Industry News
Almost a third of the private rental market is ‘unaffordable’
Research from Ocasa, the specialist rental platform, reveals that based on current rental market values and the average household income, private rental properties in almost a third of postcodes are considered unaffordable. Te Office for National Statistics
defines a rental property as unaffordable if the rent exceeds 30 per cent of the household’s income. Ocasa analysed the current cost of
renting across each postcode in England and Wales, as well as the average household income, and found that 31 per cent of areas are classified as unaffordable based on the ONS definition. Across England and Wales, the average
annual rent is £12,763 and the average annual household income is £43,341. Terefore, rent accounts for 29 per cent of the average household income, meaning many may be pushing the boundaries of affordability within the sector. Regionally, rent is most affordable
in the North East where it consumes just 20 per cent of the average household income of £35,774. In Yorkshire & Humber, rent eats up 22 per cent of annual income followed by the East Midlands (23), North West (24), West Midlands (25), and Wales (26). In the East, South East, and South West
of England, average rent ranges from £12,000 - £15,000 and equates to 30 per cent of household income in each region. In London the average income is £54,194, but rent consumes 40 per cent of this with an average annual bill of £21,439. Ocasa analysed the rental market across
England and Wales at postcode level and found that 31 per cent of postcodes sit above the affordability threshold where rent accounts for more than 30 per cent of household income. London is home to all ten of the most
unaffordable places in the country with the worst offenders being SW1 (77 per cent), WC2 (74), and W2 (73). Te least affordable area outside of the capital is the BN2 postcode area of Brighton and Hove where rent eats up 60 per cent of annual income. Te WR2 postcode in Worcester is
the most affordable part of the rental market, where a year’s rent costs just 15 per cent of the average household income of £41,900. Tis is followed by DN21 in Gainsborough and TS26 in Hartlepool (both also 15 per cent).
More than half of private landlords unable to recover pet damage costs
R
esults from a recent ‘What’s the damage?’ online survey has shown that pet damage is extremely common in properties where
landlords rent to tenants with pets and the repair costs are difficult to recover. According to its findings, 85.3 per cent of
landlords and agents have experienced pet damage in rental properties, with dogs and cats the most likely pets to have caused damage to a landlord’s property. Damage caused by pets is very closely followed by
damage caused by adults, reported by 84.7 per cent of landlords with a further 54.9 per cent reporting damage caused by tenants’ children. Estimates of damage amounting to over £1,000 was the most common answer to the value of damage caused by both pets and adults. 57 per cent of landlords and agents said they were
unable to recover the costs of the damage caused by pets, while 29.7 per cent recovered costs from the standard rental deposit and 11.8 per cent recovered costs through a special pet deposit. Only 0.5 per cent were able to reclaim through an
insurance policy, although 65.5 per cent said this is the preferred solution to the problem of pet damage that would encourage more pet-friendly rentals. 45.9 per cent would like tenants to pay through the landlord for this insurance, while 19.6 per cent trust the tenant to hold this and claim themselves.
PETS IN LETS 30.5 per cent of landlords and agents said that they would prefer a separate pet deposit to be included as standard for lettings with pets. Finally, four per cent said that an additional element added to the standard deposit would encourage them to rent to
8 | HMMAugust/September 2022 |
www.housingmmonline.co.uk
people with pets. Te survey and research were undertaken as a joint project between lettings industry trade bodies Propertymark and the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) along with landlord website, LandlordZone and East Midlands-based pets charity AdvoCATS. It followed publication of the White Paper, A
fairer private rented sector, which has committed the Government to giving tenants ‘the right to
request a pet in their property, which the landlord must consider and cannot unreasonably refuse’. Te Government has also confirmed it will amend the Tenant Fees Act ‘so that landlords can request that their tenants buy pet insurance’. Te Heads for Tails! campaign is now seeking an
addition to the List of Permitted Payments within the Tenant Fees Act, to give a landlord the option to either request a financially capped pet deposit or to stipulate that pet damage insurance must be held by any tenant wanting to keep a pet or pets. Tis is backed by over 40 organisations and more than 40 MPs and Peers. James Wood, NRLA Policy Manager, said: “With
many landlords unable to recover damage caused by pets, it is no surprise that landlords generally prefer to let to tenants without pets. Particularly those with smaller portfolios who are not able to absorb the losses caused by damage. “If the Government is to increase the supply of
pet-friendly homes, then it is vital that landlords and agents have confidence they can recover the cost of repairs. Amending the Tenant Fees Act to permit pet insurance or pet deposits would provide this confidence and give tenants with pets more options in the private rented sector.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
