Housing affordability study: Findings report

6. Conclusions

Throughout the study, social housing and private rental tenants shared their views on definitions of affordable housing, experiences of housing stress and unaffordability, housing aspirations and acceptable standards of living. Discussions were interesting and insightful, with research participants offering thoughtful and valuable contributions to the study. Many participants were well-informed about the political context of housing affordability, and had strong opinions on the role of profit and private landlords in the housing sector, the impact of housing on health and wellbeing, and actions to make housing more affordable.

It was clear that many participants are struggling with the affordability of housing costs; in most cases, core bills are paid, but sacrifices are being made to make ends meet. Future-proofing was also an issue, with concerns that tenants may be able to cover their current housing costs and other essential outgoings, but have little or nothing left to save for the future, or to protect against potential adversity such as unexpected bills, redundancy or ill health.

Many factors were identified as contributing to a decent standard of living. A common theme was technical standards to ensure housing is safe and comfortable, for example, being wind- and water-tight and free from damp and mould. Participants also identified other, less tangible, factors that affect an individual’s standard of living, such as housing and financial security, living in a situation not detrimental to mental health, the importance of respectful neighbours and a peaceful, safe community.

The subjectivity and fluidity of housing affordability were emphasised; participants viewed particular situations as affordable for some households but not others, depending on their life stage, circumstances and geographic location. There was no clear consensus on the best measure or definition of housing affordability; participants described both positives and negatives of cost-to-income ratios, minimum income standards and residual income measures.

Some had their own suggestions for how best to define housing affordability, such as: linking housing affordability to minimum wage; a variation on the residual income measure which calculates how much money a household has per day to live on after subtracting housing costs; linking housing costs to profits to ensure landlords charge a reasonable rent; and a tiered or means-tested approach that recognises that different households require different cost-to-income ratios depending on their circumstances.

Few patterns or themes emerged among the views of those with shared characteristics; for example, there were no clear differences in views based on gender, age or family status. Generally, social tenants described more positive experiences of renting than private tenants; and older participants were less likely to express home ownership as a housing aspiration.

Ultimately, participants believed that a measure or definition of housing affordability must:

• Be clear, specific and relative to tenants’ everyday lives and finances. Participants generally preferred measures that can be applied to and measured against their own housing costs and financial circumstances, as opposed to vague or less precise definitions.
• Reflect the realities of the rental market. Tenants described some of the suggested housing affordability measures as aspirational or ‘only working in theory’. For example, they explained that the Scottish Government could set an official affordable housing cost-to-income ratio of 25%, but there may not be enough suitable properties on the market which meet this price point for renters.
• Emphasise fairness and dignity for tenants. Some felt it was important that the definition reflects the idea of tenants receiving ‘a fair deal’; i.e. being treated respectfully, living in housing with adequate standards, and not being exploited by landlords. This includes having enough money after rent to live a fulfilled life, with capacity to save for the future.
• Consider what is realistic, affordable and allows for ‘future-proofing’, especially for people living on benefits or the minimum or living wage.

Overall, this research has gathered valuable insights from tenants about their experience of rental housing in Scotland. We suggest the Scottish Government considers the research findings and participants’ suggestions in this report when developing a shared definition of housing affordability across Scotland.