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 3

The context 4

What we did? 6

Methodology 6

Our sample 7

Points to note 8

Results 9

Concluding Remarks 12

What this means? 12

What needs to happen? 12

Appendix 13

Table A1: Sample characteristics 13

Table A2: Comparison of our sample with VOA 14

Table A3: London rental properties under the SAR 15

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.

1 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 England’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 Government’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.

2 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-goods-and-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-shared-accommodation-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

8 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.

of property listings. This is the total sample of properties available on Rightmove at this point in time.

2. 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).

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Studio 1 2 3 4 5

No.

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 borough’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 borough’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

Studio apartments were the least affordable, largely because they don’t have a living room. We are

unsurprised that studio apartments were inaccessible to SAR claimants as one of the government’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%.

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

0

20

40

60

Studio 1 2 3 4 5

Sources: Homeless Link; Right move

%

Share of total properties

Range of affordability shares by borough

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.

11 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/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/claims-processing/local-housing-allowance/impact-of-changes.shtml

APPENDIX

Total

Afforda

ble Total

Afforda

ble Total

Afforda

ble

of

which: Total

Afforda

ble Total

Afforda

ble Total

Afforda

ble Total

Afforda

ble

DSS

Adapta

ble

living DSS

Adapta

ble

living DSS

Adapta

ble

living DSS

Adapta

ble

living DSS

Adapta

ble

living DSS

Adapta

ble

living DSS

Adapta

ble

living

Total 4128 13 0 0 15086 237 6 168 21018 1281 19 1230 10610 1169 41 1028 4527 588 11 461 1168 74 0 30 56537 3362 77 2917

Inner London Boroughs 2953 11 0 0 9730 89 2 65 11680 282 1 274 5898 319 2 296 2240 211 2 173 588 4 0 2 33089 916 7 810

Outer London Boroughs 1175 2 0 0 5356 148 4 103 9338 999 18 956 4712 850 39 732 2287 377 9 288 580 70 0 28 23448 2446 70 2107

Inner London Boroughs:

Camden 96 4 0 0 247 0 0 0 397 12 0 11 158 6 0 6 85 8 0 8 * * * * 983 30 0 25

City of London 44 0 0 0 191 0 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 235 0 0 0

Greenwich 32 0 0 0 259 29 2 25 532 25 1 24 188 44 0 44 69 11 1 10 * * * * 1080 109 4 103

Hackney 61 0 0 0 235 14 0 10 348 121 0 117 235 40 1 36 100 38 1 28 * * * * 979 213 2 191

Hammersmith & Fulham 218 3 0 0 477 5 0 5 785 69 0 67 339 23 0 22 214 22 0 20 * * * * 2033 122 0 114

Islington 131 0 0 0 934 3 0 0 1092 17 0 17 220 11 0 9 135 11 0 7 24 1 0 1 2536 43 0 34

Kensington & Chelsea 937 0 0 0 1552 0 0 0 2367 1 0 1 1160 0 0 0 368 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 6513 1 0 1

Lambeth 77 0 0 0 596 0 0 0 944 11 0 11 293 6 0 6 120 3 0 3 60 1 0 0 2090 21 0 20

Southwark 80 0 0 0 743 0 0 0 1159 1 0 1 300 6 0 6 120 2 0 1 22 0 0 0 2424 9 0 8

Tower Hamlets 495 1 0 0 1635 35 0 23 * * * * 743 165 1 149 0 89 0 72 * * * * 2873 290 1 244

Wandsworth 105 0 0 0 791 2 0 2 1279 1 0 1 * * * * 310 20 0 17 129 2 0 1 2614 25 0 21

Westminster 677 3 0 0 2070 1 0 0 2777 24 0 24 2262 18 0 18 719 7 0 7 224 0 0 0 8729 53 0 49

Outer London Boroughs:

Barking & Dagenham * * * * * * * * 173 103 6 98 122 84 18 76 25 0 0 0 * * * * 320 187 24 174

Barnet 156 0 0 0 * * * * 870 124 1 115 455 58 1 52 340 19 0 19 * * * * 1821 201 2 186

Bexley 3 0 0 0 * * * * 127 56 3 51 109 53 3 51 41 21 0 21 * * * * 280 130 6 123

Brent 107 0 0 0 229 13 1 11 427 60 0 58 * * * 0 101 19 0 14 * * * * 864 92 1 83

Bromley 14 0 0 0 155 24 0 24 321 138 0 134 817 48 0 46 74 15 0 15 * * * * 1381 225 0 219

Croydon 26 0 0 0 248 53 2 47 353 72 1 69 155 110 1 97 70 39 0 34 * * * * 852 274 4 247

Ealing 158 0 0 0 845 14 0 8 889 132 1 125 387 89 0 84 294 47 0 32 * * * * 2573 282 1 249

Enfield 80 0 0 0 276 9 0 4 406 80 3 79 237 100 10 92 121 66 7 62 * * * * 1120 255 20 237

Haringey 175 2 0 0 390 3 1 2 549 51 0 49 * * * * * * * * * * * * 1114 56 1 51

Harrow 29 0 0 0 156 1 0 1 246 20 1 20 173 31 0 28 92 18 0 11 26 7 0 2 722 77 1 62

Havering 5 0 0 0 73 2 0 0 130 20 0 20 111 30 2 26 37 7 0 5 21 9 0 3 377 68 2 54

Hillingdon 25 0 0 0 215 5 0 0 277 36 0 35 200 39 0 36 97 27 0 11 49 25 0 3 863 132 0 85

Hounslow 54 0 0 0 350 4 0 0 854 27 0 26 232 46 0 10 142 16 0 6 60 8 0 4 1692 101 0 46

Kingston upon Thames 29 0 0 0 116 2 0 0 164 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 73 1 0 1 49 0 0 0 539 3 0 1

Lewisham 86 0 0 0 391 16 0 5 454 30 1 28 182 38 2 21 59 22 1 10 20 2 0 1 1192 108 4 65

Merton 12 0 0 0 147 1 0 1 420 1 0 1 200 28 0 23 148 9 1 5 89 1 0 0 1016 40 1 30

Newham 58 0 0 0 724 0 0 0 1025 3 0 3 408 12 0 11 152 13 0 11 50 3 0 3 2417 31 0 28

Redbridge 32 0 0 0 399 1 0 0 520 14 1 14 286 32 0 29 135 12 0 10 50 4 0 2 1422 63 1 55

Richmond upon Thames 60 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 487 7 0 6 234 2 0 2 176 2 0 2 121 0 0 0 1319 11 0 10

Sutton 13 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 100 5 0 5 38 14 0 12 26 4 0 1 3 2 0 2 224 25 0 20

Waltham Forest 53 0 0 0 357 0 0 0 546 20 0 20 258 36 2 36 84 20 0 18 42 9 0 8 1340 85 2 82

* No listings on Rightmove

Source: Rightmove

of which: of which: of which: of which: of which: of which:

All

Table A1: Sample Characteristics5 BedroomStudio 1 Bedroom 2 bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

HL VOA HL/VOA HL VOA HL/VOA HL VOA HL/VOA HL VOA HL/VOA

Barking & Dagenham * - * * 148 * 173 255 0.68 122 183 0.67

Barnet 156 140 1.11 * 409 * 870 760 1.14 455 333 1.37

Bexley 3 22 0.14 * 152 * 127 258 0.49 109 171 0.64

Brent 107 147 0.73 229 289 0.79 427 528 0.81 * 235 *

Bromley 14 35 0.40 155 370 0.42 321 580 0.55 817 328 2.49

Camden 96 353 0.27 247 792 0.31 397 947 0.42 158 472 0.33

City of London 44 17 2.59 191 54 3.54 * 38 * * - *

Croydon 26 46 0.57 248 304 0.82 353 439 0.80 155 267 0.58

Ealing 158 303 0.52 845 685 1.23 889 1029 0.86 387 407 0.95

Enfield 80 86 0.93 276 197 1.40 406 382 1.06 237 192 1.23

Greenwich 32 30 1.07 259 244 1.06 532 402 1.32 188 180 1.04

Hackney 61 114 0.54 235 384 0.61 348 424 0.82 235 162 1.45

Hammersmith & Fulham 218 161 1.35 477 472 1.01 785 586 1.34 339 225 1.51

Haringey 175 190 0.92 390 363 1.07 549 367 1.50 * 101 *

Harrow 29 77 0.38 156 226 0.69 246 438 0.56 173 242 0.71

Havering 5 26 0.19 73 164 0.45 130 293 0.44 111 199 0.56

Hillingdon 25 198 0.13 215 483 0.45 277 682 0.41 200 504 0.40

Hounslow 54 177 0.31 350 499 0.70 854 745 1.15 232 406 0.57

Islington 131 189 0.69 934 853 1.09 1092 735 1.49 220 238 0.92

Kensington & Chelsea 937 179 5.23 1552 274 5.66 2367 328 7.22 1160 119 9.75

Kingston upon Thames 29 23 1.26 116 106 1.09 164 208 0.79 108 138 0.78

Lambeth 77 128 0.60 596 711 0.84 944 974 0.97 293 330 0.89

Lewisham 86 185 0.46 391 713 0.55 454 755 0.60 182 288 0.63

Merton 12 45 0.27 147 440 0.33 420 626 0.67 200 249 0.80

Newham 58 55 1.05 724 287 2.52 1025 279 3.67 408 137 2.98

Redbridge 32 43 0.74 399 386 1.03 520 500 1.04 286 285 1.00

Richmond upon Thames 60 102 0.59 241 355 0.68 487 611 0.80 234 277 0.84

Southwark 80 157 0.51 743 849 0.88 1159 1043 1.11 300 361 0.83

Sutton 13 40 0.33 44 143 0.31 100 224 0.45 38 79 0.48

Tower Hamlets 495 85 5.82 1635 482 3.39 * 535 * 743 156 4.76

Waltham Forest 53 87 0.61 357 402 0.89 546 571 0.96 258 233 1.11

Wandsworth 105 123 0.85 791 977 0.81 1279 1434 0.89 * 545 *

Westminster 677 289 2.34 2070 857 2.42 2777 851 3.26 2262 341 6.63

Total 4128 3852 1.07 15086 14070 1.07 21018 18827 1.12 10610 8383 1.27

Source: Rightmove; Valuation Office Agency

A cell is highlighted blue if Homeless Link's sample is at least half the size of the Valuation Office Agency's sample

Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed

Table A2: Comparison of our Sample Size with VOA

Without

adaptable

living room

With

adaptable

living room

Without

adaptable

living room

With

adaptable

living room

Without

adaptable

living room

With

adaptable

living room

Without

adaptable

living room

With

adaptable

living room

Without

adaptable

living room

With

adaptable

living room

Without

adaptable

living room

With

adaptable

living room

Without

adaptable

living room

With

adaptable

living room

Total 0.2 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 0.2 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

Outer London Boroughs 0.1 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

Inner London Boroughs:

Camden - - 96 - - 247 - 2.5^ 397 - 3.8 158 - 4.7 85 * * * - 2.0 983

City of London - - 44 - - 191 * * * * * * * * * * * * - - 235

Greenwich - - 32 1.5 11.2 259 - 4.5 532 8.0 23.4 188 10.1 15.9 69 * * * 2.4 10.0 1080

Hackney - - 61 1.7 6.0 235 0.3 30.7 348 5.1 16.2 235 15.0 36.0 100 * * * 3.3 19.9 979

Hammersmith & Fulham 1.4 1.4 218 - 1.0 477 0.3 8.8 785 - 6.5 339 5.1 10.3 214 * * * 0.8 6.0 2033

Islington - - 131 0.2 0.2 934 - 1.6 1092 0.9 5.0 220 3.0 6.7 135 - 4.2 24 0.3 1.6 2536

Kensington & Chelsea - - 937 - - 1552 - 0.0 2367 - - 1160 - - 368 - - 129 - 0.0 6513

Lambeth - - 77 - - 596 - 1.2 944 - 2.0 293 - 2.5 120 1.7 1.7 60 0.0 1.0 2090

Southwark - - 80 - - 743 - 0.1 1159 - 2.0 300 - 0.8 120 - - 22 - 0.3 2424

Tower Hamlets 0.2 0.2 495 0.7 2.1 1635 * * * 3.1 22.1 743 - - 0 * * * 1.3 7.0 2873

Wandsworth - - 105 - 0.3 791 - 0.1 1279 * * * 1.0 6.5 310 0.8 1.6 129 0.2 1.0 2614

Westminster 0.4 0.4 677 0.0 0.0 2070 - 0.9 2777 - 0.8 2262 0.1 1.0 719 - - 224 0.1 0.6 8729

Outer London Boroughs

Barking & Dagenham * * * * * * - 56.6 173 3.3 62.3 122 - - 25 * * * 1.3 54.4 320

Barnet - - 156 * * * 5.1 14.0 870 - 11.4 455 1.5 5.6 340 * * * 2.7 10.6 1821

Bexley - - 3 * * * - 36.2^ 127 13.8 46.8 109 29.3 51.2 41 * * * 9.6 42.1 280

Brent - - 107 0.9 5.7 229 - 13.6 427 * - * 6.9 17.8 101 * * * 1.0 10.3 864

Bromley - - 14 - 15.5^ 155 - 41.7 321 1.0 5.8 817 5.4 20.3 74 * * * 0.9 15.9 1381

Croydon - - 26 1.6 12.1 248 - 19.5 353 14.2 67.7 155 20.0 51.4 70 * * * 4.7 28.2 852

Ealing - - 158 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

Enfield - - 80 0.4 1.8 276 - 19.5 406 1.7 40.5 237 5.8 54.5 121 * * * 1.1 22.0 1120

Haringey 0.6 0.6 175 0.3 0.8 390 0.4 9.3 549 * * * * * * * * * 0.4 4.9 1114

Harrow - - 29 - 0.6 156 - 8.1 246 1.2 17.3 173 7.6 19.6 92 19.2 26.9 26 1.9 10.53 722

Havering - - 5 2.7^ 2.7^ 73 - 15.4^ 130 2.7 26.1 111 2.7 16.2 37 28.6 42.9 21 3.2 17.5 377

Hillingdon - - 25 2.3^ 2.3^ 215 0.4 13.0 277 1.5^ 19.5^ 200 16.5 27.8 97 44.9 51.0 49 5.4 15.3 863

Hounslow - - 54 1.1 1.1 350 0.1 3.2 854 10.3 14.7 232 7.0 11.3 142 6.7 13.3 60 2.5 5.3 1692

Kingston upon Thames - - 29 1.7 1.7 116 - - 164 - - 108 - 1.4 73 - - 49 0.4 0.6 539

Lewisham - - 86 2.6 3.8 391 - 6.2 454 8.2 19.8 182 18.6 30.5 59 5.0 10.0 20 3.1 8.3 1192

Merton - - 12 - - 147 - 0.2 420 2.5 10.5 200 2.7 5.4 148 - - 89 0.9 3.0 1016

Newham - - 58 - - 724 - 0.3 1025 0.2 2.9 408 1.3 7.9 152 - 6.0 50 0.1 1.2 2417

Redbridge - - 32 0.3 0.3 399 - 2.7 520 - 9.4 286 1.5 8.9 135 4.0 8.0 50 0.4 4.1 1422

Richmond upon Thames - - 60 - - 241 - 1.2 487 - 0.9 234 - 1.1 176 - - 121 - 0.8 1319

Sutton - - 13 - - 44 - 5.0^ 100 5.3^ 36.8^ 38 11.5 15.4 26 - 66.7 3 2.2 11.2 224

Waltham Forest - - 53 - - 357 - 3.7 546 - 14.0 258 2.4 23.8 84 2.4 21.4 42 0.2 6.3 1340

Colour key:

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

* Data for property type not listed on Right Move

Source: Homeless Link; Right Move

Share of total affordable:

Total

Affordability share > 30% 20% < Affordability share < 30%

Share of total affordable:

Total

Share of total affordable:

Total

Share of total affordable:

Total

Share of total affordable:

Total

Share of total affordable:

Total

Share of total affordable:

Total

Table A3: London Rental Properties Affordable Under the SAR

Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom All