Executive Summary

The Housing and Life Experiences project was commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of its major programme of work on housing and poverty. The intention to better understand how housing impacts on poverty over the life course, and to inform the development of housing policy that prevents, mitigates against and lifts households out of poverty. The project commenced in January 2015, and will be completed in 2017. It has two main components. The first is a qualitative longitudinal panel study (QLPS) being undertaken by the Centre for Housing Policy at the University of York that seeks to understand how housing circumstances affect households’ experiences of poverty at different stages of the life course. The second component is a policy development process to be taken forward in 2017 informed by the findings of the QPLS. This interim report presents the emerging findings from the first wave of face to face interviews undertaken as part of the QLPS.

About the QLPS

Over the course of the QPLS three waves of qualitative and quantitative data are being collected to capture housing and life experiences of people on low incomes now, in the past, and into the future. A purposive sample of 72 participants have been recruited from six case study areas across the four nations of the UK, in three age cohorts: younger adults (aged 18-55), mid-life adults (aged 30 to 49), and older adults (aged 50+). The sample includes those living in the private rented sector (PRS), social rented sector (SRS), and homeowners. All were living on less than the Minimum Income Standard when recruited. At interview we explored with participants: their housing histories; their current housing, income, choices, and constraints; and their housing aspirations for the future.

Key Findings

Housing was often a struggle for people to obtain and sustain throughout the life course. Some stayed put for longer periods of time than others in the same property. However, many had moved often, back and forth between tenures, sometimes gaining small benefits, but rarely more than that. There was little evidence from the narratives of a housing ladder that people mount towards an ever better standard of living, underpinned by their housing assets that will support them through any difficult times. The British housing system poorly supports key life transitions and life events (both expected and unexpected) for those on low incomes. The narratives demonstrate how key life events – divorce, separation, the onset of chronic health problems, accident and injury, bereavement, bankruptcy, the need to take up caring responsibilities – can disrupt people’s lives very suddenly, and for the most part with long term consequences. Even positive life events such as leaving home and family formation were difficult transitions to achieve on low incomes in the current housing system. People’s housing needs often changed quickly but there was little support for any housing difficulties, and such support as there was, was usually quite slow. This slow response of the housing system meant that people’s housing needs and what was available to them was often at a mismatch for some time. In contrast, across the tenures, the response to people in financial 2 difficulties who cannot meet their housing costs was often much quicker - and often punitive in nature. Different tenures offered different advantages and disadvantages. There were many accounts of people moving back and forth between tenures, in response to life events and the relative (non)- availability of housing depending upon their circumstances. Transitional costs were significant in all tenures. In the social rented sector, properties were often offered in a poor state of decoration; agents’ fees/ deposits were often significant in the PRS (but decoration often better than social housing); and home ownership entry required a deposit. For those on low incomes, with poor purchasing power, rarely were people able to maximise their utility in any tenure. A secure tenancy in social housing offered some people stability and security at key times of change. The path to social housing, however, was tortuous, preceded for some by long periods in temporary accommodation, or in overcrowding PRS properties, and it was inaccessible to many, notably single people. Almost all of the participants had spent some time in the PRS. Meeting housing needs at the point where individuals were making more planned transitions in life – setting up your own home, establishing a new relationship, moving to a new job – was problematic. Here the PRS was usually more accessible in comparison to other tenures, in as much as there were no waiting lists, and frontloaded payments (deposits, agents’ fees) were at least less than what is required as a deposit on purchasing a home. The PRS was however also perceived to be expensive and insecure (even by those who appear to have been settled in their PRS homes for a long period). For those who were working, and not in receipt of housing benefit, PRS rent and other housing costs, were a significant drain on their income, preventing them from saving towards the purchase of their own home (if that was an aspiration), and, unless there was the prospect of a significant increase in income, effectively locking them into “managing just” for the long term. For single people on low incomes, the PRS was often their only option. Experiences of housing standards were very mixed, some positive, and some not so. Home ownership was possible for some families with access to reasonably stable jobs, and usually significant family support. Whilst financial sacrifices were often required for younger households, most participants felt this was a worthwhile trade-off. However, some households faced uncertainties related to interest only mortgages and/or the prospect of servicing mortgages into later life; some had faced repossession. For all participants, but particularly older participants, maintenance costs were substantial. With a view to the future, young currently low-income households on educational and career trajectories with ambitions for homeownership contrasted with those who had spent a long time on low-incomes and feared future moves would be determined by landlords rather than themselves. Key life events heavily constrained future housing options. Ageing meant tenures or housing circumstances that once were satisfactory were often no longer meeting needs. An intention of the study was to explore whether the variations in policy in the four nations of the UK made any difference to the housing circumstances of the participants. It is difficult to discern the impact of policy differences, as there appeared to be few differences and more common themes in the six case study areas when people reflected generally about housing. The first was a recognition that for people on low incomes accessing decent housing or effecting a change or improvement in housing circumstances were difficult to achieve. Social housing across all six areas 1 3 was perceived to be hard to access, with long waiting lists, and few opportunities to move within the SRS. The PRS was considered to be expensive generally, (but particularly in London) and properties in decent neighbourhoods beyond the means of those on low incomes or dependent on housing benefit. Neighbourhood issues related to deprivation, drug use, anti-social behaviour and crime were also raised, although these were perhaps less of a concern in North Wales. The churn in the PRS was also noted as having a detrimental impact on local communities, and generally on the maintenance and repair of properties, and general appearance of neighbourhoods. The study, to date, has demonstrated that housing has a significant role to play in helping people to manage on low incomes, but that housing often falls short in achieving its potential in the mitigation of poverty, and in some cases, exacerbates poverty amongst low income households.