No Where To Move by Homeless Link

NOWHERE TO MOVE

IS RENTING ON THE SHARED ACCOMMODATION RATE (SAR) IN LONDON AFFORDABLE?

NOWHERE TO MOVE

IS RENTING ON THE SHARED ACCOMMODATION RATE (SAR) IN LONDON AFFORDABLE?

CONTENTS Summary and key findings

The context

What we did?

Methodology

Our sample

Points to note

Results

Concluding Remarks

What this means?

What needs to happen?

Appendix

Table A1: Sample characteristics

Table A2: Comparison of our sample with VOA

Table A3: London rental properties under the SAR

PRODUCED BY Policy Team PUBLISHED May 2013

SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS The homelessness sector is reliant on the private rented sector to house homeless people; nearly 60% of statutory homeless households in London are living temporarily in the private rented sector.1 However, the Government’s recent Housing Benefit changes are making this more difficult. The Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR) – which is the Housing Benefit paid to claimants limited to renting a room in a shared house – was extended to cover 25-34 year old claimants, who previously received enough Housing Benefit to pay for a one bedroom self-contained property. This has increased demand for the limited supply of rooms available in shared accommodation, with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimating in 2010 that 40% (11,780) more claimants will be forced into shared accommodation in London alone. At the same time, fewer privately rented properties are affordable for claimants as the Government reduced the rate at which the SAR is set. Our research looked at whether renting in London under the SAR is affordable. Specifically, we looked at whether renting is affordable when claimants group together to rent a whole property. This differs from previous research by Crisis and Hackney Citizen’s Advice Bureau that focused on claimants individually finding a room in a shared house or renting a whole property. Both also focused their work on only one London Borough. Our research covers London’s property market more widely, and investigates whether adapting a property’s living room into a bedroom improves affordability. The results of our research are worrying: • 5.5% of properties in our sample were affordable when accounting for living rooms being adapted to bedrooms. In comparison, the Government sets the SAR with the aim that claimants can afford 30% of properties in an area. • Only 2% of these (0.1% of our total sample) had landlords that explicitly said in their listing that they were happy to rent to benefit claimants. • The share of affordable properties in our sample was 0.9% if living rooms were not adapted. • Properties in outer London boroughs were more affordable than those in inner London, with affordability shares of 9.8% compared with 2.4% when living rooms were adapted. • 3 and 4 bedroom properties were more affordable than other bedroom types, largely because a larger proportion of properties had adaptable living rooms. To prevent the impact of the Housing Benefit changes substantially increasing homelessness, Homeless Link recommends that the Government takes steps to ensure SAR claimants can afford more private rented properties, particularly as the SAR is set such that 30% of properties should be affordable for claimants.

According to data from the Department for Communities and Local Government, 58% of statutory homeless households were living temporarily in the private rented sector at end December 2012.

THE CONTEXT THE ROLE OF PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR AS A HOUSING OPTION The scarce supply of social housing along with the low priority of single homeless people for this housing has meant that increasingly the private rented sector (PRS) has been a source of accommodation for homeless people. However, over recent years there has been increased demand and pressure on PRS accommodation with the lack of house building, shortage of affordable accommodation, limitations on mortgage availability and more households unable to continue as owner-occupiers due to financial hardship. There is also further pressure on PRS supply with local authorities being able to discharge their homelessness duty by placing households in the private rented sector. At December 2012, 47% of Englandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s statutory homeless households were living temporarily in the private rented sector; in London, the share was nearly 60%. The role of the PRS is unlikely to diminish going forward, and the ability to house homeless people in this sector is becoming more difficult. One reason for the increased difficulty of housing people in the PRS is that the cost of renting has increased as a consequence of increased demand, resulting in fewer properties being available for homeless people. In many areas, the properties available to this group are of the poorest quality and standards. According to the National Housing Federation, the cost of privately renting a home increased by 37% in the past five years, and is expected to rise by 29% in the next five. Another reason is that the majority of homeless people are limited to properties that are affordable under Housing Benefit, which has reduced in recent years. The Local Housing Allowance (LHA), which is the benefit paid to claimants living in private rented accommodation, is now set such that 30% of properties in an area are affordable, down from 50%; and the LHA now increases in line with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) whereas it was previously linked to the Retail Prices Index (RPI). Both the CPI and RPI are measures of inflation, but the RPI is a better indicator of housing costs and is typically higher than the CPI.2 Homeless people are also competing for properties with others accessing the PRS including other benefit claimants. The total number of these claimants has increased with the undersupply of social housing, as 1.8 million households are on social housing waiting lists throughout England. Homeless people, particularly in London, also compete for properties with students, whom landlords typically prefer to have as tenants. The Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recent changes to Housing Benefit, particularly to the Shared Accommodation Rate, will add further difficultly to finding homeless people a home.

BENEFIT CHANGES EXPLAINED The Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR, previously the Shared Room Rate) was introduced in 1996 and originally limited the Housing Benefit that a single person under the age of 25 could receive to the average rent level charged for a room in a shared house. Claimants aged 25-34 years old were given a higher level of benefit that was enough to rent a self-contained one bedroom flat.

ONS figures show that in the two years to February 2013, the Retail Prices Index (RPI) rose by 7% while the Consumer Prices Index rose by 6.3%. For details on the goods the RPI and CPI are based on see Office for National Statistics, CPI and RPI Basket of Goods and Services, 2013, 2013: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/prices/cpi-and-rpi/cpi-and-rpi-basket-of-goods-and-services/cpi-and-rpi-2013-basket-of-goodsand-services.pdf.

However, as part of the October 2010 Spending Review, the Government announced that the SAR would be extended to cover single claimants up to 34 years old. This change came into force from January 2012 through the implementation of The Housing Benefit Regulations 2011. From 1 January 2012 onwards, a single person (without dependents), in private rented housing and aged under 35 would only be entitled to Housing Benefit at the same rate as they would get for renting a single room in a shared house. Housing Benefit is accessible to people in work as well as those who aren’t. This restriction applies to all people under 35 regardless of their employment status. There are two exemptions to this extension; people aged 25-34 who have spent three months or more in a hostel and received support and those who are subject to MAPPA level 2 and 3 restrictions.3 The extension of the SAR has substantially increased the number of claimants that will need a room in shared accommodation: using 2010 data, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) estimated the number of SAR claimants in Great Britain would rise by 62,500 (43%) to around 210,000 as a result of the change; in London, DWP estimated 11,780 (40%) more SAR claimants resulting in a total of 41,190.4 Adding to the impact of the above change is the Government’s decision in October 2011 to reduce the rate at which the SAR is set. Now 30% of private rented properties in an area should be affordable to SAR claimants, down from 50%.5 The overall impact of the benefit changes is that there are now more claimants looking to rent a room in shared accommodation, but there are fewer rooms that they can afford.

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT As a result of these benefit changes, Homeless Link’s members are becoming increasingly concerned about the ability of people under 35 to access the private rented sector. Recent studies on the affordability of private rented accommodation for claimants substantiate our concerns. Crisis found that 13% of rooms were affordable for SAR claimants from their sample covering Birmingham, Leeds, and the London Borough of Lewisham; only 1.5% of all rooms had landlords willing to accept benefit claimants as tenants.6 The Hackney Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) more broadly looked at the affordability of multiple-bedroom properties in the London Borough of Hackney.7 They found 9% of properties were affordable, but only 1% had a landlord willing to rent to benefit claimants The benefit changes will also heighten issues around living in shared accommodation. One is that more single pregnant women will be forced to live in shared accommodation, only becoming eligible for a place of their own once their babies are born. Another is that claimants may have problems with other tenants. For example, if a tenant ,without giving notice, leaves a flat share where the tenants formed a group to rent a whole 3

MAPPA stands for Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements which were established in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They are designed to protect the public from sexual harm by sexual and violent offenders and require criminal agencies and other bodies to work together to deal with offenders. Offenders with MAPPA level 2 and 3 restrictions need to be actively managed by many agencies; an offender with a level 1 restriction requires a lesser level of management across agencies. 4 See Department of Work and Pensions, Housing Benefit equality impact assessment, 2011: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-hb-sharedaccommodation-age-threshold.pdf 5 This change was broadly applied to the Local Housing Allowance, which is the Housing Benefit paid to claimants in the private rented sector. The SAR is the Local Housing Allowance paid to claimants renting a room in a share house. 6 Crisis, No room available: study of availability of shared accommodation, 2012: http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/1212%20No%20room%20available.pdf 7 Hackney Citizen’s Advice Bureau, Snapshot survey on private rented sector for housing benefit tenants, 2012

property, the remaining tenants may be forced to pay the leaving tenant’s rent. This will put financial stress on Housing Benefit claimants as benefits will not cover these additional payments. Also, tenants may leave their properties due to disagreements with other tenants, and they may be judged to be intentionally homeless, as a result.

OUR RESEARCH AIM Members in London raised concerns over the accessibility and affordability of the private rented sector to homeless people affected by the SAR. London’s private rented sector is more unaffordable than the rest of England: the average rent in London for 2012 was 6.5% higher than previous year; in the rest of the country, the average rent rose by 4.3%. We set out to compare how many properties that are advertised to rent on the private market were affordable within the SAR.8 Our research differs from previous research by Crisis and Hackney CAB, which look at whether a claimant can afford to rent a room in an established share house; Hackney CAB also assessed whether a claimant can afford to rent a multiple bedroom property. Both also focused their work on only one London Borough. We investigate claimants’ only other option to rent a room, which is to form a group with other claimants to rent a whole property. Our research focuses on London as this is where our members have raised the most concerns, and our coverage of London’s rental market is wider than previous research: we collected data on all 33 London boroughs. We also look at whether adapting a property’s living room into a bedroom makes renting more affordable for SAR claimants.

WHAT WE DID? In August and September 2012, Homeless Link collected data on property listings from the Rightmove website to find out how affordable renting rooms in the private rented sector is for people on the Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR). Our methodology is similar to that used by Crisis and Hackney CAB, who also collected data on property listings from websites. The main difference is that we searched for whole properties that SAR claimants can rent as a group. Crisis and Hackney CAB mostly looked at the affordability of renting individual rooms in flat shares. Our methodology is also similar to that used by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) when setting the SAR. The VOA sets the SAR using a list of rents its Rent Officers collect from tenants, landlords and letting agents. The SAR is set at the 30th percentile rent paid for room in a share house in a Broad Rental Market Area (BRMA), which in London is an area larger than a borough where a person can be expected to live with reasonable access to services. This means 30% of rooms in a BRMA should be affordable under the SAR.

METHODOLOGY We searched for properties in each of 33 London boroughs, from studios through to 5 bedroom flats. For each search we followed the steps below: 1. Searched for properties with no maximum or minimum limit set on rent, and recorded the total number We looked at publicly advertised properties for rent. Our analysis does not include rental properties that are not advertised, and which claimants can access through friends and other connections. It is difficult to gain details about the properties that claimants rent through these connections. 8

of property listings. This is the total sample of properties available on Rightmove at this point in time. A second search limiting the maximum rent of properties to the highest rent a group of SAR claimants can afford. The highest rent depends on two factors: • The maximum number of rooms in a property that SAR claimants can sleep in. This is equal to the number of bedrooms in the property plus the living room, which could be adapted into another bedroom. Therefore, for a two bedroom property, the maximum number of rooms that claimants can sleep in is 3. • The highest SAR available for a borough. This depends on the different BRMAs that cover the borough in which the property is located. For example, Camden lies in both the Central London BRMA and the Inner North London BRMA. As the SAR for the Central London BRMA is the highest (£123.50 compared with £88.50 for Inner North London) we used this SAR for a property in Camden. Therefore, for the second search, if we were looking for two bedroom properties in Camden, we limited our maximum rent to £370.50, which is equal to highest SAR for Camden (£123.50) multiplied by maximum number of rooms in the 2 bedroom property that SAR claimants can sleep in (3). Details of the properties that met the criteria of our second search were recorded. This included addresses, number of bedrooms, whether the property had a living room that could be adapted to a bedroom, and if the landlord mentioned in the advertisement that they would rent to benefit claimants.

After recording the data from Rightmove, we exported the data into Microsoft Excel, which we used for our analysis.

OUR SAMPLE In total, 56,537 properties were listed on Rightmove (result of our first search; see Appendix Table A1). We took down details of 3,362 properties that seemed affordable (result of our second search) - 6% of the total sample. Of this, 77 properties (0.2% of the total sample) had landlords who explicitly stated on their advertisement that they were willing to rent to benefit claimants, and 2,917 properties (5% of the total sample) appeared to have living rooms that could be adapted into bedrooms; we were unable to check both these conditions with landlords due to time constraints. The number of listed properties on Rightmove varies considerably across boroughs (Map 1). Most properties were available for Westminster (8,729 properties), Kensington and Chelsea (6513) and Tower Hamlets (2873). The least amount of properties were available for Sutton (224), City of London (235) and Barking and Dagenham (320). The number of listed properties also varies by bedroom considerably. For example, there were 2,777 two-bedroom properties listed for Westminster while only 100 were listed for Sutton (see Graph 1 below, and Appendix Table A1). There were no 5 bedroom property listings for 15 boroughs. Despite the variability in sample sizes across bedrooms, we are confident that the results from our data are broadly robust: 80% of our samples across 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms are larger than half the size of Valuation Office Agency’s data, which are used to set the SAR (see Appendix table A2). Therefore we are confident that most of our sample is large enough to produce robust results. We have flagged any results that may not be robust.

Map 1: Number of Properties in Our Sample by Borough No. in total sample (No. in affordable sample)

Graph 1: Number of Listed Properties on Rightmove by Bedroom Each line represents the range of sample sizes by borough No.

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Studio

Source: Homeless Link; Righmove

POINTS TO NOTE The following should be kept in mind when looking at the data: • As mentioned above, we were unable to check which landlords would allow their living rooms to be adapted to bedrooms. In our analysis, we assume all landlords allow for their living rooms to be adapted if possible. We realise the assumption is unlikely and our results should be viewed as an upper limit on the number of affordable properties. • We were unable to check if landlords would rent to benefit claimants. Landlords who did not mention that they would rent to benefit claimants may still be willing to do so: After calling individual landlords, Crisis found 12% of the 560 affordable properties in their sample had landlords willing to rent to Housing Benefit claimants. In comparison, only 2.2% of affordable properties in our sample explicitly stated in the listing that they would rent to a Benefit claimant. • Our analysis does not take into account other barriers to claimants renting a property. Landlords may require claimants to provide funds for a deposit, which claimants are only likely to afford if they gain access to a rent deposit scheme. Claimants may also have to provide details of references and guarantors.

RESULTS 5.5% (3,099) properties in our sample were affordable for SAR claimants when adapting living rooms; only 0.9% (437) were affordable when living rooms were not adapted (see Map 2 and Appendix table A2). Of the affordable properties with living rooms adapted, 2% (72) of properties had landlords willing to rent to benefit claimants. This figure may be higher as some landlords may consider renting to Housing Benefit claimants, but did not explicitly state this in their listing. Our overall affordability share is lower than shares calculated by Crisis and Hackney’s Citizen’s Advice Bureau. However, when comparing similar boroughs the results are varied. Crisis reported an affordability share of 12% in Lewisham, while we calculated a share of 8% with living rooms adapted. The difference may indicate renting a room in a flat share, which is what Crisis’s research investigated, may be more affordable for SAR claimants than claimants banding together to rent a property. For Hackney, we found 20% of properties were affordable for SAR claimants with adaptable living rooms. Hackney’s CAB reported 9% of properties were affordable for all housing benefit claimants – not just SAR claimants. The difference is probably because we focused on SAR claimants and allowed for adaptable living rooms. Outer London boroughs were generally more affordable than the inner boroughs 9.8% of properties in outer London were affordable compared to 2.4% in Inner London. Barking & Dagenham and Bexley were the only two boroughs where the share of affordable properties was higher than 30% of those available to rent; 30% is the share of properties that should be affordable for SAR claimants as this is how the SAR is calculated. Only one property in Kensington & Chelsea was affordable and there were no affordable properties in the City of London. The relative affordability of renting in outer London boroughs may explain why more housing benefit claimants are moving there: DWP numbers show a 28% rise in housing benefit claimants living in outer London

boroughs in the past two years, compared with a 7% rise in inner London.

Map 2: Share of Affordable Properties under the SAR

The affordability of properties by borough does not seem to be related to levels of deprivation We investigated whether there is a positive relationship between affordability and a boroughâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deprivation, as rents are likely to be lower in a deprived borough. However, our analysis of the data with deprivation statistics published by the Office for National Statistics showed little correlation.9 It is likely the SAR already accounts for differences in deprivation across boroughs as it is set using rental data for the area. Also, a factor that may distort our correlation analysis is varying levels of deprivation within a borough, which we were unable to account for in our correlation analysis. For instance, some poor, deprived boroughs may have pockets of low deprivation. A property in the pocket may be less affordable than in the rest of the borough. Not accounting for this variation weakens the correlation between affordability and a boroughâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deprivation. 3 and 4 bedroom properties in our sample were the most affordable Around 10% of 3 and 4 bedroom properties were affordable for SAR claimants when adapting living rooms to bedrooms, which is more than other bedroom categories (see blue columns in Graph 2). When living rooms were not adapted 4 and 5 bedroom properties were the most affordable at around 4% of properties. The shift from 5 bedroom properties to 3 bedroom properties being affordable reflects more 3 bedroom properties having adaptable living rooms: 90% compared with 40%. 9

The correlation coefficient between the share of affordable properties and the deprivation of boroughs is 0.05, which implies a very weak positive relationship between the two. (A correlation of 0 represents no relationship between two variables, while a coefficient of 1 means the two variables will always change at the same rate.)

Adaptable living rooms also explains why 3 and 4 bedroom properties were the most affordable compared to the other bedroom categories when living rooms are used as bedrooms: 80-90% of 3 and 4 bedroom properties in our sample had adaptable living rooms compared with 70% and 40% for 1 and 5 bedroom flats. However, the affordability was lower for 2 bedroom apartments despite 95% of our sample having adaptable living rooms. This may be because 2 bedroom properties are generally more expensive in London: the average rent per occupant was higher for 2 bedroom properties compared with 3 bedroom properties in 32 of the 33 London boroughs. Also, a 2010 report by the East London Housing Trust said landlords of 3-bedroom properties would be more willing to convert their properties into shared houses, as fewer individual households required, or could afford, to rent an entire 3-bedroom property.10 Graph 2: Share of Affordable Properties by Bedroom Size % Range of affordability shares by borough 60

20 Share of total properties 0 Studio

Sources: Homeless Link; Right move

Studio apartments were the least affordable, largely because they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have a living room. We are unsurprised that studio apartments were inaccessible to SAR claimants as one of the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policy intentions was for people aged 25-34 to share a house. By borough, there is considerable variation in affordability shares. 3 bedroom properties in Croydon with convertible living rooms were the most affordable to SAR claimants: 68% of the 155 listed properties were affordable (see orange dots in Graph 2). Only four London boroughs had Studio apartments that were affordable for SAR claimants; Hammersmith & Fulham had the highest share of affordable Studios at 1.4%.

See East London Housing Partnership, East London Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2010,2010: http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/elhp/pdf/EastLondonSHMA.pdf 10

CONCLUDING REMARKS WHAT THIS MEANS? Overall, our results are worrying. A share of 5.5% of listed properties being affordable is much lower than the share of housing benefit claimants in the private rental market, which is around 30%.11 This implies there may be a lack of affordable rental properties for SAR claimants. As a result, homeless people may struggle to find accommodation in the private rented sector. In addition, the risk of benefit claimants becoming homeless could increase: benefit claimants who cannot find or afford accommodation may be forced into temporary, insecure or unsuitable accommodation such as sofa-surfing with friends, squatting or hostels. The impact of the benefit changes on affordability could also be affected in the future by the Government’s proposals to limit future increases to the SAR to either CPI inflation or 1% depending on which is lower. Already, the rise in the SAR implemented for April 2013 is lower than the rise in average rents four of the five inner London BRMAs. This means the pool of affordable properties available for claimants will continue to reduce.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN? Homeless Link supports a vision for a welfare system that ensures there is a safety net for the most vulnerable and excluded in our communities. Such a system needs to:  Prevent homelessness  Support recovery from homelessness  Not disadvantage or exclude vulnerable people  Work with a range of statutory and non-statutory agencies so that essential support is available when needed, for as long as it is needed.

Homeless Link has three recommendations on what needs to happen to improve affordability in the private rental sector:  Work needs to be done to ensure the SAR is set such that 30% of private rental properties in an area are affordable to SAR claimants, as is the Government’s intention.12  Landlords need to be given more incentives to rent to benefit claimants. At the moment, few landlords are willing to do so, limiting the number of affordable properties available to Housing Benefit claimants. Further, the direct payment of the Housing Benefit to tenants as part of Universal Credit may remove one of the few incentives landlords have to rent to benefit claimants. The exemptions to the SAR rule should be extended to other vulnerable groups. Currently, only some 25-34 year old claimants are exempt from the extension to the SAR; those exempt are instead paid a level of benefit which will cover rent for a one-bedroom self-contained flat. In addition, more monitoring should be done on the exemption process. Homeless Link has received feedback that the exemption provisions are difficult to understand. For example, one agency was unaware that the exemptions continued to apply when a claimant changed address, while another thought the exemptions only lasted for one year.  Research should be undertaken to investigate the impact of the Government’s changes to the SAR on homelessness hostels and supported housing projects. We have received feedback from homelessness services around the country suggesting people eligible for the SAR are having difficulties moving on from provision they no longer need, thereby silting up this supported provision and preventing those in greatest need gaining access to it.

Share is for Great Britain in 2010; see Figure 3.6 in Crisis et al. The homelessness monitor: England 2012, 2012: http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/HomelessnessMonitor_England_2012_WEB.pdf 12 See ‘Impact of Changes to Local Housing Allowance from 2011’ on the Department for Work & Pension website: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/localauthority-staff/housing-benefit/claims-processing/local-housing-allowance/impact-of-changes.shtml

APPENDIX Table A1: Sample Characteristics Studio

Total

Total Inner London Boroughs Outer London Boroughs Inner London Boroughs: Camden City of London Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith & Fulham Islington Kensington & Chelsea Lambeth Southwark Tower Hamlets Wandsworth Westminster Outer London Boroughs: Barking & Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Croydon Ealing Enfield Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Kingston upon Thames Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Sutton Waltham Forest * No listings on Rightmove Source: Rightmove

1 Bedroom

Afforda ble of which:

Total Adapta ble living 0 15086 0 9730 0 5356

4128 2953 1175

13 11 2

DSS 0 0 0

96 44 32 61 218 131 937 77 80 495 105 677

4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* 156 3 107 14 26 158 80 175 29 5 25 54 29 86 12 58 32 60 13 53

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 bedroom

Afforda ble of which:

Total Adapta ble living 168 21018 65 11680 103 9338

237 89 148

DSS 6 2 4

247 191 259 235 477 934 1552 596 743 1635 791 2070

0 0 29 14 5 3 0 0 0 35 2 1

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 25 10 5 0 0 0 0 23 2 0

* * * 229 155 248 845 276 390 156 73 215 350 116 391 147 724 399 241 44 357

* * * 13 24 53 14 9 3 1 2 5 4 2 16 1 0 1 0 0 0

* * * 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* * * 11 24 47 8 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0

3 Bedroom

Afforda of ble which:

Total Adapta ble living 1230 10610 274 5898 956 4712

1281 282 999

DSS 19 1 18

397 * 532 348 785 1092 2367 944 1159 * 1279 2777

12 * 25 121 69 17 1 11 1 * 1 24

0 * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0

11 * 24 117 67 17 1 11 1 * 1 24

173 870 127 427 321 353 889 406 549 246 130 277 854 164 454 420 1025 520 487 100 546

103 124 56 60 138 72 132 80 51 20 20 36 27 0 30 1 3 14 7 5 20

6 1 3 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

98 115 51 58 134 69 125 79 49 20 20 35 26 0 28 1 3 14 6 5 20

4 Bedroom

Afforda ble of which:

Total

5 Bedroom

Afforda ble of which:

Total

All

Afforda ble of which:

1169 319 850

DSS 41 2 39

158 * 188 235 339 220 1160 293 300 743 * 2262

6 * 44 40 23 11 0 6 6 165 * 18

0 * 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 0

6 * 44 36 22 9 0 6 6 149 * 18

85 * 69 100 214 135 368 120 120 0 310 719

8 * 11 38 22 11 0 3 2 89 20 7

0 * 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 * 10 28 20 7 0 3 1 72 17 7

* * * * * 24 129 60 22 * 129 224

* * * * * 1 0 1 0 * 2 0

* * * * * 0 0 0 0 * 0 0

* * * * * 1 0 0 0 * 1 0

983 235 1080 979 2033 2536 6513 2090 2424 2873 2614 8729

30 0 109 213 122 43 1 21 9 290 25 53

0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

25 0 103 191 114 34 1 20 8 244 21 49

122 455 109 * 817 155 387 237 * 173 111 200 232 108 182 200 408 286 234 38 258

84 58 53 * 48 110 89 100 * 31 30 39 46 0 38 28 12 32 2 14 36

18 1 3 * 0 1 0 10 * 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

76 52 51 0 46 97 84 92 * 28 26 36 10 0 21 23 11 29 2 12 36

25 340 41 101 74 70 294 121 * 92 37 97 142 73 59 148 152 135 176 26 84

0 19 21 19 15 39 47 66 * 18 7 27 16 1 22 9 13 12 2 4 20

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 * 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 19 21 14 15 34 32 62 * 11 5 11 6 1 10 5 11 10 2 1 18

* * * * * * * * * 26 21 49 60 49 20 89 50 50 121 3 42

* * * * * * * * * 7 9 25 8 0 2 1 3 4 0 2 9

* * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* * * * * * * * * 2 3 3 4 0 1 0 3 2 0 2 8

320 1821 280 864 1381 852 2573 1120 1114 722 377 863 1692 539 1192 1016 2417 1422 1319 224 1340

187 201 130 92 225 274 282 255 56 77 68 132 101 3 108 40 31 63 11 25 85

24 2 6 1 0 4 1 20 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 2

174 186 123 83 219 247 249 237 51 62 54 85 46 1 65 30 28 55 10 20 82

588 211 377

DSS 11 2 9

1168 588 580

74 4 70

DSS 0 0 0

Adapta ble living 30 56537 2 33089 28 23448

Afforda ble of which:

Adapta ble living 1028 296 732

4527 2240 2287

Adapta ble living 461 173 288

Total

3362 916 2446

Adapta ble DSS living 77 2917 7 810 70 2107

Table A2: Comparison of our Sample Size with VOA Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed HL VOA HL/VOA HL VOA HL/VOA HL VOA HL/VOA HL VOA * * * 148 * 173 255 0.68 122 183 Barking & Dagenham 156 140 1.11 * 409 * 870 760 1.14 455 333 Barnet 3 22 0.14 * 152 * 127 258 0.49 109 171 Bexley 107 147 0.73 229 289 0.79 427 528 0.81 * 235 Brent 14 35 0.40 155 370 0.42 321 580 0.55 817 328 Bromley 96 353 0.27 247 792 0.31 397 947 0.42 158 472 Camden 44 17 2.59 191 54 3.54 * 38 * * City of London 26 46 0.57 248 304 0.82 353 439 0.80 155 267 Croydon 158 303 0.52 845 685 1.23 889 1029 0.86 387 407 Ealing 80 86 0.93 276 197 1.40 406 382 1.06 237 192 Enfield 32 30 1.07 259 244 1.06 532 402 1.32 188 180 Greenwich 61 114 0.54 235 384 0.61 348 424 0.82 235 162 Hackney 218 161 1.35 477 472 1.01 785 586 1.34 339 225 Hammersmith & Fulham 175 190 0.92 390 363 1.07 549 367 1.50 * 101 Haringey 29 77 0.38 156 226 0.69 246 438 0.56 173 242 Harrow 5 26 0.19 73 164 0.45 130 293 0.44 111 199 Havering 25 198 0.13 215 483 0.45 277 682 0.41 200 504 Hillingdon 54 177 0.31 350 499 0.70 854 745 1.15 232 406 Hounslow 131 189 0.69 934 853 1.09 1092 735 1.49 220 238 Islington 937 179 5.23 1552 274 5.66 2367 328 7.22 1160 119 Kensington & Chelsea 29 23 1.26 116 106 1.09 164 208 0.79 108 138 Kingston upon Thames 77 128 0.60 596 711 0.84 944 974 0.97 293 330 Lambeth 86 185 0.46 391 713 0.55 454 755 0.60 182 288 Lewisham 12 45 0.27 147 440 0.33 420 626 0.67 200 249 Merton 58 55 1.05 724 287 2.52 1025 279 3.67 408 137 Newham 32 43 0.74 399 386 1.03 520 500 1.04 286 285 Redbridge 60 102 0.59 241 355 0.68 487 611 0.80 234 277 Richmond upon Thames 80 157 0.51 743 849 0.88 1159 1043 1.11 300 361 Southwark 13 40 0.33 44 143 0.31 100 224 0.45 38 79 Sutton 495 85 5.82 1635 482 3.39 * 535 * 743 156 Tower Hamlets 53 87 0.61 357 402 0.89 546 571 0.96 258 233 Waltham Forest 105 123 0.85 791 977 0.81 1279 1434 0.89 * 545 Wandsworth 677 289 2.34 2070 857 2.42 2777 851 3.26 2262 341 Westminster 4128 3852 1.07 15086 14070 1.07 21018 18827 1.12 10610 8383 Total A cell is highlighted blue if Homeless Link's sample is at least half the size of the Valuation Office Agency's sample Source: Rightmove; Valuation Office Agency

HL/VOA 0.67 1.37 0.64 * 2.49 0.33 * 0.58 0.95 1.23 1.04 1.45 1.51 * 0.71 0.56 0.40 0.57 0.92 9.75 0.78 0.89 0.63 0.80 2.98 1.00 0.84 0.83 0.48 4.76 1.11 * 6.63 1.27

Table A3: London Rental Properties Affordable Under the SAR Studio

1 Bedroom

Share of total affordable:

2 Bedroom

Share of total affordable:

3 Bedroom

Share of total affordable:

4 Bedroom

Share of total affordable:

5 Bedroom

Share of total affordable:

All

Share of total affordable:

Without adaptable living room

With adaptable living room

Total

Without adaptable living room

With adaptable living room

Total

Without adaptable living room

With adaptable living room

Total

Without adaptable living room

With adaptable living room

Total

Without adaptable living room

With adaptable living room

Total

Without adaptable living room

With adaptable living room

Total

Without adaptable living room

With adaptable living room

Total

0.2

4128

0.4

1.4

15086

0.3

5.9

21018

1.6

10.4

10610

3.7

10.5

4527

3.7

6.3

1168

0.9

5.5

56537

Inner London Boroughs Outer London Boroughs

0.2

2953

0.2

0.9

9730

0.0

2.3

11680

0.9

5.3

5898

1.8

5.0

2240

0.3

0.7

588

0.4

2.4

33089

0.1

1175

0.7

2.2

5356

0.6

10.3

9338

2.4

16.8

4712

5.5

15.9

2287

7.1

11.9

580

1.6

9.8

23448

Camden

247

2.5^

397

3.8

158

4.7

2.0

983

City of London

191

235

Greenwich

1.5

11.2

259

1080

Hackney

1.7

6.0

235

Hammersmith & Fulham

1.4

218

1.0

477

Islington

131

0.2

Kensington & Chelsea

937

Lambeth

Southwark

Tower Hamlets

0.2

495

Wandsworth

Westminster

0.4

Inner London Boroughs: *

4.5

532

8.0

23.4

188

10.1

15.9

2.4

10.0

0.3

30.7

348

5.1

16.2

235

15.0

36.0

100

3.3

19.9

979

0.3

8.8

785

6.5

339

5.1

10.3

214

0.8

6.0

2033

934

1.6

1092

0.9

5.0

220

3.0

6.7

135

4.2

0.3

1.6

2536

1552

0.0

2367

1160

368

0.0

6513

596

1.2

944

2.0

293

2.5

120

1.7

0.0

1.0

2090

743

0.1

1159

2.0

300

0.8

120

0.3

2424

0.7

2.1

1635

22.1

743

1.3

7.0

2873

105

0.3

791

0.1

1279

1.0

6.5

310

0.8

1.6

129

0.2

1.0

2614

0.4

677

0.0

2070

0.9

2777

0.8

2262

0.1

1.0

719

224

0.1

0.6

8729

56.6

173

3.3

62.3

122

156

5.1

14.0

870

11.4

455

1.5

5.6

13.8

46.8

109

29.3

6.9

3.1 *

129

Outer London Boroughs Barking & Dagenham

Barnet

Bexley

Brent

107

Bromley

Croydon

Ealing

158

Enfield

Haringey

0.6

Harrow

Havering

Hillingdon

Hounslow

Kingston upon Thames Lewisham

1.3

54.4

320

340

2.7

10.6

1821

51.2

9.6

42.1

280

17.8

101

1.0

10.3

864

0.9

15.9

1381

36.2^

127

5.7

229

13.6

427

15.5^

155

41.7

321

1.0

5.8

817

5.4

20.3

1.6

12.1

248

19.5

353

14.2

67.7

155

20.0

51.4

4.7

28.2

852

0.6

1.5

845

0.4

14.4

889

1.8

21.7

387

6.1

15.0

294

1.3

10.45

2573

0.4

1.8

276

19.5

406

40.5

237

54.5

121

1.1

22.0

1120

175

0.3

0.8

390

0.4

9.3

549

0.4

4.9

1114

0.6

156

8.1

246

1.2

17.3

173

7.6

19.6

19.2

26.9

1.9

10.53

722

2.7^

15.4^

130

2.7

26.1

111

2.7

16.2

28.6

42.9

3.2

17.5

377

2.3^

215

0.4

13.0

277

1.5^

19.5^

200

16.5

27.8

44.9

51.0

5.4

15.3

863

1.1

350

0.1

3.2

854

10.3

14.7

232

7.0

11.3

142

6.7

13.3

2.5

5.3

1692

1.7

116

164

108

1.4

2.6

3.8

391

6.2

454

8.2

19.8

182

18.6

30.5

5.0

Merton

147

0.2

420

2.5

10.5

200

2.7

5.4

148

Newham

724

0.3

1025

0.2

2.9

408

1.3

7.9

152

Redbridge

0.3

399

2.7

520

9.4

286

1.5

8.9

Richmond upon Thames

241

1.2

487

0.9

234

Sutton

5.0^

100

36.8^

Waltham Forest

357

3.7

546

14.0

258

0.9

Colour key:

1.7 *

5.3^ -

Affordability share > 30%

* Data for property type not listed on Right Move ^ Number of properties listed for this borough/bedroom combination is less that half the sample size used by VOA (see table A2); comparisons to VOA's data could not be made for 4 and 5 bedroom properties Source: Homeless Link; Right Move

5.8 *

0.4

0.6

539

10.0

3.1

8.3

1192

0.9

3.0

1016

6.0

0.1

1.2

2417

135

4.0

8.0

0.4

4.1

1422

1.1

176

121

0.8

1319

11.5

15.4

66.7

2.2

11.2

224

2.4

23.8

2.4

21.4

0.2

6.3

1340

20% < Affordability share < 30%