords. Two thirds (66%) of landlords also reported a perceived risk that the benefits would not cover all the rent, Annex Table 3.4.

3.9 Over half of landlords (53%) reported being unwilling to let to people on benefits because these benefits are paid directly to the tenant and not to the landlord or agent. A similar proportion reported a perceived greater risk of disturbance or anti-social behaviour or damage to property or furnishings (49%) and a perceived greater risk due to plans to remove section 21 of the Housing Act (50%), Figure 3.2.

3.10 Landlords who were not willing to let to families[footnote 26] were asked to select the reasons they were not willing to do so. The majority (78%) of respondents said it was because they believed the accommodation was unsuitable for families. Another commonly selected reason was a perceived greater risk of damage to property or furnishings (38%), Figure 3.3.

Legal and good practice requirements - letting

3.11 Legal responsibilities that landlords should undertake when letting a property include, but are not limited to[footnote 27]:

protecting the tenant's deposit in a government-approved scheme

providing an Energy Performance Certificate for the property

checking the tenant has the right to rent the property

providing the tenant with a copy of the 'How to rent' checklist

Landlords were asked which of these legal requirements they had undertaken, for their most recent letting.

3.12 This section focuses on the proportion of landlords that responded 'yes' to undertaking the legal requirements.

3.13 A tenancy deposit protection scheme (TDP) protects a deposit during the tenancy. For all assured shorthold tenancies in England that started after 6 April 2007, where a deposit is taken, landlords are required to register it in one of the three government-backed tenancy deposit schemes. Similar to the 2018 position, almost all landlords (95%) stated they had registered a deposit with a government backed tenancy deposit protection scheme for their most recent letting[footnote 28], Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.4.

3.14 An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) gives a property an energy efficiency rating between A (most efficient) and G (least efficient) and is valid for 10 years. Since October 2008, there has been a legal duty on landlords to provide new and prospective tenants with a copy of the EPC of the property[footnote 29]. This provides the tenant with energy efficiency information on the property to help inform their decision on which property to rent. Overall, 90% of landlords provided prospective tenants with a copy of the EPC for the property, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.4. This represents an increase since 2018 when 84% of landlords reported they had done so.

3.15 Since February 2016, all landlords letting a property in England are legally required to carry-out 'Right to Rent' checks of their prospective tenants to determine whether they have the legal right to rent a property in the UK. Right to Rent was introduced in the Immigration Act 2014 as part of the government's wider reforms to the immigration system to make it fairer and more effective. Between 2018 and 2021, there has been an increase in the proportion of landlords that carried out a 'Right to Rent' check on their most recent letting, from 62% to 78%, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.4. As it is not necessary to carry out Right to Rent checks on tenants where a tenancy agreement came into force before the February 2016 (December 2014 for certain pilot areas), this increase is expected given more time has elapsed since the law was introduced.

3.16 While landlords with one property were more likely to say they had registered the deposit for their last letting with a TDP scheme (97%) than landlords with multiple properties (92% to 93%), Annex Table 3.8, when the not applicable and don't know categories were removed from the analysis, there was no marked difference in the results by landlord portfolio size.

3.17 Larger landlords were more likely to have provided tenants in their last letting with a copy of the EPC certificate, with 86% of those with one property providing the guide, compared with 91% of those with two or more properties and 94% of those with five or more properties, Annex Table 3.8.

3.18 Landlords with larger portfolios were more likely to have carried out a 'Right to Rent' check for their most recent letting compared with smaller landlords. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of landlords with one property said they carried out this check, compared with 80% who owned between two and four properties and 87% with five or more properties, Annex Table 3.8.

3.19 From October 2015 all landlords in England have been legally required to provide a new tenant with a copy of the government 'How to Rent' guide for tenants[footnote 30]. The guide is for people who are looking for a house or flat to rent in the private sector to help them understand their rights and responsibilities. Between 2018 and 2021, there has been an increase in the proportion of landlords that say they provided the tenant with a copy of the government's 'How to Rent' guide, from 52% to 64%, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.4, again, this is increase is expected given more time has elapsed since the legal requirement was introduced.

3.20 Larger landlords were more likely to have issued the guide, with 55% of landlords with one property saying they issued the guide, compared with 65% of those owning between two and four properties and 82% of those owning five or more properties, Annex Table 3.8.

3.21 The EPLS also collected data on other activities that occur at the beginning of a tenancy. While these are not legal requirements, for their most recent letting landlords were asked whether they made an inventory of furniture or other items in the property, used an inventory service and whether they had used the government's model tenancy agreement for assured shorthold tenancies.

3.22 Most landlords (81%) stated they made an inventory of furniture or other items which is recognised as good practice measure to prove the contents and condition of all fixtures and fittings within the rental property at the beginning of the tenancy and to avoid disputes relating to the deposit at the end of the tenancy, and 33% of landlords stated they used an inventory service to provide a professional and independent inventory for their most recent let, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.5.

3.23 Over half of landlords (52%) said they used the government's model tenancy agreement for assured shorthold tenancies, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.5.

Legal and good practice requirements - management and maintenance

3.24 When letting a property in England, landlords also have a number of legal requirements related to the management and maintenance of their rental property. A landlord renting out a property must:

keep rented properties safe and free from the most serious health hazards

make sure all gas and electrical installations or equipment are safely installed and maintained

fit and test smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms (where applicable)[footnote 31]

Where asked to do so by tenants, landlords also have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 (in place since 1 October 2010) to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people when undertaking a letting. Again for their most recently let property, landlords and agents were asked which of these requirements they had undertaken.

3.25 In this section, while it may appear that fewer landlords than expected report compliance with legal requirements, for some of the categories the legal requirements do not apply to all properties, e.g. the provision of a gas safety certificate to tenants is only applicable to properties where gas is installed.

3.26 Since October 2015, as part of the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015, private sector landlords in England are required to have at least one working smoke alarm installed on every storey of their properties and a carbon monoxide alarm must be installed in any room containing a solid fuel burning appliance (for example, a coal fire, wood burning stove). The landlord must make sure the alarms are in working order at the start of each new tenancy.

3.27 Almost all landlords (99%) stated they ensured a working smoke alarm was installed on each floor of the property and 69% stated they ensured a working carbon monoxide alarm was installed in rooms containing a solid fuel burning appliance, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.6. Whilst the latter percentage is lower than for smoke alarms, we need to bear in mind that landlords were asked about the provision of these alarms irrespective of whether they were legally required.

3.29 For properties where gas is installed, as part of The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, landlords have since 1998 been legally required to carry out an annual gas inspection by a qualified inspector and to provide the gas safety certificate to the tenant. Overall, 85% of landlords responded they carried out an annual gas inspection and 82% of landlords provided a copy of the gas safety certificate to the tenant, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.6.

3.30 Where asked to do so by tenants, landlords are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people when undertaking a letting. 6% of landlords responded that they made reasonable adjustments for disabled people when undertaking their most recent letting, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.6.

3.31 Generally speaking, the findings for the compliance measures in Figure 3.6 are similar irrespective of landlord portfolio size, Annex Table 3.8. However, a relationship did exist between ensuring electrical installation checks were carried out by a qualified tester and the landlord portfolio size, with the prevalence increasing as the landlord portfolio size increases. Overall, 89% of landlords with one property reported the electrical installation checks were carried by a qualified tester, compared with 92% who owned between two and four properties and 96% with five or more properties, Annex Table 3.8.

3.32 Two additional electrical safety questions associated with good practice activities were asked of landlords for their most recent let. These questions related to whether electrical appliance (e.g. fridge, toaster) safety checks were undertaken by a qualified tester and whether a visual check of the electrical installation and appliances was carried out. Over half of landlords (57%) stated they ensured electrical appliance checks were carried out by a qualified tester with 85% reporting they carried out a visual check of the electrical installation and appliances, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.7.

3.34 Over four fifths (86%) of landlords said they carried out an inspection to ensure the property was fit for human habitation, and over half (56%) responded they carried out a fire safety risk assessment, Annex Table 3.7 and Figure 3.7.

3.35 Landlords with larger portfolios were more likely to have undertaken an inspection to ensure the property is fit for human habitation compared with smaller landlords. Overall, 82% of landlords with one property reported to have carried out an inspection to ensure the property is fit for human habitation, compared with 86% who owned between two and four properties and 92% with five or more properties, Annex Table 3.8.

Licensing

3.36 When asked if they had applied for a license to operate as a landlord, 17% responded they had applied, 26% stated they had not and the remaining 57% stated a license was not required in the region their properties are, Annex Table 3.6.

Request for reasonable adjustment

3.37 Landlords were asked whether in the last two years a sitting or new tenant had requested the landlord to make reasonable adjustments to any of their properties. One in five landlords (20%) responded 'yes', Annex Table 3.9. and almost all landlords that had received a request for reasonable adjustments (98%) responded that they did carry out the request, Annex Table 3.10.

Legal requirements - energy efficiency

3.38 The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 phased in obligations for private sector landlords in relation to the energy performance of their properties, setting a minimum energy efficiency level for domestic private rented properties. The highest EPC energy efficiency rating is A and the lowest is G. Initially, from 1st April 2018 private sector landlords were unable to grant a new tenancy (or renewal tenancy), where the energy performance of the property is below a minimum 'E' rating on the EPC, unless a valid exemption for the property is in place. The Regulations widened and from 1 April 2020, there has been a legal requirement for all private rented properties to have a minimum 'E' rating on the EPC, unless a valid exemption for the property is in place. A private landlord planning to let a property or currently letting a property with an EPC of F or G, must improve the property's rating to a minimum EPC of E immediately, or register an exemption (if applicable).

3.39 All landlords were asked to select the EPC bands of their rental properties. This survey question was asked of the landlord's whole portfolio so they could select more than one category. In the survey questionnaire, there are three groups to the EPC band categories, bands E, F and/or G, band D and band C and above. Due to these groupings, it is not possible to identify the proportion of landlords with F or G rated properties that fall below the required minimum energy efficiency standard.

3.40 Since 2018, the proportion of landlords reporting having properties with an EPC rating of E, F and/or G has declined from 21% to 15% in 2021. More than a third of landlords reported having properties with an EPC rating of C or above (35%) or with an EPC rating of D (38%), while 18% reported not knowing the EPC rating of their property or properties and 1% preferred not to say, Annex Table 3.11 and Figure 3.8.

3.41 As the question referred to any property in their portfolio, it is not possible to calculate the proportion of tenancies this affects. However, according to the EHS 2020-21, 14% of the private rented sector stock has an EPC rating of E, F or G, with 4% having an EPC rating of F or G only[footnote 36].

Awareness of new legal requirement - energy efficiency

3.42 Landlords were asked if, before the survey, they were aware of the new legal requirement, as of April 2018, for all new lettings to have a minimum EPC rating of E and that in April 2020 this was extended to all tenancies. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of landlords reported being aware of the regulation with full understanding of the details, with a further 22% aware of the regulation but did not understand the details (Annex Table 3.12). The remaining 15% of landlords were not aware of the new energy efficiency legal requirement at all.

3.43 The 2018 survey also asked landlords about awareness of the minimum level of energy efficiency standard. The question wording in 2018 was very similar to the 2021 survey, albeit without the reference to the April 2020 extension. At the time of the 2018 survey some landlords would have taken part in the survey before the new legal requirements came into force[footnote 37] and in April 2018 the minimum energy efficiency requirement was only applicable for new lettings. At the time of the 2021 survey, the standard had extended to cover all landlords and their tenancies. Based on this, as expected between 2018 and 2021, landlord awareness and full understanding of the minimum energy efficiency standards improved from 42% to 64%.

Landlord awareness of tax and legislative changes

3.44 Landlords were asked which recent or planned legislative changes they were aware of. Respondents were most aware of the requirements for an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR; 84%).

3.45 Almost two thirds of landlords were aware of the banning of agents charging certain fees to tenants (64%), changes to landlord tax relief (63%) and the cap on tenancy deposits (61%), Figure 3.9.

3.46 Overall, landlords with a Buy-to-Let mortgage were more aware of tax and legislative changes than landlords with other types of loan or no loans, Annex Table 3.13. Furthermore, landlords with larger portfolio sizes had greater awareness of each of the tax and legislative changes than those with small portfolios, Annex Table 3.14.

Chapter 4: The impact of COVID-19 on landlords

4.1 This chapter provides an overview of the impact of COVID-19 on landlords, their tenants and portfolios. It will give a view on the incidence and extent of arrears that landlords experienced within their portfolios and how they managed this.

Incidence and extent of arrears

4.2 On average, landlords reported having one tenant in arrears due to the COVID-19 pandemic (mean = 1.2, median = 1). Almost one third (29%) reported having no tenants in arrears due to the pandemic.

4.3 Over two thirds (71%) of all landlords had at least one tenant in arrears due to COVID-19. The number of tenants in arrears for this reason varied across landlord portfolio size, Figure 4.1 and Annex table 4.1.

4.4 Landlords who let to tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance reported having more tenants in arrears (mean = 1.4) than landlords who did not (mean = 1). Although a greater proportion of landlords who let to tenants on Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance reported having no tenants in arrears (34%) than those who did not let to tenants on Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance (26%), they were more likely to report having two or more tenants in arrears (31%) than those who did not let to tenants on housing benefit (16%), who were more likely to report having one tenant in arrears due to COVID-19 (57%) than those who did let to tenants on housing benefit (36%), Annex Table 4.2.

4.5 Landlords were asked to provide the value of arrears accrued by the end of March, July, November 2020 and 'currently' (at the point of fieldwork, which was held December 2021 to January 2022). Overall, the value of arrears accrued increased from the end of March 2020 (mean £1,117) to December 2021 (mean £3,531). At the end of March, over half (55%) reported no arrears, this then dropped to 25% by the end of November and then increased slightly by December 2021 (30%).

New rent arrangements

4.6 Seven out of ten landlords (72%) reported that no tenants requested a new rent arrangement due to COVID-19. Almost one in five (18%) had agreed a new arrangement with one tenant or household, and a further 9% had agreed a new arrangement with more than one tenant or household. Only 1% stated a tenant had requested a new arrangement but they could not come to an agreement, Annex Table 4.5.

4.7 Of those who agreed a new arrangement, almost half reported this new arrangement consisted of a reduced rent without anything in exchange (49%) and approximately one third (31%) reported it involved deferred rent with a rent repayment plan, Figure 4.2.

Mortgage holiday

4.8 Landlords were asked whether they had taken a mortgage holiday as a result of the pandemic. Almost one in ten (9%) stated they had, the remaining stated they had not, either because they did not require a mortgage holiday (61%) or would not take one (29%).

4.9 The likelihood of taking a mortgage holiday did not differ by portfolio size. However, there were differences in the reasons given for not agreeing a mortgage holiday. Landlords with five or more properties were more likely to say they would not take a mortgage holiday (35%) than those with one property, or two to four properties (26% and 27%, respectively). Yet, they were less likely to say they did not take a mortgage holiday because they did not require one (54%) than those with one property (65%) or two to four (63%), Annex Table 4.8.

4.10 The likelihood of agreeing a mortgage holiday did not largely differ by how landlords viewed their roles. However, landlords who viewed their role as a full-time business were more likely to report they had agreed a mortgage holiday (13%) than those who did not view their role as a full-time landlord. They were also more likely to state they did not agree a mortgage holiday because they would not take a mortgage holiday (41%) and less likely to report it was because they did not require one (44%), than those who did not view their role as a full-time business (28% and 63%, respectively), Annex Table 4.9.

4.11 Landlords were then asked their reasons for taking a mortgage holiday. The most common answer was that it was taken as a precaution (60%). A further 31% stated it was due to their tenant being in arrears, Figure 4.3.

Chapter 5: The future of the private rented sector

5.1 This chapter presents findings on the future plans landlords have for their rental property portfolios and their concerns with respect to finances, legislation and tenant behaviours.

Landlords' future plans

5.2 Landlords were asked whether the next time one of their rental properties became vacant, they would relet it. The majority of landlords (69%) said they would relet the property. One in ten (10%) reported that they would not relet the property, with a similar number saying it depended which of their properties became vacant (8%) or that they did not know (10%), Annex Table 5.1. Landlords with more than one property were more likely to report that they would relet the property than those with one property only.

5.3 More generally across their portfolio, landlords were asked what, if any, investment plans they had for their rental properties over the coming two years[footnote 38]. Almost half of landlords (48%) said they plan to keep the number of their rental properties the same, representing 42% of tenancies. A further 20% of landlords said they had not made any plans for their rental properties, representing 14% of landlord tenancies. A similar number of landlords planned to increase their number of properties (11%, representing 15% of tenancies), as planned to decrease their number of properties (12%, representing 21% of tenancies) or were planning to sell all of their rental properties (10% of landlords, representing 8% of tenancies), Figure 5.1.

5.4 Landlords who rent out property as part of a company were more likely to state they had plans to increase their number of rental properties in the next two years (35%; representing 36% of landlord tenancies) than those who rent out as an individual or group of individuals (9%; representing 11% of landlord tenancies). Landlords who rent out as an individual or group of individuals were more likely to state they planned to keep the number of properties they let out the same (49%; representing 44% of tenancies) than those who rent out as part of a company (33%; representing 31% of tenancies), Annex Tables 5.2 and 5.3.

5.5 Landlords' future plans also differed depending on their portfolio size. Overall, landlords with five or more properties were less likely to plan to keep the same number of rental properties they let out (36%) than those with one property (51%) or two to four properties (50%). Three in ten (29%) landlords with five or more properties reported plans to decrease the number of rental properties they own, and 19% reported plans to increase the number of rental properties they own, which were higher proportions than those with one property (2% and 6%, respectively) or two to four properties (16% and 12%, respectively), Annex Table 5.4.

5.6 Landlords with buy-to-let mortgages were more likely to report planning to increase (14%) or decrease (16%) the number properties in their portfolio compared to landlords with other types of loan (9% and 8%) and those with no loans or borrowing (6% and 9%, respectively). They were also less likely to report having not made plans (16%) than landlords with another kind of loan (23%) or no loan (24%), Annex Table 5.5.

5.7 In 2018, a greater proportion of landlords said the next time one of their rental properties became vacant they would relet it (75%). More landlords also expected their portfolio to be unchanged (53%, representing 47% of tenancies) over the next two years. Only 5% of landlords (representing 5% of tenancies) reported plans to sell all their rental properties in the same period.

5.9 Landlords with one property only were more likely to report planning to decrease or sell their rental property due to financial reasons (27%) than those with two to four or five or more properties (22% and 18%, respectively). Conversely, landlords with five or more properties were more likely to report planning to decrease or sell their rental property due to recent (69%) or forthcoming (68%) legislative changes than those with two to four properties (55% and 53%, respectively), or one property (42% and 39%, respectively), Annex Table 5.6.

5.10 Landlords who planned to increase or keep the number of their rental properties the same were also asked the reasons for doing so. From the options given, the most common reasons selected were financial (57%) and personal (36%) reasons, Figure 5.3. In 2018, just one third (34%) of landlords stated they planned to increase or keep the number of their rental properties the same due to financial reasons.

5.11 Landlords with larger portfolio sizes were more likely to select market reasons (e.g. strong demand in area, house prices) and recent or forthcoming legislative changes for increasing or keeping the same portfolio size than those with smaller portfolios, Annex Table 5.7.

Landlord concerns

5.12 Respondents were asked to select from a range of options, which caused them most concern as a landlord. The most commonly reported concerns were about forthcoming legislative changes and forthcoming tax changes, with half of respondents indicating concern (52% and 50%, respectively), Figure 5.4.

5.13 Landlords with a larger portfolio size were less likely to have financial and market concerns, but more likely to state concerns over both recent and forthcoming tax and legislative changes, than landlords with smaller portfolio sizes, Annex Table 5.8.

5.14 In the 2018 survey, from a shorter list of concerns, landlords were most concerned about legislative changes (62%), followed by tenant behaviour (51%).

Technical notes

Methodology and approach

1. The EPLS is an online survey of over 9,000 landlords and letting agents registered with one of the three government-backed Tenancy Deposit Protection (TDP) schemes. Since 6 April 2007 in England when a deposit is provided by a tenant to a landlord for an assured shorthold tenancy, all landlords (or their agents) are legally required to register that deposit with a TDP scheme.

3. We do not know the precise proportion of the private rented sector that is covered by the TDP schemes. From the English Housing Survey (EHS) in 2018-19 it is estimated that between 59% and 77% of households in the private rented sector are covered by a TDP scheme[footnote 43].

4. There are various reasons why the remainder of the sector would not be registered with a TDP scheme. For example, the landlord may not have taken a deposit, or the tenancy agreement may have been in place before the TDP schemes became mandatory in 2007. While some landlords will be operating outside of the law, it is not possible to say how many.

5. The proportion of the private rented sector that is registered with a TDP scheme has increased steadily since 2007. The proportion is expected to continue to increase as more tenancies fall within the requirement and as there is increasing awareness of the need to register[footnote 44].

7. The project used administrative data provided by the three TDP schemes to create a combined registrant (landlord and agent) level dataset and then a (separate) combined deposit level dataset. The registrant dataset comprised around 438,000 records (each one representing a landlord or agent) and included details of the landlords and agents who had a live deposit registered with a TDP scheme at the time of the download (31 January, 2021). The deposit level dataset comprised around 3.9 million records (each one representing a live deposit)[footnote 47] and included details about the deposits themselves, including the location of the properties. The registrant dataset was used as a sample frame for the survey whilst both datasets were used to create weights to make the survey findings as representative as possible.

Weighting

8. The survey data was weighted to make the data representative of two different populations. The weights used are:

i. Tenancy weight - this makes the data representative of live deposits/tenancies that are registered with a TDP scheme;

ii. Landlord weight - this makes the data representative of landlords who have registered live deposits with a TDP scheme.

9. The two populations that the weights represent (deposits/tenancies, and landlords) are quite distinct. Each one gives a different weight (in aggregate) to different groups in the sample, reflecting the makeup of the respective populations. The weight used for analysis will therefore affect the results. For example, based on landlord responses, 45% of landlords own one rental property but these account for only 21% of tenancies. This illustrates that the tenancy weight gives landlords with small portfolios (in this case only one rental property) less influence than the landlord weight will do.

10. When findings are reported using the tenancy weight, these are described as representing x% of tenancies. More precisely, they represent the proportion of live deposits in England registered with TDP schemes. A deposit may not always equate to a tenancy. In some cases, multiple deposits may be registered for a single tenancy (for example, multiple tenants or households living in the same shared property). However, for ease, the word 'tenancy' is used to describe registered deposits throughout the report.

11. Similarly, when findings are reported using the landlord weight, they are described as representing x% of landlords. More precisely, they represent the proportion of landlords with registered live deposits.

12. For ease of reference, the weight used is noted under each chart.

Reporting

13. The base under each chart denotes the set of respondents on which the findings are based; this is often (but not always) the same as the set of respondents to whom the question was addressed (e.g. all landlords, individual landlords, only landlords with multiple properties etc.).

14. Some questions relate to all of the respondents' properties or lettings, whilst others relate only to the most recent letting or property. Where findings relate only to the most recently let property, this is noted.

15. Several survey questions were multi-coded (i.e. respondents were able to select more than one response), which means that the number of responses may add up to more than 100%. Where this is the case it is noted under the charts.

16. All reported comparisons were tested at the 5% significance level, taking into account the effect of the weights. Confidence intervals around survey estimates were also produced. Although an estimate produced from a sample survey will rarely be identical to the population value, confidence intervals indicate the likely range within which the population value will fall and provide an indication of the precision of the survey results.

17. Additional annex tables, including the data underlying the figures and charts in this report are published[footnote 48].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Private Landlord Survey 2021: main report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. The English Private Landlord Survey (EPLS) is a national survey of landlords and letting agents who own and/or manage privately rented properties in England. It was commissioned by the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). 2.

# data[].attributes.body
1.        Construction of the ‘house’.

2.        Placement Strategy: Strategically positioning the secure in highly visible areas throughout the city, such as parks, public squares, and busy streets. Additionally, placing the house outside estate agent offices as a form of protest, challenging the complicity of the real estate industry in perpetuating the housing crisis.

3.        Publication and Distribution: Produce a publication that accompanies the house, detailing the projects objectives, the stories of individuals affected by homelessness, and information on how the community can get involved. Distribute this publication both inside the house itself, for visitors to explore and learn from, and via mail to landlords and key stakeholders, urging them to reflect on their role in addressing housing inequality.

4.        Engagement and Advocacy: Conducting a range of interviews with students, non-students, and landlords to gather information on the issue from all different parties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Strikes, rocketing-interest rates and high demand for housing. You would be forgiven for thinking that we were back in the 1970s!
Fashion may have changed drastically since then but with housing affordability at its worst in decades, renters and homeowners now face heading back to the past.

This Property118 investigation turns back the clock to the 70s and looks at the legislation of the 70s including the Rent Act and whether the housing situation has become worse for homeowners and renters.

Legislation turning back the clock

During the 60s and 70s new legislation was introduced which would have a massive impact on the private rented sector.

Tessa Shepperson, owner of the Landlord Law blog, explains in her blog post that the Wilson government in the 60s passed protective legislation towards tenants.

The first act to be passed was the Protection from Eviction Act 1964 followed by the Rent Act 1965.

She explains some of the new concepts and measures introduced in the act:

Harassment - the 1964 act was the first act to make the act of harassing a tenant into leaving a property a criminal offence

Due process - this is the concept that landlords must obtain a court order for possession, if tenants stay beyond the contractual tenancy period before they can recover physical possession. This rule applied to all tenants, not just those falling within the scope of the Rent Acts

Notices to Quit - these now had to give at least four weeks, irrespective of the term of the tenancy

Fair rents - instead of inflexible rent controls based on tightly defined statutory formulae, rent levels were to be fixed at a 'fair' level which reflected market rent but discounted any inflation for housing shortage.

Any appeal was to the Rent Assessment Committees (now replaced by the First Tier Tribunal) and fair rents could be reviewed every two years.

Further measures introduced in the Rent Act 1974

The Labour government of the 70s introduced further measures in the Rent Act 1974 and in 1977 the Protection for Eviction Act and the Rent Act 1977 were both passed which consolidated all the earlier legislation.

The Rent Act 1974 introduced the following developments:

Furnished accommodation was now brought within the Rent Act scheme

Resident landlords - this was a new concept - landlords who lived in the same building (other than a purpose-built block of flats) were not subject to the Rent Act regime, but a less stringent regime called 'restricted contracts'.

Owner occupiers were given a mandatory ground for repossession if they wanted their own property back to live in, for example after a spell working abroad, so long as they followed certain procedural steps

Succession rights - rights were introduced for spouses and family members to succeed to a statutory tenancy on the death of the tenant.

Rent Acts were not popular with landlords

Ms Shepperson explains that the Rent Acts of the 70s were not popular with landlords.

She said: "One landlord described them to me as 'expropriation without compensation' and a lot of landlords felt the same.

"Few property owners were prepared to allow tenants into a property if this meant the effective loss of that property for two generations (as often happened).

"There were many cases where a property owner allowed someone to live in a property for what was supposed to be a limited period of time (or in one case that I know of, just for a holiday) only to find that they were stuck with them as tenants for decades."

Huge consequences for the private rented sector

She also explains the impact of legislation had huge consequences for the private rented sector.

Ms Shepperson said: "One major result of the legislation as a whole was the substantial reduction in the size of the private rented sector. Households living in private rented accommodation went down from about 80% in 1918 to about 8-9% at the end of the 1980s.

"The protective legislation introduced in the 1960s and 1970s were not the sole cause of this, but they were certainly a factor."

The issue of low rents was also an issue for many landlords during the 70s.

Ms Shepperson said: "There was also the problem of low rents. The 'fair rents' were supposed to reflect the market rent. But as over time, there were no genuine market rents, the fair rent levels drifted down and down.

"Landlords, therefore, had little incentive (and often could not afford) to keep properties in good condition and many property conditions deteriorated seriously as a result of this."

Mortgage misery for homeowners in the 70s

Back to 2023 and the Bank of England has recently raised interest rates to 5% which for many people may seem significantly high.

However, during the 70s, interest rates were sky-high and reached a record of 17% in 1979 which in turn caused mortgage misery for thousands of homeowners.
Coupled with high interest rates and rising house prices could homeowners now face heading back to the 1970s?
Sarah Coles, the head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, says whilst interest rates are lower than they were in the 70s, houses have almost quadrupled in price.

She explains: "Interest rates are actually lower than they were in the 1970s, when they hit a peak of 17% in 1979.

"However, there are a couple of reasons why the impact at today's rate of 5% is more profound for any mortgage holder who has to remortgage while rates are so high.

"Houses are enormously expensive compared to where they were back in the 70s - around 65 times more expensive. As a result, we're having to borrow far more, and the larger our mortgage payments, the bigger the impact of any rate rise."

Ms Coles added that compared to the 70s, people are borrowing a lot more.

She says: "It's not just that the monthly payment is so much higher, it's also bigger as a proportion of our income.

"We're borrowing far more as a multiple of our earnings than we did back then. Right now, houses cost around nine times earnings, whereas, during the 1970s as a whole, they ranged between four and six times."

Today's homebuyers have the toughest financial task

According to House Buyer Bureau, today's homebuyers have by far the toughest financial task when it comes to housing affordability - with house prices sitting at 8.8 times the average earnings.

The research reveals the average house price throughout the 1970s sat at just £9,277, the equivalent of £68,493 today, after adjusting for inflation.

The managing director of House Buyer Bureau, Chris Hodgkinson, said: "You have to feel for today's homebuyers who have seen house prices explode over the last decade or two, in particular, while the earnings on offer to them have failed to keep pace.

"As a result, they require over double the level of income to cover the cost of a home compared to their previous counterparts looking to purchase back in the 70s."

Yearly supply of new homes in the UK has declined since the 70s

Research by the Guardian newspaper shows that in the 1970s, around a third of all housing available was council housing provided by the local authorities which helped provide affordable homes to those who could not afford to buy.
This is no longer the case.
The percentage of homes provided by councils fell from 32% in 1977 to a mere 9% in 2009. The figure continued to fall the following decade, hitting 7% in 2018.

The Guardian also reveals that the yearly supply of new homes in the UK has declined since the 70s.

In the 70s, there were around 400,000 dwellings built per year, but this has fallen sharply to just under 200,000 since 2018.

The combination of a dramatic decline in new house building and local authority housing has caused a massive explosion in house prices in real terms since the 70s.

The Guardian used research from the Department of Levelling Up which clearly shows the dramatic decline in local authority housing.

The graph also shows that owner-occupied homes have increased since the 1970s, but local authority housing has declined sharply. This decline has been taken up partly by an increase in the PRS and the substantial growth of housing associations.

The period of the greatest decline in the PRS was from the 1980s to the early 2000s due to the Thatcher government's drive towards home ownership.
Could we be facing a repeat of the 80s with a mass exodus of landlords? Image courtesy of the Guardian
Student housing shortage is the worst it's been since the 70s

Student housing charity Unipol is warning that the current student housing shortage is the worst it's been since the 70s when students slept in sports halls and cars.

Martin Blakey, chief executive of Unipol, says: "You're beginning to see student housing moving into shortage across the majority of universities - not just the ones you read about.

"The reason is that purpose-built student accommodation has stopped expanding to the extent it was, and we don't think that's going to change.

"At the same time, we think there's a significant decrease in shared houses as landlords are moving back to renting to professionals or leaving the market."

Last year a survey of 3,000 students by Student Beans revealed almost one in ten (8%) students have had to live in their cars as they could not find any affordable accommodation.

Nearly half (49%) said they have had to sofa surf with friends.

According to research by the accommodation platform StuRents, the UK will face a shortfall of around 450,000 student beds by 2025.

That drop in numbers could see students heading back to the past and having to sofa surf or even live in their cars.

Heading back to the dark ages with Renters Reform Bill

The Rent Acts in the 70s were seen as incredibly 'anti-landlord', but could we now be heading back to the dark ages with the Renters' Reform Bill?

Back in the 70s far more council housing was available than it is today, and property prices were significantly lower.

Whilst we await more details from the Renters' Reform Bill one thing is for certain, renters and homeowners face an even tougher challenge in today's housing market than they have seen in recent years - and landlords face a troubling scenario of struggling to evict non-paying tenants. Much like they did in the 1970s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the Private Rented Sector heading back to the 1970s?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Strikes, rocketing-interest rates and high demand for housing. You would be forgiven for thinking that we were back in the 1970s! Fashion may have changed drastically since then but with housing affordability at its worst in decades, renters and homeowners now face heading back to the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Take Back the City protesters on why they've taken to the streets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Activists cite rent, gentrification and community as reasons for joining the movement.

# data[].attributes.body
-              insecurity and homelessness.

-              Strategically position of the structure within urban areas to raise awareness and speak dialogue.

-              Challenge societal norms and confront biases surrounding the housing crisis.

-              Advocate for tenants’ rights and affordable housing programs.

-              Humanise the issue of homelessness and foster empathy and understanding within the community.

-              Demand accountability from landlords and address exploitative practices perpetuating housing inequality.

-              Catalyse a movement towards a fairer and more compassionate society where everyone has access to safe and stable housing.

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1970s, writes Bano, there were rent controls and tenancy protections, which – together with the large-scale provision of social housing by the state – created a situation where in 1979 only 7% of homes were privately rented. These policies reflected a decades-long turn against private landlordism, by both the public and politicians, in reaction to the miseries of slums and extortionate rents. Even Conservatives thought that private renting was in irreversible decline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the housing crisis could be solved without building any more homes? There would be no carbon emissions from construction sites, no green fields covered over, no householders upset at dwellings appearing in their view. Instead, rents would become affordable and decent homes available through changes in government policy. Such is the promise of Against Landlords by the author and barrister Nick Bano, a man who has been described as "Britain's top Marxist housing lawyer".

The crisis, he argues, is not one of supply but of cost. There are enough homes to go around, but they are notoriously expensive. The cause of high prices is the dominance of private landlords, of whom there are now 2.5 million - one in 21 of the population - receiving a combined £63bn per year in rent. They are supported by government policy, which allows them to turn tenants out without giving a reason, lightly regulates them and sometimes directs vast sums of money in their direction, out of the £23.4bn annual housing benefit bill.

Bano writes with passion of the horrors that follow, sharpened by his experiences representing the homeless and the badly housed in their legal cases. He describes a family of four, for example, moved by a local authority into a shipping container in Greenford, west London, boiling in summer and freezing in winter, for which they had to pay £1,600 a month in rent. He accurately describes the malign effects of the current regime - how calculations of cost of living are warped by the disproportionate effects of rents. His dislike of landlords is visceral and vehement. No matter how well intentioned they might believe themselves to be, he argues, they are all ultimately exploitative, enriching themselves not by hard work but by extracting money from their (almost always poorer) tenants.

The current ascendancy of private renting wasn't always so. In the 1970s, writes Bano, there were rent controls and tenancy protections, which - together with the large-scale provision of social housing by the state - created a situation where in 1979 only 7% of homes were privately rented. These policies reflected a decades-long turn against private landlordism, by both the public and politicians, in reaction to the miseries of slums and extortionate rents. Even Conservatives thought that private renting was in irreversible decline.

He describes a family of four moved into a shipping container for which they had to pay £1,600 a month in rent

"But as close as we came to the death of the private landlord," writes Bano, "we never held up a mirror to that hungry maw to check that it had breathed its last." Margaret Thatcher's government revived the beast. Alongside her well-known decision to sell council housing, her 1988 Housing Act introduced the now standard assured shorthold tenancy, which enables "no-fault" evictions. These and later policies, such as the promotion of buy-to-let investment, got us where we are now, with more than 5m homes privately rented compared with about 1.5m in the 1980s.

Bano would like to return, with due allowance for the fact that public housing of the time was sometimes less than perfect, to the 1970s to complete the project of driving "landlords and house-price speculators from the face of the earth". He wants to reinstate rent controls and end no-fault evictions. It's not entirely clear how people currently privately renting would then be housed (though it seems likely that they would become tenants of the state), or how the transition would be effected. He acknowledges that it might be a brutal process, given the dependency of the national economy on property values, perhaps involving a monumental property crash.

Bano's arguments have already taken a bit of a battering, both from more centrist commentators and, doubtless to his delight, from the rightwing thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs ("an edgy Maoist rebel", it called him). These critics question, with some reason, his basis for saying that there are enough homes, in light of the fact that studies tend to show that Britain has the smallest new-build homes in Europe.

It's odd that Bano is so opposed to new homes, given that the near extinction of the private landlord in the 1970s owed much to postwar public housing programmes, as well as to rent controls. But he is absolutely right to say that there is no point in getting the diggers and the concrete mixers churning if issues of tenure and affordability are not also addressed.

skip past newsletter promotion
Analysis and opinion on the week's news and culture brought to you by the best Observer writers
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

He's also right to attack the numbing normalisation whereby the transactions of the private housing market are allowed to obliterate ideas of what a good home might be - for example, that it might be more than a transitory shelter until such time as a landlord decides they can get a better rent with someone else. Generation rent, as he puts it, is dependent on its own exploitation. So Against Landlords is flawed but valuable - a powerful weapon against those who think that building is the answer to everything.

Against Landlords: How to Solve the Housing Crisis by Nick Bano is published by Verso (£16.99). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Against Landlords by Nick Bano review - valuable ideas for how to solve Britain's housing crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this flawed but powerful book, a housing lawyer argues that an abundance of private landlords, not a dearth of homes, is to blame for the miseries of 'generation rent'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The student budget is a tricky thing to pin down. But our latest National Student Money Survey reveals where students' money goes once and for all...
We all know that student living can be a pricey business. But, how pricey is it exactly?

Rather than taking wild guesses, we can tell you what your expected living costs are, based on what thousands of other students are telling us.

Whether you're wanting to budget your monthly expenses, or simply see how your spending compares to the average student, we've got all the stats on student living costs that you need.

Average student living costs

In our latest annual National Student Money Survey, we asked over 1,750 students where their money goes. The results were very interesting.

The average student's living costs are about £1,078 a month, but our findings reveal that Maintenance Loans often fall far short of covering students' living expenses.

It's probably no surprise that rent takes the biggest chunk out of the student budget. This year it rose to £439 a month. This is a £21 increase from 2022.

Groceries are the second biggest expenditure for students, coming in at £133 a month. This might seem like a lot, but it breaks down to around £31 a week - not too bad for a weekly food shop. Nonetheless, to cut down the costs of groceries further, check out our guide to saving money on food or even try our weekly meal plan.

Everyone knows that students love a good party, and it turns out £69 a month is spent on going out. Some might be surprised that this is more than double the amount students spend on course materials. However, with tuition fees at such a high rate, there's increasing pressure on unis to keep extra course costs to a minimum.

Students also estimate they spend £79 a month on bills, which include gas, electricity, water, broadband and a TV Licence. Our complete guide to student bills has step-by-step advice on how to set up, switch, split bills, and we also have guidance on help with energy bills during these testing times.

Student living costs across the UK

As the graphic above demonstrates, the most expensive places to live as a student in the UK can be found in the South of England.

London is the most expensive region along with the East and South West. This will be partly due to the cost of rent in London and the surrounding regions, which often dwarves the amount you'd pay for an equivalent property elsewhere.

And things are similarly pricey at the opposite end of the UK, too. The cost of living in Scotland isn't far off what students are paying in the South East of England - another notoriously expensive place to live.

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland, the East Midlands and the North East of England are comfortably the cheapest regions in the UK.

But it's worth noting that in this year's survey, student living costs exceed £900 a month in every part of the country.

Which students spend the most?

Four of the universities in the top 10 for total spending ( excluding rent) are based in London - London Metropolitan, City University, the University of East London and LSE.

The rest of the top 10, aside from Open University and Aston University, is made up from universities in the south.

The very lowest spenders are those at Nottingham University, with students spending just £337 a month on all expenses excluding rent. Lancaster, Lincoln, York, Warwick, Leicester and Loughborough University all came in at £400 or less.

At some unis, the average cost of bills seems very low (£5 at Liverpool Hope, for example) - but bear in mind that these figures are averages. A lot of students' utilities will be included in their rent, so they would likely have reported that their bills cost £0.

The table below lists all universities and the average that students spend on living costs, after rent. How do you compare to your classmates?

University

Total (£)

Groceries (£)

Takeaways and eating out (£)

Transport (£)

Going out and socialising (£)

Household bills (£)

Mobile phone (£)

Clothes and shopping (£)

Health and wellbeing (£)

Course materials (£)

Holidays and events (£)

Gifts and charity (£)

Relatives or friends (who you financially support) (£)

Other (£)

The data has been filtered to exclude universities where there were not enough respondents, or where the results included significant outliers.
Is the Maintenance Loan enough?

It's all very well working out how much students spend each month. But the big question is, how do they pay for it?

The majority of students will be eligible for some form of Maintenance Loan to cover their living costs at university. However, most students report that it doesn't stretch far enough. The average student receives just £496 a month from their Maintenance Loan, which falls £582 a month short of covering the average living costs (£1,078 a month).

In fact, 64% believe the Maintenance Loan isn't big enough.

Students told us:

[The] cost of living has increased and the loan doesn't cover it anymore.

I get the lowest possible amount [because] my dad is a high earner. However, he is very stingy with money. My loan doesn't cover my rent.

My Maintenance Loan doesn't cover rent, let alone other expenses such as bills and food etc.

Over half of students ( 53%) turn to their parents for extra funds, with students getting an average of £227 a month from their mums and dads.

But, fewer students than last year are relying on money from their parents. Many are turning to ways to make money from home, and the proportion of students getting a part-time job dropped from 62% in 2022 to 56% in 2023.

Some students turned to less conventional ways to fund themselves during university - from stocks and shares (4%) and social media (4%) to sex work (3%) and cryptocurrencies (4%).

It's clear that the Maintenance Loan isn't enough to cover living costs for the vast majority of students. The government needs to make some serious changes to Student Finance in order to fix this.
To make your Maintenance Loan last longer, check out our guide to budgeting at university.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is how much students at different universities are spending every month

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Survey reveals the average student living costs in the UK. Includes student rent costs, average Maintenance Loan and how much money parents give students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are now more tenants than at any point since the millennium; one in five of us in England and Wales is now a member of "generation rent". The sector has never been more relevant, but its problems have also never been more obvious.

Renters are handing over increasingly unsustainable portions of their pay in order to live in insecure tenancies, often in dangerous properties.

The government's promised rental reform bill - included in last week's king's speech - aims to tackle some of these issues. Despite this, action on many problems, including no-fault evictions, may still take years to materialise.

The following charts explain the increasing pressures that renters have faced over the past few years.

Being a tenant has become much less affordable in recent years. A Guardian analysis of figures provided by property data company TwentiCi showed that the average asking rent across the UK this month was up 22% on October last year - and has risen 56% since October 2019.

Wages are struggling to keep up. Current asking rents in more than 40 council areas are considered unaffordable, meaning they eat up more than 30% of the average couple's income. These sky-high rents aren't limited to London: Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle, Exeter, Oxford, Cambridge and Brighton and Hove were all among the UK cities breaching affordability.

In 2001, barely one in 10 of us rented privately - now more than a fifth do. But how did we get here? Well, a lack of housebuilding means that buying a property - any property - in the UK is increasingly the preserve of the rich.

The only alternatives for many are living with family (which separate figures show is increasingly happening) and renting.

Chart on median house price affordability

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, almost one in four (23%) of all those who rent privately in the UK have to spend 40% or more of their salary, meaning they are overburdened by housing costs. That is a higher proportion of renters than any other country in Europe for which figures are available.

For the poorest, things are even tougher. More than half of the lowest earners in the UK who rent privately are overburdened; only Colombia scores higher in the data.

skip past newsletter promotion
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Chart comparing spending on rent

One of the most pernicious aspects of England's rental system for tenants is the dreaded section 21. This clause of the Housing Act 1988 allows landlords to issue notices to tenants evicting them without any reason.

Abolishing the right to section 21 is a core element of the government's proposed renters reform bill - but has since been delayed until after lengthy court reforms. It has long been a Conservative policy - first proposed by Theresa May back in April 2019. Since that announcement, 76,725 claims have gone through the courts to evict people, and more than 71,130 households have been threatened with homelessness as a result of section 21, while many more tenants were evicted before their cases reached court.

In addition to prohibitive rents and risk of eviction, data from the English Housing Survey shows how poor the standards are in the country's private sector.

"Non-decent homes" are those that are not in a reasonable state of repair, pose a hazard of immediate threat to a person's health, or cannot be effectively heated or insulated.

Just under a quarter (23%) of rentals in England did not meet the decent home standard in 2021-22. That compares with just 13% of owner-occupied housing and 10% of social housing.

Privately rented properties are also more than six times as likely to be affected by damp as owner-occupied houses, the figures suggest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five charts explaining the state of the UK's rental sector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Britain's rent crisis in numbers, measuring the increasing pressures on tenants over the past few years