University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk
04 University of Plymouth Research Theses 01 Research Theses Main Collection
1991 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS IN HOUSING PRIVATE TENANTS IN PLYMOUTH
WRIGHT, JOSEPHINE ANDREA http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/1903
University of Plymouth
All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS IN HOUSING
PRIVATE TCNANTS IN PLYMOUTH
JOSEPHINE ANDREA WRIGHT
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILICNT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNCIL FOR NATIONAL ACADEMIC AWARDS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTC» OF PHILOSCM'HY
POLYTECHNIC SOUTH WEST
DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES
OCTOBER 1991 PGLYTECHNiO SOUTHWEST LIBRARY SERVICES
1000 78906-jJ
JWlUIULLJ-lLJLli^ OPPORTUNITIES AM) C0NSTRAir4TS IN HOUSING PRIVATE THh4ANTS IN PLYMOUTH by Josephine Andrea Wright ABgTBACT
This thesis makes a contribution to research concerned with access to housing, but differs from the mainstream studies, both In Its use of an individualist approach to illuminate differential opportunity within the housing market, and in its focus on private tenants. Its main purpose is to seek explanations for the variations In the housing situations of different types of privately renting household In Plymouth. This is achieved through an examination of the households* financial and employment circumstances, and through an exploration of the constraints on choice which the households had experienced in the course of searching for accorrmodat ion. The work also examines the households' views on their ability to exercise choice over tenure, and their expectations as to future housing.
The vast majority of the households had low incomes, and renting privately had been seen as their only tenure option. Most were also very limited in their ability to choose accorrmodat i on within the private rented sector. Overall, the Plymouth survey found that constraints associated with the market (landlord discrimination, the cost and availability of property) were more important than individual factors (aspiration level, time to search, urgency of housing need and distance from search area), in determining the quality of thn acconmodation obtained. Discrimination was experienced by all types of household, but for the unemployed, and especially for families, it caused severe difficulties of access. It emerged as the most significant factor associated with the presence of such households in the worst quality housing. The higher Income households tended to occupy the larger, more self- contained accofTfnodat Ion, but income did not play a part in the quality of the housing obtained. The use of personal contacts %ras, however, highly important in easing access to the sector. With the exception of the pensioners. nearly all looked to alternative tenures for their future housing, and tenure expectations were associated with occupational and family status.
On the whole, the private rented sector was found to provide high cost, poor quality housing, and the realities of landlord/tenant relationships meant that most households felt they had little tenure security. Because of the problems Involved in addressing these concerns, and the Insurmountable problem of landlord discrimination, the study argues for a nuch greater emphasis;on social provision of rented housing. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I should like to acknowledge the assistance received from a nurrfcer of individuals and organisations during the preparation of this thesis. M/ thanks are due first to the people I interviewed, without whose co-operation this study could not have taken place. I am Indebted also to Ken Dean of the College of St Mark and St John, Plymouth, for his guidance In clarifying ideas at the start of this project. My thanks go also to David Armitt, formerly of Shelter, Plymouth; to Chris Sanchez and the other staff at Plymouth Rent Office, and to the staff of Plymouth City Housing and Environmental Health Departments, especially David Renwicki Phillip Doldge and Jim Davis, who went out of their way to provide Information. I should also like to thank my fellow researcher, Dr. Mark Hyde, for the many useful conversations and heartening advice. I am especially grateful to Dr. Ian Levitt, for his Invaluable supervision and continuous encouragement throughout the course of this project, and to Lyn Bryant, for her very helpful corrments, her enthusiasm and unstinting support. Finally, special thanks must go to my son Ian, for his consideration and patience, and to my husband, Tom, for all the cooking, cleaning, brow-mopping, dish-washing, proof-reading, cajoling, word-processing, child-rearing, sympathizing, listening, and more.
111 COMIENTS Page
Abstract 11 Acknowledgements iii Contents iv List of Tables vlii List of Figures xi Definitions xii
II^ROOUCTION
CHAPTER I: PERSPECTIVES ON ACCESS AM) HOUSING SlTUATICriS
1. 1 INTRODUCTION
1.2. TtC INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH 6 The neo-Marxist approach 8
1.3. THE IM)IV1DUALIST APPROACH 12 Research into reasons for moving 12 Research into housing searches 16
t. 4. T^C MOVEMENT PROCESS IN THE PRIVATE RENTED HOUSING SECTOR 24
CHAPTER 2: HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN COTfTEyr
2.1. INTRODUCTION 29
2.2. THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF PRIVATE RENTING 29 Housing opportunities in the late 1800s and early 1900s 30 Housing conditions 34 Rents and security of tenure 46 Housing benefits 57 The decline of the private rented sector 60
2.3. PRIVATE RENTING: THE PRESENT SITUATION 67 a) The.character of the private rented Bector 67 Privately renting households 67 Private tenants and their housing i) Legal situation 69 li) Housing conditions 71 iii) Housing costs 73 b) Access to lettings 78
2.4. HOUSING IN PLYMOUTH 84 Pressures for housing and the problem of land 84 Demand and access in the local housing market i) The owner-occupier sector 85 ii) The council sector 87 lti> Housing associations 90 iv) The private rented sector 92
iv CHAPTHR 3: RESEARCH METHODS
3.1. ir»n"ROOUCTION 97
3.2. THE DEFINITION OF 'HOUSEHOLD' Al^ Tit
SELECTION OF TfC HOUSHOLD GROUPS 97
3.3. SELECTION OF THE INTERVIEW SCfrCDULE TECWIQUE 101
3.4. DESIC3N OF T« IMTERVIEV SCHEDULE 107
3.5. SELECTION OF IHE SM^LS 112
3.6. THE PILOT SURVEY 117
3.7. FIELDWORK 119
3.8. DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS 122 3.9. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION AM> LENGTH OF RESIDENCE 125 The sanple cheracteristics 125 Length of residence 127 Footnotes 128
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING C0M)ITyC3NS
+.1. irfTROOUCTlON 129
4.2. PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE HOUSING 130
4.3. THE QUALITY OF THE HOUSING 134 Minimum standards for houses in multiple occupation 136 Space 138 Natural light 139 Artificial light 140 VentiIat ion 140 Personal washing facilities 141 Sanitary conveniences 142 Facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water (Kitchen facilities) 142 Heating 143 Refuse storage 144 Safety in case of fire 145 The satisfactoriness of housing 147
4.4. RESPOr^S TO HOUSING COM)ITIOre 149 Sharing 150 Landlords and repair problems 152 Repair and Improvements undertaken by households 156 Official help sought to deal with poor condit ions 159 Households' views on their general housing 162 condit ions CHAPTER 4: 4. 4. CONTINUED
Summary 163 Footnotes 166
CHAPTER 5: LEGAL AM) FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF T>C ACCOrtlODATICN
5. 1. INTRODUCTION 169
5.2. UEGAL ASPECTS OF THE ACCOMMCOATI ON Security of tenure and the private rented sub-sectors 173 Security of tenure and rent books 179 Rent, registration 180
5.3. HOUSING COSTS Services and service charges 182 Rent and rates 184 Deposits 187 Surrmary 191 Footnotes 193
CHAPTER 6: INCOME AM> EMPLOYMENT DIFFERENTIALS AND HOUSING SITUATIONS
6. 1. INTRODUCTION
6. 2. INCOME, WORKING SITUATION AM) OCCUPATIONAL STATUS Income 167 Working situations 202 Occupatlonal status 203
6. 3. INCOrC AND EMPLOYTCNT DIFFERENTIALS AND HOUSING SITUATIONS 206 SutriTBry 214 Footnotes 216
CHAPTER 7: THE TENANTS' HOUSING E)CPERIENCES AND THEIR FUTURE PLANS
7. 1. INTRODUCTION 219
7. 2. SITUATION WITHIN THE PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR 221
7. 3. SITUATION WITHIN PARTICULAR PRIVATE RENTHD ACCOrtiODATION 227 Reasons for moving 228 Aspirations over accotnrodation 230 Influences on aspirations 234 Use of information sources 236 Informal sources 236 Formal sources 238 Experiences on application 245 Feelings of choice over housing 255
Vi CHAPTER 7: 7.3. CONTIf^JED
Changing aspirations 258 Acceptance of vacancies 262 Housing searches and housing outcomes 265
7.4. HOUSEHOLDS' FUTURE PLANS AM) PERCEIVED PROSPECTS 277 Households' future plans 278 Applications for local authority housing 28t Tenure choice, expectations and preferences 283 Sutrmary 290 Footnotes 293
CHAPTER 8: SU»»1ARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1: INTRODUCTION 298
8. 2: ACCESS AM) OUTCOMES 299
8.3: sort POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 309 Footnotes 322
APPENDICES 323
Appendix A: Supplementary Tables 324 Appendix B: Chi-square Test Results 346 Appendix C: Definitions: Disrepair, Damp and hffiO Standards 355 Appendix D: Questionnaire 361
REFERENCES 390
VI L LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1: Household profile by tenure 65 2.2: Household profile by legal sub-sector 70 2.3: Self-containment, amenity provision and crowding by tenure and household type 73 2.4: Rent and rates by legal sub-sector 74 2.5: Rents, incomes and benefits by legal sub-sector 75 2.6: Rents, incomes and benefits by household type 75 2.7: Households renting privately in Plymouth: comparisons with other similarly sized non-metropolitan cities and with Greater London 92 2.8; Corrposition of households renting privately in Plymouth: comparisons with other cities 93 2.9: Housing conditions of households renting privately in Plymouth: comparisons with other cities 95 3. 1: Distribution of privately renting households in the seven central wards. Target proportion of households to be interviewed in each %#ard and actual proportion of households Interviewed 116 3.2: Pensioners, families and other households interviewed in each ward compared with 1981 distributions 117 3.3: Length of resdence by household group 127 4.1: Furnished and unfurnished acconmodatIon and nurrtoer of habitable rooms 131 4.2: Type of accofimodat Ion 132 4.3: Separateness of the households 133 4.4: State of repair of dwellings 135 4.5: Damp in acconnodation 136 4.6: Nurrber of standards met in HMO 137 4.7: Percentage of households whose accomnodatIon failed each HMO standard 138 4.8: Density of occupation 139 4.9: Safety in case of fire 146 4.10: SatIsfactorIness of dwelling 148 4.11: Households satisfactorily housed 149 4.12: Sharing and preferences 150 4.13: Households views on their landlords' responses to repair problems 152 4.14: Reasons for doing minor repairs 157 4. 15: Improvements and reasons for doing major repairs 158 4.16: Households seeking official help over repair problems 160 4.17: Views on general housing conditions by satlsfactoriness of dwelling 162 5. 1; The private rented sub-sectors 174 5.2: Provision of a rent book 179 5.3: Registered rents 181 5.4: Services 183 5.5; Rents of unfurnished and furnished acconuodat ion by number of rooms 185 5.6; Rents of different household types in accormiodatIon with similar atributes 185 5.7; Rents and housing quality 186 5.8: Deposits and the legal sub-sectors 188 5.9: Amount of deposit required 189
vl I i 5.10: Amount of deposit by size of accommodation 190 6.1: Households in or on the margins of poverty 198 6.2: Average Incomes 199 6.3: Dependency on benefits 201 6.4: Working situations 203 6.5: Occupational status 204 6.6: Rents and income 209 6.7: Rent as a proportion of Income 210 6.8: Median rents by proportion of income sp>ent on rent 211 7.1: Households' reasons for renting privately 222 7.2: Former owner-occupiers, local authority or housing association tenants 224 7.3: Reasons for moving from the owner-occupier, council and housing association sectors 224 7.4: Perceived degree of choice over housing tenure 226 7.5: Reasons for moving 229 7.6: Aspirations over accommodation 231 7.7: Aspirations over rent 233 7.8; Influences on aspirations 235 7.9: lypGS and sources of informal information pre-empting searches 237 7.10: Sources of information on vacancies used by the households 241 7.11: Success rate in the use of the information sources 241 7.12: Information source by which accomnodation found 241 7.13: Constraints on choice learned through formal non-specialist information sources. Ineligibility, price and supply constraints 244 7.14: Vacancies that were taken, unsuitable or unavailable by household group 246 7.15: Landlords' reasons for rejecting households 247 7.16: Influences on housing choice 251 7.17: Households' reasons for rejecting accormtodat ion 252 7.18: Perception of ability to 'pick and choose' in the search 256 7.19: Households reasons for changing their aspirations 258 7.20: Types of change 258 7.21: Comparison of households who changed their aspirations during the search with households who did not 260 7.22: Households' reasons for accepting vacancies 262 7.23: Households who were successful in meeting their original aspirations 263 7.24: Satisfactoriness of dwellings: recent movers 270 7.25: Households satisfactorily housed: recent movers 270 7.26: Housing outcomes: unsatisfactory dwellings 272 7.27: Housing outcomes: households unsatisfactorily housed 273 7.28: Households paying deposits 276 7.29: Households obtaining regulated periodic agreements 277 7.30: Households' future plans 278 7.31: Households who had registered for local authority accorrmodation 281 7.32: Perceived degree of choice over housing tenure 283 7.33: Expected tenure after two and six years 285 7.34: Occupational status and expectations of buying 286 7.35: Households' tenure preferences 288 7.36: Tenure preferences and expectations 288
IX APPEM)1X A: SUPPLE^gNTARY TABLES
A. 2. 1 Housing tenure in Plymouth; comparisons with other similarly sized non-metropolitan cities and with Greater London A. 2. 2: Population characteristics in Plymouth: comparisons with other similarly sized non-metropolitan cities and with Greater London A. 3. 1 Pensioners: household corrposition and sex by marital status A. 3.2: Single: sex by marital status A. 3. 3: Single: sex by age A. 3. 4: Students: sex by age A. 3. 5: Couples: age of respondent and partner A. 3. 6: Families; age of parents A. 3. 7: Families: age of children A. 4. 1 Number of storeys to the property A. 4. 2: Number of people in the property A. 4. 3: Space A. 4. 4: Artificial light A. 4.5: Ventilation A. 4. 6: Personal washing facilities A. 4. 7: Sanitary conveniences A. 4. 8: Kitchen facilities 4.9: Heating 4. 10: Refuse storage 5. 1 Households with written agreements 5.2: Services A. 5. 3: Rents and length of residence A. 5. 4: Working and non-working households: advance rent required A. 6. 1 Differences in the rents and characteristics of the accorrmodation occupied by 'higher' and 'lower' income households A. 6. 2: Median rent by proportion of Income spent on rent: furnished accommodation A. 6. 3: Median income by proportion of income spent on rent A. 6. 4: Dependency on benefits by proportion of income spent on rent A. 6.5: Occupational status and housing quality A. 7. 1: Reasons for moving from the owner-occupier, council and housing association sectors by household group A. 7.2 Household regroupings for examination of searches A. 7.3 Previous acconrnodation of moving households A. 7. 4 Previous acconmodatIon of households made homeless A. 7.5 Aspirations over security of tenure A. 7. 6 Aspirations over rent A. 7. 7 Aspirations over rent by working situation A. 7.8 Sources of information used by households moving within and into Plymouth A. 7. 9: Feelings on ability to 'pick and choose' in the search A. 7. 10 Reasons for changing aspirations by household group A. 7. 11 Types of change in aspirations by household group A. 7, 12 Households who were successful in meeting their original aspi rat ions A. 7. 1 3: Perceived degree of choice over tenure: changes A. 7. 14: Tenure expectations ^ere owner-occupation was prefered but not thought possible within six years A.7.15: Satisfaction with present housing and expectations of achieving ideal tenure within two years A. 7.16: Satisfaction with present housing and expectation of achieving ideal tenure within six years
APPENDIX B: CHI-SQUARE TEST RESULTS
B. 6. 1: Households spending two-fifths or mo of t hei r income on rent: dwelling size B.6. 2: Households spending two-fifths or of their income on rent: sharing B. 6. 3: Households spending two-fifths or of their income on rent: housing quality B.6. 4: Households spending two-fifths or of their income on rent: dwelling size (furnished) B. 6 5: Households spending two-fifths or of their income on rent: sharing (furnished) B. 6. 6: Households spending two-fifths or of their income on rent: housing quality (Furnished) B. 6. 7: of their income on rent: dependency on benefits B.6.8: Wbrking situation and housing quality (unsatisfactory dwellings) B.6.9: Ubrklng situation and housing quality (households unsatisfactorily housed) B. 7. 1: Households needing accorrmodation urgently or within two weeks and proximity to search area B. 7. 2: Aspirations and refusals of accorrmodation B.7.3: Ubrklng situation, family status and housing quality (unsatisfactory dwellings) B.7.4: Discrimination and housing quality (unsatisfactory dwellings) B.7.5: Time to search and housing quality (unsatisfactory dwellings) B.7.6: Time to search (households with high aspirations) and housing quality (unsatisfactory dwellings) B.7.7: Proximity to search area and housing quality (Unsatisfactory cK/el lings) B.7.8: Family status and housing quality (households unsatisfactorily housed) B.7.9: Working situation, family status and housing quality (households unsatisfactorily housed) B.7.10; Discrimination and housing quality (households unsatisfactorily housed) B.7.11: Homeless households and housing quality (households unsatisfactorily housed) B.7.12: Information source and deposits B.7.13: Working situation and deposits B.7.14: Information source and letting agreement B. 7. 15: Wbrking situation and letting agreefnent B. 7. 16: Occup>at ional status and plans to buy B.7.17: Dwelling quality and satisfaction
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1: The movement process in the private rented sector
xi PefInitlQns
In this work, 'private rented sector' excludes rent-free lettings, accoiTfnodatlon with employment or a business, housing association and housing trust rentals. The term 'tenant' Includes licensees, and ' landlord' includes landladies; both are used for the sake of brevity.
XI I INTRODUCTION
This thesis is concerned with investigating the housing opportunities of private tenants. It focuses on the housing circumstances of different types of household privately renting In Plymouth and examines these in relation to findings from an exploration of the constraints on choice which the households had experienced in the process of searching for accomnodat ion. In this, special consideration is given to the role of landlords' selection preferences in restricting households' access to accorrmodat ion. In addition, the views of the households on their ability to have selected an alternative tenure when they moved into their accoirmodation and to gain access In the future to other types of housing are examined.
The present work owes its approach to research undertaken during the past two decades which has shown that, where pow«r is unequally distributed, 'constraint' rather than 'choice' is a more appropriate viewpoint from vi^lch to understand housing situations. This perspective Is based on the contention that the policies of institutions controlling property resources and, as many researchers have stressed, the whole structure of the society within which the Institutions operate, shape individual housing opportunities so that people have differing degrees of access to housing. To date, empirical work adopting this viewpoint has been dominated by 'institutional' studies, which have Investigated the practices of agencies involved in the housing market. Such work has provided many insights Into how housing Inequalities are produced and sustained, and came as an iirportant corrective to previous studies which had focused on individual decision-making over housing and had, iirpllcitly or explicitly, seen residential differentiation as the product of aggregate individual preferences. However, advocates of the constraint perspective have almost universally rejected any approach which places the individual at the centre of analysis, as If an individualist approach were by definition Inseparable from a choice explanation of housing situations. This Is regrettable since it has resulted in a failure to relate Individual circumstances and experiences to the constraints Irrposed. Yet it is only at the level of the individual household that the inpact of constraints such as dlscrlnlnatlon can be fully appreciated. An approach «4hich focuses solely on the policies of those controlling access or on the structure and organisation of the housing market might identify disadvantaged groups, but would be unable to assess % The approach is especially fruitful for examining - 2 discrimination in the private rented housing market. Whereas both the formal and informal allocation policies of, for example, local authority housing managers are fairly accessible to researchers (and consequently have been the subject of a plethora of institutional studies), investigation of letting policies in the private rented sector is much more problematic. There is a multiplicity of Landlords, factors and letting agents controlling access to private lets and the majority of landlords have very few holdings and can be hard to locate. Further, unlike the property 'gatekeepers' in estate agencies, building societies and local authorities, who are answerable to the wider organisation and to a greater or lesser degree to the public, landlords are free to let to whom they wish, have no formal policies or codes of practice (except in the case of some of the larger property companies), and are under no obligation to divulge their preferences or prejudices to anyone. Thus investigation of households' experiences in their search is likely to reveal more about landlords' selection policies than direct inquiry. Probably as a result of the research problems, the role of landlords as controllers of access to p>rivate rented housing has received very little attention. In the few studies that have considered the question it has been found that landlords mainly prefer students and enployed single people or young, childless married couples (Short, 1979; Harloe et al. , 1974; Paley, 1978). This seems to be the general picture since ' Accomnodat ion to Let* advertisements in local and national newspapers show that families with children and the unemployed tend to be disfavoured. Also, that there is widespread discrimination against ethnic minorities has been demonstrated by a nurTt>er of studies (see, eg. Daniels, 1968; Burney, 1967; Fenton arxj Col lard, 1977; Smith, 1989). It is clear from the available evidence that collectively, landlords' selection policies place certain sections of the population at a competitive disadvantage. But the relative positions of different groups in the competition for private lets and the implications of discrimination in terms of the type of housing and letting arrangement obtained, is much less well understood. The present study, therefore, breaks new ground in two main respects. It is the first British study to examine the constraints 3 - on choice facing different types of household seeking private rented accofrmodat ion and to do so by focusing on the experiences of the househotds concerned, and it is the first study to evaluate the effect of market constraints on different households through detailed Investigation of their housing circumstances. Work aiming to shed light on these issues is especially lirportant In view of the 'last resort' function the private rented sector has for households who are unable to buy and are not eligible for council housing. Furthernxjre, since 1979 the policy of successive Conservative governments has been to place a much greater reliance on private interests for the provision of rented housing. As part of this policy, one major development aimed at reviving the private rented sector has been the removal of rent restrictions on new private lettlngs; rent controls being viewed as a significant factor in the sector's persistent decline. This means that accessibility to, and ability to pay for private lettings are becoming more significant concerns. At present there continues to be many more households seeking private rented accoamodat1 on than there Is accomnodat ion available. The effect of governmental housing policy could be sinpty to change the characteristics of the supply of private rented housing, rather than increase the overall amount. Even If there Is some reversal of the decline, demand is unlikely to decrease now the local authority sector is contracting. It is also questionable whether any boost In supply would mean a widening of opportunities for all the different groups who seek private rentals. Thus the need for enpirical work seeking to clarify the present nature of opportunities and constraints for private tenants appears more pertinent. The opening chapters provide the relevant background to the Plymouth study. Chapter One outlines the academic context and discusses the approach employed in the present work to examine the constraints on choice faced by households seeking private rented lettings. In Chapter Two, the way in which the character and role of the private rented sector have changed during this century is explored, and the present character of private renting and the nature of access to the sector are outlined. The chapter concludes with an examination of demand and access in Plymouth's housing market. The research design, its operationaiisation and the methods used for analysis of the data form the subjects of Chapter Three. Special attention Is given to the rationale behind the selection of particular household groups for Inclusion In the sample, and to the reasons for the use of the survey interview method. The four subsequent chapters present the research findings. Throughout, the concern Is with a comparative analysis of the situations and experiences of the different household groups. Chapters Four and Five concentrate on the housing that was obtained; firstly with regard to physical characteristics and quality (Chapter Four), and secondly, to legal and financial aspects (Chapter Five). These two chapters form the basis for the analyses in Chapters Six and Seven, which focus on the factors that might have a bearing on the households' different situations within the private rented sector. Chapter Six examines the extent to U>ich differentials in Income, working situation and occupational status account for variations In the type of accomnodat ion obtained. (^tapter Seven examines why the households were privately renting, and then considers the households' experiences during their search for acconmodation. This mrk identifies the constraints on choice that appeared in the course of the searches and investigates the households* views on their opportunities, and their responses to perceived or encountered constraints. Following this, the statistical associations between the main constraining factors Identified and housing outcomes are explored. The chapter ends by considering the households' future housing plans, their preferences and their expectations. Chapter Eight, In taking a synoptic approach, summarizes the research findings and re-evaluates the approach employed for the Investigation, and also appraises, in the light of the survey findings, recent policy developments. CHAPTHR qsE: PERSPECTIVES ON ACCESS AND HOUSING SITUATION 1.1. IhfTRODUCTlON This chapter portrays the academic background to the approach employed in the present study. The theoretical underpinnings and development of the institutional approach are outlined, then the work considers the neo-Marxist approach which has constituted the main theoretical challenge to institution based accounts. This first part of the chapter ends with an examination of some of the shortcomings of neo-Marxist and institutional work. The second section reviews studies that have used an individualist approach to understand housing situations. This work has focused on residential mobility and has explored the reasons prompting households to move end household decision-making in the process of searching for accorrmodation. The approach provides the foundation for the analytical framework used in the present study, but, as most of the work has been choice oriented, the review is necessarily selective and concentrates on studies which have taken constraints on choice into account. This work is used to inform the concluding section, which considers the movement process for households seeking to rent in the private sector. Discussion is centred around a model designed to enable study of factors which influence household choice. 1.2. THE INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH The pathbreaking work on access and the policies of housing managers was Rex and Moore's book on Sparkbrook, Birmingham <1967). Rex and Moore were concerned to Investigate the problem of race relations and explain the 'deterioration' of once desirable residential areas in the city. Their research led them to conclude that the housing problem was not in itself due to the influx of coloured immigrants, but resulted from a process of 'discriminative and de facto segregation which compelled people to live In certain typical conditions' (p. 20). The crux of the Irmilgrant housing problem was considered to be the allocation policy of the local - 6 authority, wrfhich required a five year waiting period before acceptance on the housing register. I ami grants waiting to qualify were obliged to seek alternative accanmodatI on which, as a result of racial prejudice, was mainly provided by poor quality lodging houses In the 'twilight zones* of the city. To put their findings In a sociological context, Rex and Moore turned to the work of Max Weber. tfeber defined class in terms of differential Life chances determined by the market capacity of the Individual; market capacity relating to such factors as skills, edkjcatlon, status and property. Accordingly, as Rex and Mcxire argued, class struggle could emerge 'wherever people in a market situation enjoyed differential access to property'. This class struggle over the use of houses, they suggested, was the 'central process of the city as a social unit* strategy would be to examine the goals, values and ideologies of tJiost who controlled or manipulated resources. These managers, he suggested, were the 'independent' variable, and the constraints, t>ie • dependent' (p. 210). Pahl's work, and that of Rex and Hoore, were important stimuli to research into institutions in the housing market. Studies include those on estate agents (Hatch, 1973; Williams, 1976), building society managers (Ford, 1975; Boddy, 1976) and local authority housing managers (Gray, 1976; Phillips and Williams, 1982). A number of studies have also focused on private landlords (eg. Elliot and McCrone, 1975; Housing Monitoring Team, 1980; Crook and Bryant, 1982); although the emphasis in these has been on such matters as investment policies and attitudes to legislation, rather than on selection policies (see Chapter Two). The neo-Marxlst approach The deficiencies of the ' managerial ist' perspective were soon recognised (Gouldner, 1975; Morman, 1975; Duncan, 1975; Williams, 1978). Concentration on the policies of housing officials could Lead to an over est i mat ion of their powers and a neglect of the constraints within which they operated. Pahl was led to revise his original view of urban managers as the 'independent' variable (1975; pp.265-287). Although still considering the emphasis on local gatekeepers to be valid, Pahl accepted that they were only 'middle dogs' and noted the dangers if work ignored the 'constraints of capitalism' and attention became 'shifted from the main source of Inequality in society, namely the field of production' (p. 275). Pahl's reformulation of his concept was greatly influenced by theoretical developments that had taken place in urban sociology. Hitherto, mainstream investigations had been implicitly or explicitly positivistic in their outlook, uncritical of existing political institutions and the dominant social order. Rex and Moore had mounted a Ueberian critique of the positlvist orthodoxy, but neo- (or structural) Marxism, (which drew on Althusser's interpretation of Marx), provided the main challenge. Harvey (1973; 1975) and Castells (1976; 1977) who were the chief exponents of the approach, argued that the nature of supply and allocation of housing should be understood as deriving from the capitalist mode of production and the struggle between the two primary classes of capital and labour. - 8 This view Is exemplified by Harvey's essay on residential differentiation (1975). According to Harvey, this is 'produced, In Its broad lineaments at least by forces emanating from the capitalist production F>rocess' (p. 368). The primary force is seen as arising out of the power relations between capital and Labour. In addition there are a variety of secondary forces ^ich arise 'out of the contradictory and evolutionary character of capitalism'. They Include the division of labour; consumption patterns and lifestyles; authority relations (developers, landlords and real estate brokers 'backed by the power of financial and governmental Institutions' (p. 365)) and manipulated projections of Ideological and political consciousness by capital Cwhlch seeks to draw social distinctions along lines other than that between capital and labour). As a result, residential differentiation is so structured as to 'facilitate the reproduction of the social relations of capitalism... 'comnunity consciousness' rather than 'class consciousness' in the Marxian sense is dominant in the capitalist city' (p. 367). The dissemination of the neo-Marxist perspective in the early nlneteen-seventles made an Important contribution to housing studies. Although Weberians such as Elliot and McCrone (1982) and Saunders <1979) disagreed that all features of social differentiation were In some way consequent upon the capitalist mode of production, stressing instead the politically contingent character of economic development, the Input of neo-Marxist thought prompted investigation of the social processes underlying such issues as managerlalIsm. It Is clear that to understand the policies, values and ideologies of the agencies responsible for allocating resources, attention needs to be focused on wider influences at the societal level. The discussion of access to private lettings in Chapter Two illustrates the case, since It shov/s that different landlords with different motivations discriminate against much the same people, so that Identifiable groups are disadvantaged. This cannot be attributed to such factors as governmental legislation directed at the private rented sector or simply to the peculiarities of British society, because much the same patterns of disadvantage prevail elsewhere, both for households seeking private rented housing in 9 - other countries 10 preferences (Chapter Two, Section 2.3), there are evidently stark differences In opportunity between the employed and the unemployed, households with children and households without, and students and other households. These 'situations' may not be static, an unemployed person might find work, for instance; nor are the differences in opportunity necessarily unrelated to, or Independent of class position. But they are highly important in the context of the private rented housing market and could lead to marked variations in housing outcomes. Affecting households' opportunities are Ukely to be notions of social prestige (Hoggart, 1957; Roberts, 1971) and prospective tenants will be subject to assessments of their apparent 'respectability' or ' dlsreputabiIIty' (Matza, 1967; Douglas, 1970; Henderson and Karn, 1987). For example, students, like the unerrf)Ioyed, are inactive economically, and many (at the time of the research) rely on housing benefit to pay the rent. But generally students are, or are perceived to be, middle class, by definition respectable (Henderson and Karn, 1987; p. 278) and upwardly mobile, and this, beyond landlords' anxieties about duration of residence, could Influence selection. Another shortcoming In neo-Marxlst work is that little attention has been given to the part played by the Individual. At its crudest, the assurrption has been that the individual is virtually helpless In the face of structural forces (see eg. Castells, 1976, p. 78). Consequently there has been a failure to examine the way In which Individuals interpret their position and how they respond to, and deal with the constraints of the housing system. Growing dissatisfaction with this deterministic element in neo-Marxist literature has led recently to a revival of Interest in Individual-based research, and use has been made of a variety of quantitative and qualitative techniques to Investigate the experiences and situations of the consumers of housing (Clapham and Kintrea, 1985; Franklin, 1990; Forrest and Murle, 1987; Munro and Smith, 1989). As yet, however, many Issues remain to be explored. The institutional approach, too, has failed to give adequate attention to the role of the Individual household. But, with Its concentration on the policies of those controlling access to accorrmodatlon, It is inherently insensitive to the responses of households and to constraints on choice which occur outside of the 11 institutional context. As has been argued, an approach which places the Individual at the centre of the analysis can shed tight on the role and importance of the many Influences on housing opportunities. A substantial body of individual-based research exists which can Inform such work and this literature will be examined next. 1,3. JW INDIVypUAHgT APPPQACH The individualist approach to understanding housing situations is one of focusing on the household movement process. Residential mobility has attracted attention from a variety of fields Including psychology, economics and sociology, but the subject area has t>een most developed by 'behavioural' geographers who take the view that by the examination of household declsion-fraking during their search for acconmodat ion, it is possible to find explanations for residential differentiation. As noted, this view has drawn criticism because it places the errphasls on Individual preferences and choices in housing outcomes (see, eg. Gray, 1975). Whilst it is agreed that housing situations are better seen in terms of constraints, the individualist approach, if modified to give more attention to household experiences rather than emphasizing decisions, has much to offer. In particular, the basic analytical framework that has been developed enables study of constraints on choice at the Interface, that is, at the point of contact with the individual household. Also, not all the work on residential mobility has neglected constraints on action and a number of themes and concepts have been discussed which are useful to the present study. In the research there have been two main areas of interest: the reasons prompting households to move, and household decision• making in the search for a new home. Research into Reasons for Moving. Rossi's investigation Into why people move marks the seminal work In this field. He considered residential mobility to be 'the 12 process by which families adjust their housing to the needs that are generated by shifts In family composition that accompany life cycle changes' (Rossi, J 980; p. 61). Further surveys have produced confirmatory evidence that factors related to life cycle changes account for a significant number of moves (e.g. Herbert 1973) and subsequently much work has been devoted to refining and developing the life cycle explanation (e.g. Abu-Lughod and Foley, 1960; Stapleton, 1980). In general, the work has ignored constraints on action. Recently however, the Importance of Income and wealth has been acknowledged and these factors incorporated Into analyses. Doling, for example, pointed out that whereas a change In family circumstances provides the incentive for moving, demand 'is only fufllled by the means which wealth provides' (Doling, 1976; p.57). Doling's proposition that moves by owiers to more expensive dwellings within the sector were more to do with capital gains than with increasing housing needs due to changes in family composition, has been supported by other writers (Coupe and Morgan, 1981; McLeod and Ellis, 1982). In fact, when other factors related to financial resources are taken Into account family life cycle has been shown to be of residual importance as a predictor of moves from renting to buying (Kendlg, 1984; p. 272). On this subject, Payne and Payne have argued that the expense entailed in child rearing severely reduces opportunities to enter the owner-occupier sector and that this helps explain the diversity of housing achievement amongst households at the same stage of the life cycle (1977). Apart from the family life cycle, social mobility expectations (Leslie and Richardson, 1961) and life style seeking (Bell, 1958; Moore, 1972) have also been advanced as explanations for why people move. But these are distlctly middle-class orientated explanations and Ignore low Income households with restricted social mobility or who cannot persue desired life styles. Indeed, most work on residential mobility has concentrated on moves made within the owner-occupier sector and has focused on middle and high income households who have more freedom of choice. The neglect of other sectors and tow income groups are important omissions and in considering why people were privately renting and why they had moved from their previous accommodation, the Plymouth study seeks to 13 address the Imbalance In the research. An alternative approach In the work has been to place the decision to move within a general conceptual framework. Brown and Moore (1970) have been Influential In this respect. They proposed that the decision whether or not to move could be encapsulated by the notion of 'stress' generated by the disparity between the household's needs, aspirations and expectations and the quality of the present home and neighbourhood. This model has been found useful for the examination of any particular move, but, as Mlchelson points out, is inadequate when It comes to explaining why households go on moving (1980). Mlchelson concurs with Morris and Winter's view that mobility behaviour Is orientated toward the achievement of culturally prescribed Ideals In housing (1978; cited In Mlchelson, 1980; p. 86), and argues that people's 'view of moves and housing Is predicated on where they stand In an overall process of Intended mobility, together with the possibility of approximating what they consider their Ideal' (1960; p. 86). Mlchetson suggests that there are three stages In residential mobility: the 'baseline' stage, which is families' first homes or the first In a new area and In which homes are chosen on relatively simple criteria; the •Incremental' stage, which Is when families 'fine tune' their housing but do not achieve their ultimate wishes; and the 'approximation of the Ideal' stage, not always reached, when families 'emphasize their most strongly held criteria even though they might compromise other criteria they had previously employed'. This scheme Is pertinent not only because, as Mlchelson says, mobility is viewed 'as a cycle not tied directly to demographic change or dissatisfaction (and so] helps to explain why the same family may utilize apparently different criteria for housing choice at different times', but also because It places household mobility firmly within a social context. Michelson's conceptualisation also helps explain use of the private rented sector. Many moving into the sector may be at a 'baseline' stage. Certainly, evidence suggests the majority of such moves comprise people setting up home for the first time (Murie, 1983; p. 152; OPCS, 1983; p, 4), whilst the 'easy access' nature of the sector (at least in comparison with the other sectors) attracts people moving into a new area for work or to attend college (OPCS, 1983; p. 4). Moves within the sector, - 14 excepting those resulting from evictions, will clearly involve some 'incremental' moves, ie. moves to upgrade on present accommodation (OPCS, 1983; p. 5). Moves into and then within the owner-occupier sector similarly fit within the scheme, although in view of the social merit attached to buying In present day Britain, aside from the financial inducements, for many this sector will be perceived to be the only one permitting 'approximation of the ideal'. The 'ideal' for households currently privately renting will be examined in the present study, as well as the households' expectations and perceptions of their ability to achieve their ideals. With the focus on decision-making, behaviouralist work on residential mobility has necessarily been directed towards situations where decisions can be made. Studies categorizing reasons for moving recognised that In some cases rr>oves were forced upon households, for example because of evictions or property demolitions (e.g. Clark and Onaka 1963; Short, 1978), but most attention has been given to detailing and describing types of voluntary moves. However, forced moves, as defined above, can comprise a significant proportion of the total number of moves in the private rented sector. A survey of households moving in 1976 showed that, whereas \2% of all 'continuing housewives' had been forced to move from their previous accommodation, 20% of those who had previously been privately renting (and now were in the local authority, owner-occupier or private rented sectors) had been forced to move (OPCS, 1983; p. 5>. Research indicates that involuntary movers are far more Likely to be unhappy with their new surroundings CMichelson, 1980; p. 84). Recent policy developments with regard to security of tenure in the private rented sector suggest that the proportion of tenants moving for Involuntary reasons may substantially Increase (see Chapter Eight). Conversely, sorT>e households may find their mobility blocked, either because of inadequate financial resources or tenure constraints, the latter particularly affecting Local authority tenants (Kirby, 1973; Bird, 1976). Michelson (1980) has stressed the importance for giving hope and direction of the belief that the ideal can be achieved, and, using survey data on Toronto, has shown that satisfaction with housing related to perceived ability to achieve an ideal. A proportion of tenants, despite the fact private 15 renting is generally seen as a stepping stone to other tenures, are undoubtably trapped in the sector. The present study will therefore be concerned to identify such households and to investigate the relationships between housing satisfaction and future expectations and also satisfaction and housing conditions. Reseffr<:h intp Housing ^eargh^s Studies of housing searches normally divide the process into three stages; the identification of housing aspirations, the actual search, and the final choice of dwelling. It Is clear that households' Initial aspirations are Important to housing outcomes and a number of studies have investigated these with respect to the type and location of dwelling sought (Troy, 1973; Herbert, 1973). In general, the criteria have been found to relate to Income and to rr>otlvatlons for moving (in the case of voluntary movers), the relative importance of location, cost, dwelling and neighbourhood characteristics also varying according to the socio-economic status of the household. These studies have mainly been descriptive and have considered only indirectly the factors that serve to limit choice. Taking a broader view, Clapham and Kintrea <1984.) have pointed out that housing preferences will be Influenced by such factors as the nature of the stock; certain house types and residential areas being closely associated with particular tenures, for example, and that tenure preferences will be influenced by societal attitudes and by the relative financial and other advantages associated with different tenures 16 for accommodation, too, will have an effect on the criteria, homeless households being rtiore willing to accept any property (Clapham and Kintrea, 1964; p. 268); and so will the household's intentions, 'baseline' residences (eg. accommodation seen as temporary) being chosen on a few, basic grounds, such as nearness to work (Mlchelson, 1980). Thus housing aspirations are not a matter of simple 'preferences', they are structured by the household's personal and social situation and are subject to a variety of internal and external constraints. Most work on the actual search process has been undertaken within a behavioural geography or economic framework, and has focused on the search procedures and strategies used by different households. In studies adopting a geographical approach, the role of constraints in a household's search have not been of interest. The concern has been to explore spatial bias in searches and studies have examined either the socio-spatial sorting of households through differential use of Information sources (e.g. Rossi, 1980; Gans, 1961; Herbert. 1973) or the relationship between a household's 'awareness space' (that is, the urban areas with which the household is familiar) and the household's eventual location (e.g. Adams, 1969; Brown and Moore, 1970; Herbert, 1973; Brown and Holmes, 1971; Barrett, 1973). Research concerned with economic aspects, whether for academic or practical purposes, have examined the efficiency of searches. Some of the work has considered constraints on action such as racial discrimination, poor local knowledge, lack of transportation facilities etc.. But with the emphasis on efficiency these constraints have tended to be regarded as 'nuisance' elements disrupting theoretical patterns of behaviour, or, in studies having a policy concern, as individual or minority group problems that can be addressed by, for example. Improving legal advice and information flows or by providing moving grants (see e.g. Clark and Smith, 1980; Weisbrod and Vidal, 1981) rather than as a social problem with roots in the values and organisation of society and perhaps requiring more radical intervention to effect real change. Nevertheless, this work has identified some of the constraints that can be encountered in searching and which can directly or Indirectly affect choice over housing, and a few studies have explored their import for different groups of household and (to a limited extent) their effect on 17 housing outcomes. One notable study was carried out by Welsbrod and Vldal (1981) as part of an evaLuatton of the American 'Housing Allowance Demand Experiment'. Weisbrod and Vldal were Interested in the role of various problems influencing mobiLity among low Income renters. Two types of problem were Identified; those that raised the cost of searching or gathering information, and those that explicitly limited the choice of housing units or locations available to households. Factors conceptualised as raising search costs included lack of knowledge about where to search, lack of transportation and lack of child care facilities. Factors limiting housing choice included financial constraints, discrimination and the housing quality standards of rent assistance programmes. In reality, the distinction between the two types of 'search barriers' is not so clear, discrimination could have an impact on a household's search costs, for example, and lack of transport could place limitations on the area of search and thus on housing choice. Having identified the types of search barriers, Welsbrod and Vldal went on to examine their reported Incidence amongst households searching for accommodation In Pittsburgh, which had a relatively tight rental housing market, and in Phoenix, which had a more plentiful housing supply. Difficulty in knowing where to search and transportation problems affected upwards of one-fifth of households in both cities, but the main search barrier was discrimination, encountered by 56% of households In Pittsburgh and 32% In Phoenix. Discrimination against households with children and welfare recipients emerged as most significant, racial or ethnic discrimination being less Important, although many of the minority households reported they had avoided some neighbourhoods because they expected rejection. Discrimination on the basis of age, sex and marital status was also encountered, and mainly affected household with heads who were aged under 30, female or unmarried. Discrimination was less Intense In Phoenix than In Pittsburgh, but took the same form In both cities, suggesting that whilst a greater supply of housing might reduce the Incidence of discrimination it would not change its nature. Interestingly, the main type of discrimination was the same in Phoenix as in Pittsburgh - against households with children - despite the fact that such is 18 - specifically prohibited by law in Arizona but not In Pennsylvania. Weisbrod and Vidal did not pursue their analysis to examine the effect of search barriers on housing outcomes, but they did examine their effect on search effort and mobility. Financial constraints and discrimination were found to be associated with a greater number of dwelling units looked at, but only financial difficulty had any significant depressant effect on moving rates. The effect of search barriers and search effort on housing outcomes. In terms of households' housing costs has been examined by McCarthy in several studies on the Housing Allowance Demand Experiment (1979; 1980; 1962). This time survey data from Brown County, Wisconsin and St. Joseph County, Indiana was used. McCarthy (1979) determined the expected price of a rented unit using a price equation estimated by previous work and calculated the differences between the expected price and the actual amounts required. The findings were then regressed against a vector of search and household variables. The results indicated that renters encountering problems of discrimination during their searches tended to pay extra for the unit ultimately selected. Contrary to expectations, search effort was found not to yield housing bargains. Associated with discount units were single persons, young households and, most significantly, households who had used personal contacts to obtain accomnodat ion - these on average received a 4% monthly discount in St. Joseph County and a 6% monthly discount in Brown County. Evidence from a survey of landlords conducted in St. Joseph County showed that households using 'inside Information' could also benefit financially In other ways. The survey revealed that landlords who relied on referrals were substantially less likely to require deposits than landlords who used formal sources to fill vacancies (McCarthy 1982). This ted McCarthy to argue: 'for renters, whom you know appears more important than how hard you search in determining the outcome of the process'(1982; p.5l). In fact, the Milner Holland CorTmittee, studying housing conditions in the private rented sector in London, had some years earlier noted the Importance of 'inside Information' (1965). The Committee found that those groups lacking local networks of Information and support, in particular the mobile and recent immigrants, tended to be associated with the worst housing conditions. In addition, the 19 - Conmittee showed that the cheapest housing was rarely publicly advertised, such tenancies changing hands privately amongst friends and relatives. Aside from the studies on the Housing Allowance Defnand Experiment, most research considering search barriers has investigated one particular type of problem^ The role of racial discrimination has been of especial Interest In American work. Recently, theoretical models Incorporating seller/landlord prejudice have been developed (Courant, 1976; Cronin, 1962) which Imply that minority households would have more costly searches and would receive housing on relatively unfavourable terms. Empirical research has lent 8upp>ort to these propositions, Lake (1960), for exan^le, discovered that the housing searches of black home buyers In New Jersey had been more costly and took more time than that of white home buyers, v^llst Cronin (1962) found that minority households in Phoenix and Pittsburgh tended to have higher search costs and were associated with less optimal dwelling units. Since the households had engaged In 'rational' search behaviour, the findings have wider Implications for the effects of discrimination; as both Courant and Cronin have pointed out, they show the Idea that equity can be obtained by 'self-correcting' market forces may well be erroneous. British work has also shown that minority households tend to obtain housing on less favourable terms. Fenton and Col lard, for example, showed that black households In London paid more for unfurnished (ettings than %rfhite households. This they put down to the local monopoly power of the white landlords <1977). Apart from this and other irrportant studies of racial discrimination (eg. Daniels, 1966; Smith, 1977), British Individualist work on search constraints is much less well developed. The studies have mainly been confined to the local authority sector and to the link between choice, time to search (or wait) and economic power (eg. English, 1979; Clapham and Klntrea, 1985), but the role of certain search barriers on housing outcomes in the private rented sector has been considered by Wood and MacLennan (1960) and McDowell (1978). Although on the local authority sector, the work of Clapham and Klntrea (1985) Is of interest because It implies that wherever there are differences In economic power, policies aimed at - 20 minimizing or removing disadvantage vould have limited Impact not only because structural inequalities influence value systems and hence the decisions of housing gatekeepers (Henderson and Karn, 1984), but also because income would still influences a household's ability to choose even where housing is allocated on the basis of need. Clapham and Kintrea analysed data from a survey of 64 households housed between March and May 1 ?83 in Glasgow. From 1980 Glasgow's allocation policy was based soley on a measure of housing need, applicants (excluding the homeless), being free to reject an unlimited number of offers without any loss of priority on the waiting list. A significant finding was that there was a tendency for offers to be refused as income rose, ability to refuse appearing to be 'an irrportant mechanism for achievement of the most popular areas'. Clapham and Kintrea suggest the relationship occured because income might determine the ability to afford suitable housing while waiting, or enable an adequate lifestyle to be enjoyed outside the home. Also noting that different income groups received different kinds of offers even allowing for their differences in preferences, Clapham and Kintrea argue there are two processes at work: firstly, structural Inequalities in British society leads Indirectly to discrimination by housing allocation staff against low income groups, and secondly, 'structural inequality in the form of differences In Income directly influences the competition for housing resources by putting low income groups at a disadvantage*. Earlier it was stated that prior knowledge of the housing market and proximity to the area of search could have an influence on housing aspirations. Weisbrod and Vidal showed that knowledge additionally affected the costs of searching, households reporting that they 'did not know where to look' having substantially higher search costs. A study by Wood and Maclennan 21 search were rruch higher for corrpletely new and/or non-Local students. Using this Information Uood and MacLennan devised an economic model of the 'search adjustment' process in which search costs and experience were seen as central components of search. From the model a number of hypotheses were developed, of which one was that experienced or local students would be more successful in obtaining acconmodat ion closer to the university (the survey Indicating students generally aspired to live near the campus), t/hen put to an empirical test, this was proved correct; on average, new entrant or non-local students obtained acconmodation over 3 km from the university whereas continuing or local students lived on average Less than 3 km away. One further study considering the effects of search constraints is worthy of mention because it examines the role of differences in household structure on opportunities. rk:Dowell (1978) was interested in the consequences for low income families seeking private lets, of increasing competition from students. 1971 Census data, a survey of student housing undertaken by the Department of Education and Science and Local authority housing waiting List records were used to corrpare the housing conditions and rents of students and low income families in furnished lets in Brighton. Finding that families were conmonly lived in groups of three and were in two or three roomed accorrfnodat ion, whilst student groups contained betwen one and six people, were in acconmodat Ion of varying sizes and paid higher rents than families, McDowell concluded that students fared better in the competition over lets because they were able to group together to fit the accoamodatton available and maximize their rent paying capacity. It is certainly the case that students can and do group together in varying numbers and so potentially have choice over a greater range of acconmodat Ion. Yet McDowell's study, In concentrating on physical and monetary aspects of the accoomodatIon, Ignores another Important feature of supply, the fact that landlords have preferences. Students might simply be prefered, In the main, to families. Even though students might be prefered because they are perceived to yield greater profits (McDowell, 1978; p. 56), if this leads to landlords deciding to let soley to students, then families will lose out at this point and effectively be precluded 22 - from even attenptlng to assert their rent paying abilities. However, McDowell's study does show that flexibility in household size provides a conpetitive advantage, and it will be useful to investigate the flexibility in the housing aspirations of the different household groups in the present study. The preceding review of studies which have considered search barriers illustrates that whatever the effort put Into searching, problems such as lack of local knowledge or 'Inside* information, discrimination and financial difficulties can restrict a household's ability to exercise choice over, or obtain acconmodation, and can constrain the disadvantaged into less favourable housing. Nevertheless, a household still has the potential (at least theoretically) to select or reject any acconmodatton found to be available to then^ and a number of researchers have focused on factors Influencing household decisions at this stage. In economic theory the problem for the household of knowing the optimum point at which search should end and a vacancy accepted Is called the 'stopping rule' problenv and several studies have been concerned with developing statistical models to determine optinum strategies (eg. Flowerdew, 1976). In these models the costs In terms of time, money and risk of missing an opportunity are set against the benefits of finding a more suitable home. In reality, surveys of house-buyers have indicated that only two or three vacancies are seriously considered (Barrett, 1973; Lyon and Wood, 1977), Lyon and Wood concluding that because of the constraints of time. Information and motivation 'the choices made by people are made In a far less rational manner than one might have thought possible'. Barrett, however, considers the consideration of only a few vacancies to be rational, in that it enables the household to reduce the element of uncertalnlty in their decision-making. Lyon and Wood's view of rational behaviour appears to rest on the assuinption, prescribed by classical economics, that people have perfect knowledge, maximum motivation, and will seek the optimum. However, according to Simon's widely accepted concept of 'bounded rationality', decisions are made on a rational basis In relation to the environment as it is perceived by the decision maker and not in relation to any notion of 'objective' reality (1957). Thus, in the context of the housing market, households will make essentially 23 rational decisions over which housing to select on the basis of their knowledge, and in this, constraints that are encountered in the search or simply perceived to exist will be influential. Constraints of time are also Important, households needing accorrmodatlon quickly will be less able to Improve on their knowledge or to maximize their choices. As Clapham and Kintrea (1985) have demonstrated in relation to local authority tenants, ability to wait proved significant to housing outcomes and was not a random matter; higher Income, better housed households having the greater ability. The notion that households will endeavour to seek the optirrum (even within the limitations of their knowledge) has also been disputed by Simon. He has suggested that most search behaviour Is of a * satisfIcing' nature; households seek a satisfactory rather than optimal outcome. Since households seeking acconmodat ion within the private rented sector have less to lose financially than house- buyers If the choice proves wrong, and private lets are more likely to be regarded as tenporary (movement within and out of the sector being high; Murie, 1983), satlsflcing is probably a particularly appropriate description of objectives in the decision making over private lets. Therefore, the applicability of the concept will be examined in the present work. 1,4, T>f^ HQYE^^^fT PPOP^SS IN TH^ PRyVATg nougirc SECTOR As Clapham and Klntrea (1984) have observed, the literature on housing decision-making either plays do^ the issue of tenure choice or broadly asssumes that housing and tenure choice are sirnjltaneous. However, the Issue of tenure 'choice* is irrportant in view of the qualifications required to enter the two train tenures. Many households privately renting might consider that they had no other option. Therefore, in investigating the rrcvement decisions and opportunities of the households in the survey, the first concern will be to examine why the private rented sector had been selected, and whether any other sector had been perceived as accessible at the time the decision to move was made. A model of the movement process in the private rented sector 24 was developed to provide a framework for eirplrical study (see over). This is based on other models generated to conceptualize residential movement (eg. Robson, 1975; Clark, 1986; Bourne, 1980), but differs In several important respects. Firstly, it is concerned specifically with movement into and within the private rented sector; other models are either tenure * blind' or are (with the exception of Clapham and Kintrea*s 1984 model of housing choice within the local authority sector) concerned with the OMier-occupier sector. Secondly, the model considers only those households who ere 'successful' movers; left out of the reckoning are households who at some point in the process decide to remain where they are (Included in most other models) or who cannot or do not obtain accoamodation in the sector. A final contrast is that the movement process is conceptualized In terms of 'opportunity-clarifying' rather than decision-making stages and the model Is so designed as to aid investigation of the types of constraints on choice that can be encountered in the search, and households' differential experiences of, and responses to, these constraints. The first stage in the model concerns the reason for the move. Previous work on reasons for moving (discussed in the preceding review) suggest that it is important to examine the relative significance and nature of life cycle factors (eg. newly forming or dissolving households), housing or location adjustment factors (eg. dissatisfaction with certain attributes of the housing, poor access to work) and factors obliging moves (eg. eviction). Since, as noted earlier, forced moves might disproportionately affect former private tenants (Section 1.3), it Is also Important to consider the households' reasons in relation to the tenure of their previous accormodat ion. The next stage concerns the formulation of aspirations and listed in the model are the factors noted earlier as potentially Influential, although the list Is not intended to be exhaustive. As the possible reasons are numerous (and some can only be investigated within a longitudinal study) the present work will concentrate on the role of those factors considered both Important and amenable to investigation within the context of the research. \cfUen the household begins the search for accormcdat ion - and it will be recalled that the search procedure, efficiency and costs 25 DECIDE/rCED TO MOVE WITHIN/TO nC PRIVATE SECTOR FORMULATE ASPIRATIONS Influences: Preferences Knowledge of the Housing Market Perception of Opportunities Reason for Moving Future Plans Income/Working Situation Household Size Fanil ly/Marital/Socioeconomic status Race Time to Search Proximity to Area of Search SEARCH REAPPRAISAL Use of Formal/Informal Information Aspirations in Sources: Appraisal of Opportunities relation to Possibly Reappraise Strategy opportunities ^ 'STORE' LOCATE VACANCY VACANCY AS Vacancy meets aspirations POSSIBILITY and appears accessible ^ INVESTIGATE AW/OR APPLY FOR VACANCY VACANCY LAM)LORD/AGENT EVALUATES TAKEN/ HOUSEHOLD UNAVAILABLE HOUSEHOLD EVALUATES VACANCY VACANCY Possibly readjust aspirations UNSUITABLE/ INACCESSIBLE VACANCY SUITABLE AND ACCESSIBLE; HOUSEHOLD SUITABLE ACCEPT VACANCY FIGURE 1.1: THE MOVEfCNT PROCESS IN THE PRIVATF RFNTFD SECTOR - 26 are affected by the resources and attributes of the household (Wood and Maclennan, 1960; Lake, 1980; Weisbrod and Vidal. 1981) - they will use one or more sources of information on vacancies. These might be informal, such as friends or relatives, or formal, such as letting agencies or newspaper advertisements. Informal sources can be very lirportant. They can obviate the need for a 'search' as such. If for example, an Inquiry to a landlord friend produces Inmediate results, and, as McCarthy (1982) has shown, the use of 'inside information' might enable accorrmodation to be obtained on more favourable terms. In using the formal sources the household can learn rruch about their opportunities in the market; the nature of the stock, its price and their personal eligibility for the accomnodation available. Difficulties encountered might lead the household to reappraise either their aspirations (they might, for example, decide to accept a different type of acconmodat ion) or their search strategy (they might take measures to make themselves appear more deserving or acceptable). Once a suitable, and apparently accessible, vacancy Is located, the household may decide to 'store' it until a list of possibilities is obtained. On application (In person, via an Intermediary, or by telephone) the household will learn whether the vacancy Is still available, whether It Is suitable an6 appears to match their requirements, and whether it Is accessible, i.e. it is affordable and the household is considered eligible. Of course, a landlord - 27 - It Is at the point of contact between people and the housing system during periods of transition from one housing situation to another that valuable information about the nature of the system can be obtained"CI981, p. 1). In addition, by relating experiential data on searches to detailed Information on the housing ctrcuinstances of different: types of household, it will be possible to evaluate the Implications of differential opportunities within the private rented housing market. -28 CHAPTER lydOi HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN CONTEXT 2.1 INTRODUCTION Having discussed the academic context of the present study, this chapter aims to set out the relevant background with respect to the character and role of the private rented sector. The chapter, which is essentially descriptive In orientation, is divided into three sections. The first examines the way In which the character of private renting and the position of the sector within the housing market have changed during this century. The main developments are outlined and special attention is given to how tenants' opportunities have been affected by the changes. and, where appropriate, how the developments have affected Plymouth households. Such a review is important because an historical understanding is necessary both to appreciate the position of tenants today, and to enable critical appraisal of current policy initiatives and assessment of their irrpact on housing opportunities. The second section is concerned with the present nature of private renting. The characteristics of tenants, their different situations within the sector, and the type, condition and cost of their accorrmodation are investigated, and then the section concludes with an examination of the available information on access to lettings. This provides the essential 'yardstick' against which to set the findings of the present study. To provide the locational context, the final section examines demand and access within Plymouth's housing market. THE qHANG>NG CHARACTER QF PR^VAT^ RENTING During this century the private rented sector has declined from its position of virtual monopoly in the market and now runs a poor third to the ovmer-occupier and council sectors. At the same time It has changed significantly in its role; from being the normal tenure for most sections of society. It now has a particular Importance for the single, the young and the mobile, and for low income groups In general. These changes result from a corrt>lnation - 29 of social, economic and political factors, but are associated nost significantly with the demise of a free rrarket and the growth of goverrvTtental intervention in housing. In this review, therefore, the main emphasis will be on the Influence of governmental policies on the situations and opportunities of tenants within the private rented housing rrarket. The discussion will open with an outline of the housing opportunities of households in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This provides an obvious starting point from which to examine developments this century, but the review Is of more than academic Interest, because present governrrent policy Is to deregulate and free the rrarket In housing. In respect of the private rented sector, significant steps in this direction have already been taken (viz. the 1968 Housing Act). Thus an examination of how well the market worked and how well It served different groups when largely unfettered by governmental restrictions (notwithstanding Irrportant contextual differences) has some relevance to today. Following this, the discussion of the developments that have altered the character of private renting this century will focus on four areas of concern: housing conditions within the sector; rents and security of tenure; housing benefits, and the decline of private renting as a mainstream tenure. Housing Opportunities in the Late 1800s end Early 1900s. In the nineteenth century, with Industrialisation and the concomitant urbanisation of the population, private renting came to be the dominant tenure for the working classes and most of the middle classes. By 1914, 89X of all households rented from private Landlords (Short, 1962. p. 30). Alternative tenure opportunities were very limited. Until permanent building societies began to grow In the late nineteenth century there were not the realisation mechanisms to enable widespread owner-occupation, nor was this tenure generally congruent with needs. For the working classes, home ownership was too costly. Labour productivity was low, so real wages were low CMerret, 1979, p. 11) and neither steady eirployment nor good health could be guaranteed ((^auldie, 1974, p. 201). The sort of low income self- 30 build housing of the countryside was Inoperative In the urban narket (Harloe, 1985, p. 10), lAllst easy access accoooBodation was most suitable given the uncertalnltles of the enploynent market and the need for labour nobility (Geuldle, 1974, p. 90). The middle classes, too, sought flexibility; preferlng acccxraodatlon that could be readily adjusted to changing Incone and family needs (Burnett, 1978, p. 196). Other forms of renting %«hlch were developed for the working classes, le. company, philanthropic and (later) local authority housing, contributed little to the overall stock and were not accessible to the mass of the unskilled and poor (Gauldle, 1974). Housing conditions In the etjelllng urban cmtres were very bad. The great demand for accommodation close to place of %#ork and the %roakne&s of controls on buildings and densities In the first half of the nineteenth century (Gauldle, 1974, pp. 123-131) had led to high density speculative development. New buildings were packed closely together, much use was made of Infill sites, including courtyards and gardens, construction %#as often hasty and shoddy (collapse of newly built houses was not Infrequent) and provision for sanitation was a rarity. In 1885 the Royal Commission on Housing reported that In most parts of the provinces there was no closet provision and no Indoor water supply at all In the houses of the labouring classes (Oouldie, 1974, p. 79). Income determined how much space could be bought and space, especially that close to Industries and dockyards, commanded a high price (Oauldie, 1974, p. 89). The low Incomes of much of the working class meant their effective demand for housing vae weak, (^nsequently the poor and the unskilled labourers were obliged to crowd Into properties originally constructed as family homes for the better off. There was a great deal of eubdlvislon and subletting, the use of cellars was common and whole families often shared single rooms: 'people sleeping five or six to a bed, three beds to a room, two or three families to a stair, dozens of houses around one back green' (Geuldle, 1974, p. 87). In Plymouth crowding was especially severe as development was confined to the tongue of land between the Tamar and Plyn estuaries. In 1851 Plymouth had on average more than t%#o families of ten persons to each house, a higher density than in any other town in England, including London (Taylor, 1938, p. 34). By 1911, %ihen 31 around two-thirds of the population lived in tenements (Western Daily Mercury, tst Nov. 1906) the situation had scarcely changed. In terms of the proportion of the population living at densities in excess of two persons per roon^ Plymouth and neighbouring Devonport (which was amalgamated, with Stonehouse, into Plymouth in 1914) ranked as the sixth and eighth most overcrowded towns in England (Taylor, 1938, p. 34). Such conditions proved highly dangerous to health; Plymouth's 1904 death-rate of 18L compared very unfavourably with the company owned 'garden village' of Bournvilie's 7L (Western Daily Mercury. 7th Hov, 1906). In the latter part of the nineteenth century overcrowding was exacerbated by the destruction of houses in the interests of town Improvement; clearance of slums for conmerclal development, road building and railway construction. Replacement housing was not legally required of the railway coapanies until 1885 (Burnett, 1978, p. 144) and although slum clearance Involved some new build, sometimes provided by philanthropic associations, these dwellings proved too expensive for low income displacees. Clearance of one slum area In Plymouth was reported to have displaced 800 people who were 'obliged to crowd the already overcrowded back lanes and slums' In adjoining districts (Western Morning News, 25th Sep. 1906). As a proportion of income, nineteenth century rents do not appear to compare unfavourably with those of today (see Section 2.3); the working class outlaying on average I6X of their Income - although poorer sections might spend as much as a half of their Income on rent - and the middle classes 6-9% (Gauldie, 1974, p.164; Burnett, 1978, pp. 145-147). How^ever, for the working classes rents concerned rooms rather than houses, and, with the exception of skilled workers, few could afford more than one or two rooms. In Plymouth, which had high land costs and a large unskilled population earning for the most part under 20s a week (Western Morning News, 20th Sep. 1906 and 25th Sep. 1906) , it was reported in 1906 that for 2s 9d a 'rat-infested' small room might be obtained, whilst a larger room would cost about 3s 8d (Three Towns Housing Association, 1906). Skilled labourers had better opportunities in the rental market. With Incomes of around 30s to £2 a week they were able to afford larger accofrmodat Ion in the central areas and also gain 32 access to the model dwellings, where for rents of around 5s 6d Co. 1890) two rooms could be obtained (Gauldie, 1974. p. 163). The middle classes could escape the crowded centres and rent homes in the suburbs. At the lower end of the middle class, a clerk with an Income of £2 10s to £3 in 1901 and prepared to outlay 10s to 12s 6d, had the choice of living centrally in a two or three roomed flat, or renting a six roomed villa In the suburbs (Burnett, 1978, p. 197). The latter might entail transport costs of about 2s 6d, but lodgers or subtenants could be taken In to subsidise the rent. Even so, speculative building for the lower end of the suburban market produced poor quality accorrmodatIon, liable to damp, draughts and falling plaster; cheaper middle class housing being almost as subject to jerry-building as working class housing (Burnett, 1978, p. 199). Rents rose dramatically in the latter half of the nineteenth century and by 1900 the proportion of income spent on rent by the working classes was more in the order of 20%. Wages also rose, but mainly amongst the skilled, and for poorer households rent Increases often absorbed the whole of any increase in wages (Burnett, 1978, p. 148-158). The poor were especially vulnerable, yielding large profits for unscrupulous landlords prepared to pack them in to ageing and decrepit properties, shirk on maintenance and repair, demand key money to secure the letting and charge a premium to cover any non-payment of arrears. The practice of using middle men for rent collecting further inflated rents CGauldie, 1974-, p. 159-166; Burnett, 1978, p. 149-150). Gauldie has criticised the argument that nineteenth century private enterprise 'failed' to provide adequate housing for the poor, pointing out that this was never their intention, nor seen as their responsibility; the aim of speculative builders and the Investing public was to make a profit (1974, p. 184). As Eversley notes, a net return of 6% was feasible, this corrparing very well with a return on Consols at 3. 4X <1975>. On average, though, a return of 5X might be expected, and where the aim was to house low Income groups the return dropped to 3.5% (Gauldie, 1974, p. 185). Naturally investors prefered to put their money where returns were greater and only the model dwelling associations and some enployers were prepared to provide new housing for the working classes. But - 33 - the level of ecor>omlc rents, the need to ensure rents were regularly paid and the determination that 'comfortable' accomnodatlon should not be provided for the 'criminal and Irrmoral classes' (Gauldle, 1974, p. 226) effectively restricted such housing to the artisan section of the working class. By the late nineteenth century It had become clear, even amongst philanthropists prepared to accept a small return, that there was no profit to be rrade from building rental acconmodation for poorer households and attempts to do so had all but ceased (Gauldle, 1974, pp. 234-236). Housing qpndl<:iorTs Profits in the building trade had been declining for some time, In large part as a result of the rising costs of materials and labour, but also because of I r>creasing state Intervention over standards of new build. Early regulations varied from town to town, but most cormcnty set specifications on the spaces around houses and the width of streets to allow for better ventilation and lighting (Burnett, 1978, p.154-55). Local efforts were given central sanction and powers were extended with the passing of the Public Health Act In 1875. This enabled local authorities to rrake by-laws concerning street layout, building construction end sanitary provision; to require builders to give notice of their activities ar>d furnish plans, and to Inspect building work and remove, alter or demolish work which contravened their regulations (Burnett, 1976, p. 155-56). Although the extent to w/hlch these powers were used by local authorities was variable, building standards generally Improved. As a result, the conditions of those able to afford the rentals of the new dwellings, the middle classes and the better-off working classes, also improved. The poor, however, tended to be confined - as they are today - to the products of an earlier age when standards were lower. Legislation also existed to deal with conditions In older dwellings. Originating in the 1640&, such legislation was rooted, as was the 1675 Act, in a concern for public health, an aspect of housing quality that has dominated policy to the present day. - 34 Through the Nuisances Removal Act 1855, local authorities could, on receipt of a complaint, insp>ect a dwelling, order the provision of adequate sanitation and other works to make It safe and clean, and order closure »^ere the nuisance was 'such as to render the house unfit for human habitation' (Gautdie, 1974, p. 254). Overcrowding was defined as technically a nuisance in 1866, and closure of overcrowded premises was permitted six years later. Further Acts widened powers: Medical Officers of Health could Inspect dwellings on their own initiative, repair notices could be served on owners and slum areas could be purchased compulsorily and replacement housing provided (Greve, 1965; GauLdle, 1974). By the 1880s there was a plethora of measures that could be used to deal with unsatisfactory housing, but, apart from some use of slum clearance provisions, they were largely ignored One of the main reasons for the lack of effectiveness of the legislation was a general Lack of will. Local authorities resented having regulations forced upon them by central government and were extremely reluctant to interfere with the rights of private owners, seeing this as an Intrusion upon Individual liberty (Gauldle, 1974). Also, interference would have placed a burden on the rates and vrfould have received little (middle class) public support. Removal of the slums was a different matter, these were regarded by the middle classes as seed-beds of discontent, anarchism and disease. Yet their resulting 'improved' urban environment was obtained at the expense of Increased crowding and higher rents amongst the poor. This crowding Itself Inhibited action as medical officers were unwilling to close overcrowded houses when they well knew that tenants would only move to similar or worse acconmnodation (Gauldle, 1974, p. 271). Further hindering action was the reactionary belief that crowding and poor housing conditions were largely self-imposed and so could be ameliorated by self-help; as the Medical Officer of Health for Oevonport argued: 'Intemperance and itrmorallty while no doubt often engendered by overcrowding, are themselves the main causes leading to it' (Western Evening Herald, Sep. 20th, 1906). 1890 saw the passing of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, which, apart from consolidating existing legislation, reiterated the ability of local authorities to build for rent. Its provisions marked no new departure, but it came on the scene at a 35 time of growing disquiet over housing conditions and calls for effective action. Such were led by the churches, trade unionists and fablans; their claims being backed up by the findings of the Royal Conmlssion (1685), privately undertaken surveys of working class housing and, in 1891, by the first census giving details on crowding. In the Three Towns (Plymouth, Devonport and Stonehouse) a pressure group was set up in 1900 to stir up public opinion and prod the local authorities into action. Gradually, local authorities began to build more housing, although little was done. In Plymouth only a hundred or so had been constructed by the outbreak of war. As Is well known, intervention by the state In the housing market has grown markedly during this century. With respect to housing conditions in the private rented sector, two main strategies have been pursued, each being given a different eniphasis at different times. One has been to promote the removal of unfit and delapidated housing, the other to encourage Improvement and repair. But, at the same time, there has been comparatively little new build for private renting and the transfer of stock into owner-occupation has vastly outweighed the creation of new lettlngs. As a result, the main effect of these policies on tenants' opportunities within the market has been to further the reduction In supply. Tenants' opportunities to obtain better housing conditions have come mainly from their growing - though circumscribed - ability to leave the sector. By 1918 the housing shortage had reached staggering proportions; around half a million dwellings were needed according to estimates (Short, 1982, p.31; Gauldle. 1974, p.308). In Plymouth the situation was especially severe. A half of the houses Intended for one family contained two or more, and, on average, there v*«re 7.4 people to each house. It was estimated that to reduce this density to six, 7,236 new houses were required and an additional 1500 urgently needed to replace unfit slum dwellings. As In the rest of the country, though, slum clearance had to wait, there being nowhere for evicted tenants to go (Social Service in Plymouth, 1920). The severe post war shortage also diverted attention away from efforts to encourage or enforce rehabilitation and provided landlords with little Incentive to Improve their lettings. However, 36 controlled rents were permitted to increase by 40X to cover repair costs (Rent Restriction Act 1920). The Irrmediate post war drive then, was to encourage new build. Between 1923 and 1933, with the help of government subsidies, local authorities built over half a million homes to rent (Murie et al. , 1976). There were, therefore, increased opportunities for tenants to iriprove their conditions by moving into the council sector. But the comparatively high rentals of council housing limited these opportunities to the better-off. The opportunities of the slum dweller remained little changed. In Plymcxjth, the difficulty of providing low cost rented housing was aggravated by its physical isolation from the manufacturing centres of the Midlands and North, this entailing high transportation costs for materials; its hilly topography and a general shortage of land, and the predominance of low wage occupations (Social Service in Plymouth, 1920). In consequence, a councillor was led to remark: 'With all the will in the world. ..the City Council was not touching the real problem of the poor' (Western Evening Herald, c. 1930). Despite the continuing housing shortage, by 1930 recognition of the failure of public policy to address the problems of the slums and of overcrowding, a resurgence of reactionary sentiments, and a desire to reduce public expenditure, wrought a redirection in policy away from council building for general needs and towards clearance and rehabilitation CHolmans, 1987; Burnett, 1978>. Subsidies for rehousing clearance families were made more generous in 1930, and, in 1933, general subsidies for building were discontinued. Such policies were more effective than their equivalents of the nineteenth century. Between 1933 and 1939 a quarter of a million houses had been demolished or closed and 439,000 houses had been repaired and made fit for habitation (Bowley. 1945). To what extent house rehabilitation benefited tenants or led to their eviction is unclear; sales of former lettings into owner-occupation stepped up during this period (Holmans, 1987). Council building for former slum dwellers did produce an improvement in their housing conditions, although to allow lower rentals the new dwellings were very basic in design (Burnett, 1982), and in Plymouth concerned the construction of a number of blocks of flats. 37 For general needs housing, reliance was placed once more on private enterprise. Private building had been sluggish In the 'twenties but by 1930 was considered sufficiently healthy (or politically acceptable) to resume responsibility. Private enterprise was, however, too interested in its profits to provide low cost rentals. Much of the building 'boom' of the 1930s concerned provision for owner-occupiers CHolmans, 1987; Burnett, 1978). Building for letting continued, and at a significant level - some 900,000 houses between 19li and 1939, according to Holmans (1987). Against this must be set a loss to the sector of 1.2 million dwellings sold into owner-occupation, and 0.4- million cleared or demolished. Moreover, rents of the new lettings were still only affordable by higher paid workers (Harloe, 19B5, p. 29 and p. 35). In the aftermath of the Second World War the errphasis was once again on reducing the housing shortage, and so on building for general needs. More generous subsidies, a reorganisation of housing finance (dating back to the Housing Act 1935) and political comnltment saw a massive increase in public provision In the decade after the war, and in provision which could be more sensitive to ability to pay (Murle et al, , 1976). Plymouth suffered extensive wartime damage and this, combined with low rates of building during the w^r years had led to an acute housing shortage. It was estimated that 12,650 new dwellings would be needed between 1945 and 1948, even allowing for temporary use of unfit properties (New Plymouth Housing Association, 1945). Most of the war destruction consisted of privately rented properties. Many more were destroyed in the comprehensive redevelopment of the centre - as was forewarned in the Plan for Plymouth: 'We reconmend the treating of the whole central area for planning purposes as a cleared site except for such important and still standing buildings as can be worked into the plan' (Watson and Abercrombie, 1945). For Plymouth, the war, and then redevelopmiint, effectively got rid of large numbers of slum dwellings, but reconstruction also involved the removal of hundreds of fit or repairable privately rented dw#el lings (Paterson, 1983). In this period private renting, which had already expanded from the city centre, shifted more firmly Into former middle-class Victorian and Edwardian dwellings on the 38- central fringes, principally In the Stoke, North Hill and Mutley areas. These are still densely rented areas, and were surveyed for the present study. To the extent that nany of these properties had been built to a higher standard than the older central ones, the situations of tenants «iere better, but the severe shortage led to overcrowding and people whose own Council provision MS extensive, and gradually eased, though did not renove, the shortage. In 1951 it was announced that only five boroughs in the country had built more houses and flats than Plynouth (Western Evening Herald, 2nd Feb. 1981). Bettfeen 1947 and 1956 an average of 1,000 dwellings %«re built every year, producing a post-war total of over 10,000 (Western Evening Herald, let Jan. 1958). The victory of the Conservatives in the 1951 General Election brought a policy change fron general building to slum clearance and replacenent, and repair and inprovement (Cullingwrth, 1979, p. 76). Rehabilitation of privately rented dwllings was the main thrust of this policy allowing a cut-back in council provision. Grants for inprovenent, available since 1949, «iere extended and made more generous In the 1954 Housing Repairs and Rents Act, and, in 1959, standard (ie. not discretionary) grants were introduced. In fact most of the grants went to otffier-occupiers, the policy had little impact on improving conditions for private tenants. Landlords have always been slower to repair and Improve than o«ffier- occupiers CHouse of Coomons, 1982), but a particular problem with this policy was that grants %fere principally for the installation of amenities; repairs to a certain standard wre required before grants ware allowed. The cost of repairs, even *d.th a (permitted) rent Increase, deterred some otherwise interested landlords from applying (Culllngworth, 1979). The slum clearance aspect of the policy had more Impact, especially when in 1956 it % 39- I st Jan. 1958). The reduction came at the same time as an upsurge of sales of private rentals following decontrol measures in the 1957 Rent Act. These developments, along with the relatively high house prices in the city, and low average Incomes - «/ilch made it difficult for households to buy - placed more pressure on the depleting private rented sector. The rents of Lettings had also risen. In 1963 it was reported that they were as high as anywhere except London (Western Evening Herald, 22nd f4ov. 1963). A shortage of private rented lettings and high rents was not just confined to Plymouth.. Public concern over the apparent exploitation of private tenants prompted governmental Investigation and in 1965 the Milner Holland Conmlttee published its report on housing conditions in Greater London. This demonstrated that the shortage of lettings was forcing low income households, in particular families with children and ethnic minority newcomers into shared furnished housing. Conditions In this sub-sector were found to be very poor, as well as dangerous; the report detailing instances of fire risks and the extent of crowding, disrepair and damp. The 1966 English House Condition Survey confirmed at a national level the extent of poor housing in the private rented sector. Of the total 1.8 million unfit dwellings, about 60X were privately rented. One half of lettings lacked one or more of the four basic amenities and a third of the stock needed major repair work (Harloe, 1985). With the growing awareness of the still very poor state of private rented housing - and the problems that the Labour government (returned in 1964) saw in rnunlcipalIsation of the stock for improvement purposes at that time (Balchin, 1987), the policy response was to give more encouragement to landlord-effected improvement. Some, limited measures were taken In the 1964 Housing Act, but in the 1969 Housing Act, new, more generous grants were introduced (which were raised again, and the conditions attached to them relaxed. In 1971). Also, controlled properties were allowed to become regulated upon Improvement, enabling Landlords to Increase rent levels significantly and 'special' grants were allowed for amenity provision in rrulti-occupied properties (HMOs). The main thrust of the policy was on area improvement, the idea being that a 40 concentration of improvement effort would achieve more success. In the (General Improvement Areas (GIAs) decided upon by local authorities, grants were allowed for environmental works. In terms of effecting improvement of the stock, the Act had some success. However, it was blinkered as far as the social consequences were concerned. Landlords saw an opportunity to raise the value of their holdings with the aid of grants and then sell, so realising large capital gains. Tenant displacement was achieved by the use of financial inducements or harassment. In Plymouth it was reported that in one street alone six households had been evicted, and, elsewhere in the city inducements of £1,000 were being offered (Plymouth Times, 9th Mar. 1973). The 1969 Housing Act was in part prompted by the public backlash against clearance schemes and the social and physical devastation they were seen to wreak (Cul I ingworth, 1979). The number of clearances was to halve between 1971 and 1979 (New Society, 26th Feb. 1981) - Plymouth announcing in 1977 that the work was very nearly complete (Western Morning News, 10th Mar. 1977). Even so, in the early 'seventies clearance schemes were still very much in progress. Many of the displaced, in particular the single young, were not rehoused by local authorities. As a result, squatting and 'Homes for the Homeless' campaigns developed. In Plymouth, these eventually pressured the local council into permitting (on a minor scale) short term habitation of properties closed for demolition. The 1974 Housing Act (which was to direct policy until 1989) reintroduced conditions on grants to prevent sale of improved rented properties. Landlords were now obliged to repay grants if a sale took place within five years, and seven years if the property was in a Housing Action Area (HAA). HAAs w^ere another new feature. In contrast to the GIAs these were to be areas of particular 'housing stress' where low income households and private renting w«re prominent. The Act made available, for the first time, grants solely for the purpose of repair work. It also permitted improvement by compulsion. Local authorities could require landlords to improve or take over improvement themselves, recovering the cost from the landlord. Owners unwilling to improve could compel the local authority to buy their properties. - 41 An early criticism of the legislation was its emphasis on stress areas. This was considered to have only a patchy effect on inner city housing and could not deal with poor quality rented housing that was more dispersed (Balchin, 1989; Harloe, 1985). In the event, an economic downturn forcing a reduction in public expenditure presented a rruch greater restriction, in that it brought a decline in the number of grants that could be allocated. In addition, local authorities' compulsory improvement activities were found to be hampered by the cumbersome nature of the procedures and by the unwillingness of building societies to lend in HAAs. By 1980, Instead of an expected one million houses in HAAs, the nurrber was only about 150,000 (Balchin, 1989, p. 94). The problem of a low level of grant take up by landlords remained, many were unwilling or financially unable to raise their share of the cost. A 1980 survey of landlords in Sheffield found that a significant deterent was the grant ceiling on repair work, which was considered to be too low (Crook and Bryant, 1982). This survey also uncovered a more Intractable problem; a fifth of the landlords who were not irrproving their properties said they would not Improve under any circumstances. There has been some evidence that declaration of a HAA encourages the long-standing landlords to improve their holdings (Martin and Crook, 1984). Even so, improvement by speculators has still been a significant component of the work done. Many of such landlords (or property dealers), have been prepared to wait the five years and let the property before sale (Martin and Crook, 1984; McCrone and Elliot, 1979), whilst others have exploited loopholes in the Act to sell more quickly (Balchin, 1989). There are also some 'investor* landlords who have refurbished properties and gone 'up• market' in their selection of tenants, favouring young white collar workers, professional couples or students (McCrone and Elliot, 1979). This type of improvement work reduces housing opportunities for the low income family or the unemployed. Moreover, there is no guarantee that such properties will remain rented. Certainly many investor landlords will have an eye to house prices and t^xjld attempt to remove the tenants and sell if they can realise a large capital gain - an option greatly facilitated by the introduction of shortholds (now 'assured shortholds') in the past decade. On this, - 42 It has been noted that such landlords have generally let under shorthold agreements CMartin and Crook, 1984). A section of landlords have seen no need for improvement. These are essentially exploitive landlords who let slum, usually multi-occupied properties to people who have been turned away by other landlords; ethnic minorities, families and the homeless (McCrone and Elliot, 1979). By crowding, charging high rents and neglecting repairs such landlords can make a good profit. Housing conditions in Houses in Multiple Occupation ChffiOs) have been a perennial source of concern. These constitute a significant minority of all lettings and have the worst record on amenity provision, disrepair, fire safety and crowding (Thomas and Hedges, 1986). The number of hWOs in Plymouth is large, the city having the seventh highest level of shared houses for districts in England and Wales (Renwick, 1987b). All of the dwellings surveyed in the present study were In rmlt l-occupied properties and nearly half Involved sharing of amenities. The policy for HMOs used to be that they should be eliminated, and grants for Improvement, except for conversion into self- contained flats, have been fairly limited until recent years (Crook, 1989). Cut-backs in council building from the 1970s and recognition of a continuing need for easy access accommodation changed policy to one of regulation. Registration of HMOs Is required and local authorities have powers to compel Improvement in their management and physical condition. A major problem concerns the the enforcement of these powers. Local authorities, typically overloaded with grant applications from owner-occupiers, have had difficulties diverting some of their scarce resources into statutory enforcement work (Crook, 1989). Most, including Plymouth, have tended to take action only when complaints are made (Houses in Multiple Occupation Group, 1985; Crook, 1989). Half-heartedness by local authorities can result in years passing before any remedial work is done (Luba, 1991; Rally Steering Group, 1985). Also, tenants who make complaints might not be those most in need. FWO residents can often be very dependent on their landlords and those in the worst housing are likely to be the most powerless In the housing market. Awareness of their difficulties in finding alternative housing would make them wary of 43 - complaining for fear of harassment and eviction. Many residents are Ignorant of their rights, whilst others feel their rights are unenforceable (Crook, 1989; Thomas and Hedges, 1986). Governmental emphasis on rehabilitation of the housing stock has continued to the present, and Indeed, since the Conservatives came to power In 1979, has been stressed to the virtual exclusion of new build. In the late 'seventies and early 'eighties grant levels were extended and made more flexible (especially for repairs), but doubts over the cost-effectivenes of the grants led to cut-backs in 1983 and 1984 (Balchin, 1989). It became Increasingly clear that the grants were not going to those most in need. In the private rented sector take-up was mainly by the financially able; speculators and large property companies, rather than the small landlord (Balchin, 1989). More selectivity was needed, so the new approach developed was to means test applicants. Along with significant changes to the area renewal policies, types of mandatory and discretionary grants and the sale restrictions attached to grants (which were to be liberalised) the proposal was effected in the 1989 Local (Government and Housing Act. As the Act post-dates the survey undertaken in the present work, its implications for the housing conditions of private tenants are best left for later discussion (Chapter Eight). Here it is appropriate to summarize the various effects that governmental policies on housing conditions have had on the situations of private tenants. In this, it is an important but perhaps obvious point that governmental efforts have been directed at irrproving the stock of housing and not specifically at inproving the lot of tenants. As the history of intervention shows, the second does not necessarily follow upon the first. Also, It should be stressed that the outcomes of these policies have been greatly influenced by wider factors; govermental activities with respect to other aspects of the private rented sector, rents and security, for Instance, and with respect to other tenures, as well as the broad social and economic environment. Slum clearance, the earliest policy for dealing with bad housing, continued on a large scale to the nlneteen-seventies, only Interrupted by wars and the ensuing need to retain stock. Clearance was a necessary measure: much of the pre-1870 housing, built in an 44 era of few controls, was unfit on construction. But inadequate replacement housing led to overcrowding and a rapid deterioration of other areas. Clearance in this century has been accompanied by public sector replacement, yet not all of those vacated from areas of slum housing have been able to gain access to public housing. The removal of these low cost housing oppxirtunlt ies for households unable to afford to buy and ineligible for council housing. In the main single people, low income couples and newcomers, meant increased competition over the remaining lettings, enforced multi- occupation, and, in some cases home Iessness. Rehabilitation of the stock has been the other main approach adopted by governments. Incentives have proved insensitive to the abilities and interests of different landlords, often appearing irrelevant to the HMO owner and inadequate to the small, low income landlord. Property dealers have benefited the most, using improvement grants to produce a more saleable product for owner- occupiers. As Harloe has remarked: 'for all the... mass of policies and legislation (the incentives have) only made a marginal impact on improving property and retaining it within the private rented sector' (1985, p. 260). The policies have led to many tenants losing their homes and, overall, to a reduction in the stock of lettings. Where lettings have been improved and retained, they have tended to be made available only to higher paying and more 'respectable' childless professionals or students, whilst refurbishment for sitting tenants has generally meant disruption, higher rents, and, in many instances, a loss of space. Thus the main impact of govermental policies for dealing with poor quality, private rented housing has been a reduction in the supply of lettings and particularly low cost lettings. Despite (as successive Housing Condition Surveys testify), the fact that over time the overall stock of housing has greatly irrproved, 'bad* housing is still synonymous with the private rented sector. This sector continues to have proportionately more dwellings that are old, unfit, in serious disrepair, have Inadequate amenities or are overcrowded, than any other housing sector. 45 Rents and Security of Tenure In the nineteenth century all tenants paid rents that were determined by the balance of supply and demand In the market, and tenants could be evicted for any or no reason, often at short notice. This was to end in 1915, when the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act was passed. The Act aimed to protect the war economy by restoring market, and hence social, stability In a situation of soaring rents due to the acute - and growing - housing shortage ((^auldle, 1974; Balchin, 1989; Holmans, 1987). Rents of lower rateable value properties were frozen at their 1914 levels, and affected tenants were given security of tenure. After the war, although it was originally intended that restriction would cease. It was decided In view of the continuing housing shortage that for a period controls should be maintained. In 1920 controlled rents were adjusted for Inflation and controls were extended to higher value properties. From 1923 to 1939 gradual decontrol took place. Decontrol was allowed on vacant possession in an Act of 1923; In 1933 this was stopped for low value properties but continued for a middle range of property, whilst the more expensive properties were decontrolled. In 1939, in anticipation of the war, decontrol was abolished and control was extended to almost all rented properties. Decontrol was not attempted again until 1957. Statutory restrictions on rent levels and repossession rights remain (though in a greatly modified form) to the present time. Ever since their introduction, their adverse effects on landlordism and their value for tenants have been much debated. 'Free marketeers' have generally regarded the restrictions as the principal cause of the decline of the private landlord and of the problems resulting from a scarcity of lettings. But there were clearly shortages, as well as disincentives to Investment prior to rent control. The growth of more attractive Investment possibilities, the expansion of permanent building societies and the tightening of controls on building standards during the latter part of the nineteenth century, all reduced the attractiveness of Investing in rented accommodation. Apart from noting that the restrictions did play some part In 46 effecting disinvestment - a topic t^ch will be returned to later in this section - it is not proposed to enter further upon the debate here, since it is tangential to present concerns. The issue is nonetheless very iiq)ortant, and the implications, and the early effects of the recent (1988) freeing of rent and repossession restrictions for new lettlngs, will be discussed In Chapter Eight. The 1915 and 1920 Rent Acts were highly b^ieflcial to the tenants concerned, both in respect of the amount of rent paid, and the security enjo/ed. On the latter, the Marley Committee, reporting in 1931, remarked: 'before the Rent Restrictions Acts t«ere passed, the trorking class tenant could be turned out of his home at a week's notice. For sixteen years this fear has been removed from his mind. The.. . . tenant who pays his rent has been given almost complete security of tenure during all these years, and now attaches as much importance to this as to the restricted rent.' (cited in Holmans, 1987, p. 406) For landlords letting controlled properties, returns were considerably reduced. In relation to prices, by 1923 rents had fallen in real terms from their 1914 level by 20-25%, and by 1937 the reduction vas in the order of 17% (Harloe, 1985; Holmans, 1987). Bettfeen 1939 and 1951, prices had almost doubled, but controlled rents remained frozen at their 1939 level (Balchin, 1989). The number of lettlngs that fell outside the Rent Acts tias, however, substantial. Between 1919 and 1939 new buildings were not subject to the legislation and by 1939 there were some 0.9 million of these in the market. Furnished lettings were also not subject to any restrictions until legislation In 1946 and 1949 allowed Rent Tribunals, at the instigation of the landlord or tenant, to determine 'reasonable* rents and granted srae (very limited) security of tenure. No doubt the absence of controls in this sub- sector in the inter-war years and the weakness of controls thereafter led to a number of convereione of unfurnished property, especially in periods when decontrol was allowd on vacant possessicvi. As a result of the scarcity of accommodation, furnished rooms could command very high prices. During the First World War tdhen the shortage was most severe, it was reported that in working 47 class districts in Plymouth a rent of IZs 6d a week (about three times the rent of an unfurnished room), could be encountered: "I am told of (one) at Devonport v^ere 15s a week was asked and the landlady was not anxious to let it, as she said she could get Is 6d to 2s a night from men coming ashore seeking accorrmodatIon, and four could be taken In this room!" (Western Evening Herald c. 1917). From 1923 to 1933, lettings that fell vacant lost the protection of the Rent Acts. So It is very likely that some tenants were subjected to harassment to leave by landlords eager to relet at a higher rent or to sell, as was to occur when similar legislation was enacted in 1957 - although the inducement to sell was greater at that later date. But certainly unscrupulous landlords could take advantage of the legislation. In Plymouth, the City Council expressed dismay that their actions also Inadvertently aided such landlords. No sooner had the Council closed an old property and rehoused the residents than the property would be bought up by 'people who wanted to make money out of it', le. speculators who sought out vacant lettings, whatever their condition, to relet at market rents (Western Evening Herald, c. 1930). Between 1923 and 1933, it has been estimated that around 2 million lettings became decontrolled on vacant possession, of which about 1.5 million were relet at market rents, and 0.5 million were sold for owner- occupation (Holmans, 1987). Overall, by 1939 the nuntjer of controlled tenancies was between 2.1 and 3 million, and the number of non-controlled, between 3.4 and 3.7 million (Harloe, 1985; Holmans, 1987). The existence of a controlled and a non-controlled sector side by side gave rise to marked illogicalities In the patterning of housing opportunltlfts. As Balchin has described It: •Many small households clung to large dwellings, and many high Income tenants benefitted from very low rents. Conversely some large families often with low incomes had to settle for small furnished dwellings at high uncontrolled rents. There was thus little relationship between household size, income, housing space, amenities and standards. Sometimes a single room In an unfurnished tenancy was let furnished at a rent higher than the controlled rent for the whole" (1989, pp.116-117). 48 Despite the anomalies that had arisen, successive Corrmittees investigating the Rent Acts in the inter-war years felt bound to concur with maintaining controls because of the continuing housing shortage, which was particularly acute for low income groups. Removal of controls in this situation would inevitably lead to large rent increases and presented the threat of social unrest. Rent control thus 'contained' the situation and gave a measure of protection to many, though not all, tenants; at the same time it did nothing to address the scarcity, acting rather as a contributory factor in disinvestment from rented property. As noted, after the Second Wbrld War rents remained frozen at their 1939 level until 1957, although under the Conservative's Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, very limited and highly conditional increases were permitted for properties that had received recent repair work, and new properties were no longer subject to controls. As a result of the freeze, rents fell sharply in relation to prices and this, in the context of other disincentives to landlordism and the attractions of realising capital values (especially when the owner-occupier market was so buoyant) led to an increasing number of sales for owner—occupation. On their re-election in 1955 the Conservatives resumed with a vengeance their hitherto modest progranme of freeing the restrictions on landlords. Taking the narrow and erroneous view that rent control had been the prime cause of disinvestment from private rented housing, and that therefore its removal would revive the sector, the government passed, in 1957, a Rent Act which removed all controls from the higher value properties, raised the rents of the remaining lettings and permitted their decontrol on vacant possession. The effect of the Act on the sector, particularly within areas of high demand, was disastrous. Since control was lifted on vacant possession, tenants of controlled lettings were more at risk of being harassed to leave. Many were effectively forced out because their landlords wanted either to sell, or to relet at higher rents and (often) with Increased occupancy. Tenants of decontrolled properties were obliged to pay the asking price, or were at risk of eviction; households who had difficulties obtaining accorrmodat ion, ethnic minorities and low income families, were the most vulnerable - 49 to such exploitation. In this respect, the unscrupulous activities of one landlord, Perec Rachman, earned him public notoriety. Instead of diminishing, sales for owner-occupation stepped up. This exacerbated the shortage of lettings, which, because of cut-backs, the public sector was in no position to alleviate. This period therefore saw a rise in homelessness, a depletion of unfurnished lettings as properties were sold or converted into 'freer' furnished accommodation, and a growth of multi-occupied, poor quality, insecure and expensive housing (Cu11ingworth, 1979; Murie et al., 1976; Donnison and Ungerson, 1982). Such problems in the private rented sector led to the Milner Holland investigation (1965), and also contributed to the defeat of the Conservatives in the 1964 General Election (Donnison and Ungerson, 1982). It was clearly politically necessary to halt decontrol, this was done in the 1965 Rent Act, which also established harassment as an offence. It was also clear that the system of controlling rents was crude and unsatisfactory, and needed replacing. In the 1965 Rent Act a new system of rent 'regulation' for unfurnished Lettlngs was introduced, whereby the tenant or landlord (or both) could apply to the local Rent Officer for determination of a 'fair' rent. In setting rents, Rent Officers were to have regard for the age, character, state of repair and location of the property (but not the personal circumstances of the tenant) and were to assume there was no scarcity of rented accofTfnodation in the area. The rent that was registered could be reviewed on a three yearly basis. The remaining controlled lettings were to remain as they were, until 'inherited' or vacated, when they became subject to regulation. The idea of regulation, which, as amended in the Mousing Act 1974, is still in effect for tenancies created before the 15th January 1989, was to give tenants protection without being punitive towards landlords. An analysis of the early years of the legislation found that rent registration did tend to provide tenants with protection from excessively high rents but that it did not bring about levels that were low. In fact, on average registered rents were higher even than non-controlled rents, although over time they fell behind market rents (Holmans, 1987). It also appeared that Rent Officers were not ignoring scarcity, as registered rents 50 were higher in areas of high demand. A detailed study In 1984 showed that the system was not 'fair' as such, nor did it remove anomalies, because, as so imch depended on individual Rent Officers' discretion, very different fair rents were being set for identical dwellings (Doling and Oavies, 1984). By the mid 'sixties concern %«as increasing over the low level of rents in controlled tenancies, a major argument was that they inhibited landlords from undertaking rep>airs. Relaxation of the restrictions was permitted in 1969, when controlled tenancies were allowed to become regulated if they were in reasonable repair and had all the standard amenities. This, on average, led to a three• fold increase in their rents (Holmans 1987). When elected In 1970, the Conservatives began a 'batch' transfer of controlled tenancies to the regulated sector; this was halted by the Labour government in 1974, although by then the controlled sector was much depleted. All the remaining controlled tenancies were finally converted to regulated in the Housing Act 1980. The 1965 legislation did not apply to furnished tenancies. Although these already had similar rent setting provisions to unfurnished lettings, they provided little security of tenure (courts being empowered only to defer eviction for a short period of time), so there was little to stop landlords from charging market rents. Increasingly, landlords converted unfurnished lettings into furnished, both to avoid granting tenants security and to extract higher rents. Little in the %rfay of furniture was needed to exempt the letting and such 'lino' lettings proliferated. At this time many lettings were being lost to the sector from slum clearance and from sales to owner-occupation, the latter encouraged In the early * seventies by improvement grants and by the boom in the house purchase market. House price inflation made it much more difficult for households to buy. In Plymouth, which was historically (and still is) an area of low Incomes and high house prices, the problem was acute; In 1972 average incomes were £25 a week, yet a weekly income of £50 was needed to buy (Western Evening Herald, 30th Aug. 1972). High house prices together with the shrinkage of the private rented sector led to severe conpetltlon over lettings. In Plymouth it ws reported that some letting agencies were putting vacant lettings to mock auctions, the tenancy 51 going to the highest bidder (Western Evening Herald, llth May, 1972). Landlords %tfere also able to be highly discriminatory in their letting policies, and families were the first to be excluded (Western Evening Herald, 1st. Dec. I973>. As a result, homelessness doubled in one year (Western Evening Herald, 25th May, 1973). CritlcLsns of the distinction that had been made between unfurnished and furnished acconnxxiation in the 1965 Act eventually brought about, in the 1974 Rent Act, an extension of security to the furnished sector. But the switch from unfurnished to furnished accoinnodatlon has continued because of the tax advantages of letting furnished, the higher rents that can be obtained (Rent Officers adding an amount for furniture) and because landlords %^o wished to exploit loopholes In the Legislation (discussed below) could usually only do so by letting furnished. The dlstictlon between unfurnished and furnished accornnodation was replaced in the 1974 Act by one between resident and absentee landlords, security being reduced for new lettlngs made by resident landlords. Rent registration has not been widely used. In 1969 only about 14* of regulated tenants had registered rents, and surveys conducted in 1983-84 Indicated that, of new lettlngs, under 10X had registered rents (Greater London Council, 1986; Todd, 1988). An official Investigation in the early years of the legislation interpreted this as Indicating that most landlords were already setting reasonable rents and most tenants were content (Holmans, 1987). However, subsequent studies have shown that many tenants, as well as a number of landlords, are unaware of the legislation, whilst some tenants do not wish to apply for fear of their landlords' reactions (Paley, 1978; Doling, 1984). Paley's 1976 survey, for example, showed that nearly a third of the tenants did not know whether their rent was controlled, registered or set by the landlord. In the lettings where it was established the landlord had set the rent, nearly one In ten tenants said they would not apply for registration because they did not want to upset the landlord. Other surveys have found as many as a quarter of tenants unwilling to apply for this reason, and that black tenants are most likely to be deterred, In large part because of their awareness of the shortage of alternative opportunities (Doling, 1984; Doling and Davies, 1984). In general, studies have found that applications 52 have nearly always been made by landlords, this being in many cases their only legal way of raising the rent (Doling and Davies, 198+>. Thus although the regulated sector provides security, making it possible for tenants to apply for fair rents, to many tenants (%^en aware of their rights) the legislation could appear more theoretical than real. Because of the informal, personal nature of most Iandlord/tenant relationships, redress in the courts in the event of, for example, harassment following an application for rent registration, %#ould have no relevance where a tenant wanted to avoid in the first instance any possibility of problems with the landlord. In fact the law on harassment (despite a number of changes making penalties more severe) has proved ineffectual because of the difficulties of proof (Robertson, 1973; Harloe, 1985; Burrow^s and Hunter, 1990). Very few cases have even gone to court. In 1984, for the entire Greater London area there were only 22 successful prosecutions for harassment, yet a 1983-84- survey found that about 16,000 or one in twenty private tenants in Greater London had experienced harassment in the previous twelve months, and for one in forty the offence had been serious, involving threats, abuse or assault (Greater London Council, 1986). This survey also showed that the young and single (especially women), ethnic minorities and the unemployed were the most at risk. To maintain rrBxirrum control over their lettings, many of the more business-minded landlords have sought to evade altogether the provisions of the Rent Acts. After furnished tenancies were given more protection in 1974, such landlords turned to exploiting other types of letting exempted from regulation. These include holiday lettings, lettings providing a 'licence to occupy' and lettings with board or attendance. 'Holiday* lettings began to spring up in such unlikely places as Brixton and LaiTt>eth, yet landlords were still requiring references and knew the tenants had no other home (Weir, 1975; Vaite, 1981). Licence agreements were intended for acconmodation where it was not reasonable to grant security of tenure, such as hostels or refuges. These agreements came to be extensively used by landlords as they are convenient and the burden of proof that the licence is a sham rests on the tenant establishing otherwise in court. Such unprotected lettings are associated with worse 53 conditions and high rente (Leeds University Union, 1982; Greater London Council, 1986; Todd, 1990). A survey of students privately renting In Leeds, for example, found that 40X were llcencees and they tended to pay higher rents and live In older, poorer quality property than tenants (Leeds University Union, 1982). A 1988 survey has conflrited this picture of poor conditions and high rents in Insecure lettlngs Froa 1979 to the present tine, successive Conservative governments have pursued with vigour a policy of privatisation and deregulation. Revitalising the private rented sector formed an Important component of this strategy. In the 1980 Housing Act, the review period for registered rents tras reduced from three years to two, so allowing more frequent rent increases, and two more exemptions to full Rent Act protection were Introduced; shorthold and assured tenancies. Assured tenancies <%rtiich %«ere redefined In the 1988 Housing Act) were designed to encourage new build for letting. These enabled approved landlords to let new properties at market rents. Shorthold tenancies (also modified In the 1988 Act) granted landlords the right to repossess after a fixed term of between one and five years, and were Intended to encourage landlords to let property that had previously been held empty. Both types of letting marked new departures; assured tenancies represented the first time since 1957 that a government had legislated to permit the la%«B of supply and demand to dictate rent levels in the private rented sector, and shortholds the first time In the history of governmental Intervention that legislation had been Introduced allowing an absentee landlord to evict on the simple grounds that there bias no longer a desire to accommodate the tenant. Nevertheless, the measures raised only limited protest. In 1980 the private rented sector housed no more than 12X of households and from the mid 'seventies its problems had lost the public's interest. In terms of achieving governmental objectives the new tenancies were not a great success. Only 609 assured tenancy dwellings had been built by April 1986 (Kemp, 1988a). Consequently -54- the ^vernment amended the legislation to aTlow narket rente for newly refurbished properties. This greatly increased the use of aeeured tenancy agreenents, in one six cDonth period In 1987 sone 2,400 %#ere created (Balchln, 1989). Shortholds %#ere ineffectual in attracting empty properties back on the market (Allen and NcDo%iell, 1982). Rather, landlords who had previously granted Dore secure tenancy agreements switched to using shortholds. When the Secretary of State removed the original rent registration requirement for the use of shortholds, tenants with such agreenents not only had limited security, but also United ability to register the rent; since the threat that the agreenent would not be renewed would act as a significant deterrent. A 1984 survey of recent lettinge (excluding those inaccessible to the general public) found that 20X of lettlngs were ehortholds, 14% were licences or holiday lettlngs and 7X were resident landlord lettlngs (Todd, 1988); in other words, two-fifths of new tenants had accepted (or been obliged to accept) accommodation t#hich gave them little or no security. A third election victory in 1987 gave the Conservatives the confidence to pursue their strategy of deregulation much further. As their predecessors of the late 'fifties had done, the government believed that the statutory restrictions on landlords had caused the decline of the private rented sector and therefore their removal was the key to reinvestment. In 1988 the government passed legislation which enabled all new lettlngs to be let at market rents. Agreements made on or after the 15th January 1989 (except for holiday lets and other licence agreements.) are either 'assured' tenancies or 'assured shortholds*. In both cases, security of tenure is less than that provided under the old regime; the grounds for repossession of assured tenancies are more liberal than those for regulated tenancies, and the shorthold term has been reduced to six months. In passing the 1988 Act the government ignored the fact that avoidance of the restrictions had always been relatively easy, and that many tenants already paid narket (or privately 'agreed') rents and had limited security. The Plymouth survey, conducted in 1987- 86, is able to provide information on the prevalence of short tern or insecure agreenents, as veil as the use of different agreements for different types of household, iixDediately prior to the 55 legislation, and so It forms a useful basis from which to assess the effects of the Act. A fuller discussion of the 1988 Act, and of other measures the government has taken to encourage investment in rented property, is provided in Chapter Eight. To surrmarise, therefore, it has been shown that market scarcity at a time of national emergency Initially prompted governmental Intervention In landlord/tenant contracts; tenants' protests against their exploitation by property owners posing a threat to the war economy. Continuing shortages since the First World War, especially at the lower end of the market, have Inhibited almost all governrnents until the 1980s from taking any deregulatory action. Yet while the legislation has provided Important safeguards, the very fact of scarcity has undermined the effectiveness of the protective measures. Scarcity has enabled landlords to pick and choose between tenants and to let according to their own terms. Although there have been landlords wrfio have suffered financial Loss and hardship as a result of the legislation, profit-minded landlords have always found ways around the Rent Acts, exploiting the various exernptions. The very personal nature of the landlord/tenant relationship makes It difficult to enforce legislation at the same time as enabling landlords to use 'Informal pressure' (Harloe, 1985), sometimes amounting to harassment to maintain control. Those who have been most vulnerable to exploitation are the same groups disadvantaged within the wider society, the unemployed, ethnic minorities, low Income families, etc. The relatively weak bargaining position of such households (many of ^om are dependent on the sector and have particular problems in obtaining accommdatIon) means that few can afford to protest and risk eviction. Since, over time, the private rented sector has declined and become increasingly confined to housing low income groups, the balance of power, despite 'pro-tenant' Intervention by governments, has remained tipped heavily in favour of landlords. The present legislative regime has tipped the balance much further In their direction. -56- Housing Benefits Until the introduction of rent allowances in 1972, only unemployed private tenants received help from the state with their housing costs. Of course, rent controls provided general (although uneven and partial) assistance, but the assistance was financed by landlords in the form of rent foregone. The allowances v^ere brought in by the Conservative government to protect low income tenants against financial hardship resulting from rent increases as controlled tenancies were transfered to the regulated system. They initially applied solely to unfurnished tenancies, but in 1973 were made available to tenants of furnished acconmodation. Their introduction formed part of the government's strategy of targeting state aid on the most needy (as opposed to providing universal support), and effectively paved the way for later Conservative governments to further lift and then substantially remove the remaining restrictions on private rents. Because their availability has been used to Justify rent increases, and because so many tenants now rely on housing benefits to help pay for their housing, they are an important consideration in any discussion of the opportunities of private tenants. In practice, rent allo%rance8 (since 1982, housing benefits) have proved very Ineffective in protecting low income households. A perennial problem has been that of 'take-up', ie. the proportion of households eligible who claim benefit. Although take-up increased throughout the nineteen-seventies, by the end of the decade it had only risen to 60-65X in the unfurnished sector, and was considerably lower in the furnished (Bovaird et al. , 1982). By 1988 take-up was still poor and over a quarter of eligible households were experiencing unnecessary hardship (Todd. 1990). In general it appears that pensioners are the most likely to take advantage of the scheme, and families, and particularly young people, the least likely (Bradshaw, 1985, Todd, 1990). Low take-up ie also associated with insecure furnished accorrmodation, despite the fact that rents are rnich higher in this sub-sector (Todd, 1990). Reasons put forward for non-application include ignorance of the scheme, high housing mobility and stigma (Thomas and Hedges, 1986; Harloe, 1985; Todd, 1990). Fear of an adverse reaction from 57- the landlord Is another probable cause (Thomas and Hedges, 1986). While a number of landlords have charged more as a result of the availability of housing benefits, pushing up rents to the maximum possible, there are many who are unwilling to let to households in receipt of housing benefit. Their reasons vary, but some landlords are concerned the rent might then be refered to the rent officer, whilst others are engaged in tax fiddles (Thomas and Hedges, 1986). So tenants of such landlords are likely to be deterred from making an application because of the risk of harassment or eviction. But the underlying problem of low take-up rests with the scheme itself; as Bradshaw has pointed out, non-take-up is an "apparently intractable by-product of delivering benefits according to means" (1985). When tenants do apply, the assistance provided does not always meet the full rent, even when the recipient is totally dependent on benefits. Allowances are based on Individual local authorities' estimates of 'reasonable' rents. If the rent is not registered the allowance is set in accordance with an estimate of a fair rent, and, for lettings made after 15th January 1989, it is based on notions of 'reasonable' market rents. As a result, many low income households get inadequate assistance. In 1977, 13,000 tenants did not have their rent met in full, and on average the unmet amount was £3.55 (Allbeson, 1980). Such households are not necessarily in high rent properties, many have suffered through arbitrary and unfair decisions of local authority officers, as Allbeson's study has shown (1980). Significant numbers of households have also suffered as a result of the complexity and organisation of assistance schemes. Until reorganisation in 1982, it could make a considerable difference to some households' incomes %^ther they claimed supplementary benefit or rent allowances and rate rebates; the 'better-off problem (see Lister, 1981). The DHSS estimated that nearly half a million people (in all sectors) in 1979 were claiming the 'wrong' benefit, and so were receiving insufficient help (Donnison and Ungerson, 1982). In 1982, administrative responsibility for housing benefits was transfered to local authorities and the benefits were 'unified' to deal with problems of complexity and overlap. However, such problems remained and the - 58 extral burden of work that the transfer involved proved disastrous. As local authorities struggled to cope with the new scheme thousands of tenants fell Into debt and consequently had problems with their landlords, some being evicted (National Consumer Council, 1984; Andrews and Jacobs, 1990; Raynsford, 1985). Benefits were reorganised again in 1986, and the new housing benefit scheme came into effect in April 1988, shortly after the Plymouth survey was completed. Most financial hardship has been caused by governmental cut• backs in expenditure on benefits. C^ts in housing benefit entitlement have been made through scheme reforrnjlations, through changes to benefit 'tapers' and through contraction of the types of eligible household. Savings have tended to be worked into changes to benefit schemes. The introduction of 'unified' housing benefit in 1982 involved more households losing out financially than gaining (Balchin, 1989) whilst cuts of £550 million acconpanied the benefit changes in 1988, causing 5.6 million households to be worse off (Andrews and Jacobs 1990). Benefit tapers act as fine controls on the cost of schemes. These are to do with the rate at which benefit is withdrawn as income rises. When the 1982 scheme %ras introduced the combined taper for rent and rates was 23%, ie. for every £1 over the 'needs' allowance the claimant lost 23p in benefit. Between 1982 and 1987 the taper rose several times and by 1987 it stood at 46X. in 1988, when the latest benefit system was brought in, the new taper was estimated to be equivalent to one of 55X under the old scheme (Andrews and Jacobs, 1990). Over the years such cost cutting exercises have meant that millions of households have had their benefit reduced or have lost ail entitlement (Andrews and Jacobs, 1990). Changes in eligibility rules during the 'eighties have also been very damaging, especially for the young and single. It is not proposed to discuss the entitlement changes here (for a review, see Andrews and Jacobs, 1990, or Raynsford, 1985), but it is iiiportant to note that the changes have significantly reduced the ability of the young to rent privately; 16-17 year olds, for example, lost all their entitlement to benefits in 1988 (apart from very limited exceptions), and students have, after experiencing cut-backs, - 59 recently lost their entitlement to housing benefit. Overall, then, housing benefits have been very inadequate in providing protection for low incone households. The corrplexit les of schemes and the problems associated with take-up have meant that not all those eligible have received sufficient or any help, whilst notions of reasonable rents have placed limitations on the aid provided. Although the availability of housing benefit has been used to justify decontrol measures, over the years the protection has been clawed back. In consequence, as rents have risen, those already on low incomes have faced a drop in their living standards. Cuts have been defended on the grounds that benefits are available 'too far' up the income scale, yet as Andrews and Jacobs have argued, in 1988 benefits could cease when incomes were considerably less than half average wages (1990, p. 33). With this in mind, It Is somewhat revealing that the proportion of privately renting households eligible for housing benefit in 1988 was estirreted to be 50% (Todd, 1990). This clearly demonstrates the extent to which the sector caters for low income households. It also shows that effective demand for lettings Is very low, and that the profitability of providing private rented accommodation, as well as the potential for low income households to obtain affordable, decent quality housing, are constrained to a significant extent by levels of housing benefit. The Decline of the Private Rented Sector. The residualisation of private renting into a tenure for mainly low income groups, when formerly It was for all, Is a product of the sector's decline and the accorrpanying growth in importance of owner-occupier and council housing. The decline has been quite dramatic; from nearly 90X of households renting privately in 1914 to around 7% in 1988 (Aughton with Malpass 1990). An absolute reduction has also taken place, from 7.6 million dwellings in 1914 to 1.6 million in 1988 (Holmans, 1987). There has been much debate over the causes of the decline. Many, especially on the right of the political spectrum, hold rent control to be the prime reason (eg. Albon and Stafford, 1988; Oamer 1980). Certainly it has acted as a disincentive, preventing - 60 Landlords from charging market rents and, because of the accompanying security provisions, from ejecting tenants when wanted and either realising the capital or reletting at a higher rent. But, as has been argued earlier in this Chapter, disincentives to Landlordism existed prior to the introduction of rent control in 1915, whilst restrictions on rents and repossession rights have never concerned all lettings and have frequently been circumvented. The decline of the p>rivate rented sector is probably best explained in terms of a number of (often interrelated) factors, each of which has assumed a greater or lesser importance at different times. These include the policies directed at housing conditions discussed earlier - rmch stock was removed through slum clearance, and improvement grants often helped landlords p>roduce a more saleable product for owner-occupation. Increasingly stringent standards over building structures, layout and densities, and rising costs of repair and maintenance (particularly after the last war), have also contributed. Whereas there were few investment opportunities in the nineteenth century, since then alternatives to rental property have widened and have grown comparatively more attractive. As Balchin (1989) remarks, private rented housing falls short on all of the general criteria of investment; the level of risk, liquidity, management involvement and expected return on capital (p. 107). Taxation policies have also been unfavourable to landlordism (House of Confnons, 1982, p. xxvii). Landlords have been unable to claim for depreciation or obtain tax relief on mortgage interest, but pay tax on profits and are subject to capital gains tax t^en properties are sold. In 1988, for the first time, some (limited and circumscribed) tax incentives were introduced through the Business Expansion Scheme (BES). Another factor, which has been most significant in the post• war period, has been the relative attractiveness of the main alternatives to private renting; owner-occupation and council housing. Surveys have shown that the council sector is seen as offering better standards, lower rents and greater tenure security, whilst owner-occupation is seen as more secure, as well as providing 'independence' and the opportunity for making a capital gain (British Market Research Bureau, 1976; Donnison, 1967; Doling and - 61 Davies, 1984). The distribution of housing subsidies has been highly irrportant in fuelling demand for both tenures and diverting it away from private renting. Considerable fiscal support has been given to local authority provision and especially to ow^ner-occupat ion. In this country, aiding private landlords has been politically and ideologically unacceptable and landlords, %^>o are numerous and fragmented, have been ineffective in promoting their interests. Until the BES tax incentives, the only form of subsidy to the private rented sector has been means-tested housing benefits, and these have done little to encourage demand or supply. Demand for owner-occupation has been further initiated by its status associations and image of social respectability - actively fostered by post-war governments through the notion of a ' p>roperty owning democracy', which effectively relegates renters to the position of second class citizens. The loss of higher and middle income households to owner-occupation greatly reduced the profitability of private rental provision and at the same time encouraged landlords to sell (particularly in 'boom' periods) and so capitalize on the demand for home ownership. The growth of the owner-occupier and council sectors have radically altered the structure of housing opportunities; prior to the First World War there was little alternative to privately renting. The extent to which these tenures do constitute alternatives for any individual household, however, is dependent on the household's position in relation to the 'qualifications' required for access. As choice over tenure is one of the concerns of the present work, before turning to examine the present nature of private renting it is appropriate to consider briefly opportunities of access within the wider housing market. Income (in the absence of capital) is all important for access to owner-occupation. Even though this tenure (in its modern form) has always been within the reach of the upper eschelons of the working classes, opportunities are stacked towards those with higher Incomes (Ball, 1989). Most households buy with the help of a loan to be repaid over a long period, so apart from actual income at the time of application, lenders take account of age, Job stability and 62 other financial cGntnitments. In the early 'seventies this was found to have effected a tendency for house buyers to be young (only a quarter of first-time borrowers from one building society were over 35), have above average incomes and be in salaried occupations (Murie et al., 1976). Households who have deferred child-bearing or have few children have also been found to be over-represented amongst house-buyers, this is because of their higher per capita incomes (Payne and Payne, 1977; Short, 1982). Despite continuing efforts by governments to extend home-ownership do%^market (through 'option' mortgage schemes, low start mortgages, hocne loan schemes, etc.), the profile of house-buyers has not significantly changed; in 1987 a disproportionate number of mortgages were still granted to higher income households (Balchin, 1989). From this, then, it can be seen that the elderly, the low paid, the unemployed and those in irregular employment will have restricted ability to e(r<>ark upon house purchase. The prime determinant of access to Local authority accommodation is housing need. Ihis concept is only vaguely defined in the legislation and much is left open to individual local authorities* discretion (Murie et al., 1976). In practice, though, rather similar, narrow definitions have been used and interpretation of the criteria for tenant selection has become more strict the more demand has outstripped supply. Following central governmental guidelines, priority has normally been given to households displaced as a result of slum clearance schemes, occupants of overcrowded or 'insanitary' housing (this has generally been interpreted in terms of a lack of, or shared amenities) and - but only since 19/7 - homeless households. Priority has also been given to households with children within these categories of housing need, and, to a certain extent, the elderly, especially if disabled or ill. All local authorities maintain a register (or 'waiting list') of applicants seeking council accorrmodat ion, and this forms the main route into the sector. As council housing is a scarce resource the waiting list acts as a rationing device. Although it has been used as a measure of the extent of need for council housing, the list clearly excludes needy households who do not register. Many in housing need do not apply because they consider their chances of success to be poor. The priority given to families and to crowded - 63 households, for example, has certainly deterred many single people. Others do not register because of the sector's association (often politically manipulated) with 'welfare' (despite the larger subsidies given to owner-occupiers). Then there are households find they are disqualified because they have not lived for long enough in an area. Not all local authorities operate residency requirements but of those that do, the necessary time can be anything from six months to over five years. Some sojthorities allow registration, but will r>ot consider households' applications until after a set time period. Plymouth, for example, will not award 'points', which determine the household's priority, until the application has been registered for 12 months, during which time the applicant must have been living within the City boundary. In fact, very few local authorities have no residency requirements whatsoever and so households recently arrived in an area are frequently disadvantaged. This can have signlcant repercussions, as Rex and Moore's study, discussed earlier, has shown. Legal interest in a property forms another restriction operated by many local authorities, either to limit access to a list or determine eligibility amongst those registered (Murie et al., 1976). In Plymouth anyone can register, but owner-cxrcupiers and even former owner—occupiers are not normally considered for housing. Most one-time house owners enter the council sector as a result ot clearance schemes or homelessness. Points are mainly awarded to registered applicants for unsatisfactory housing and for time spent enduring poor conditions. The emphasis is therefore firmly on physical aspects of present housing; social need, the ability of a household to cope with their housing, is not normally considered. Also, narrow definitions of unsatisfactory housing tend to be used, and factors such as accessibility, affordabiIity and tenure insecurity are given little or no attention, whilst disrepair and damp conmand considerably fewer points than crowding. Most council housing has been built with tamilies in mind, and with a certain view of the 'family'; ie. couples with two children. This, again, restricts access. Large or extended families and single households have particular difficulties. In Ipswich, for 64- instance, where, in 1985 over a half of the households on the waiting list were single people. Just lOX of the stock was for the single (Lawrence, 1985). When the council stock was at its largest towards the end of the 'seventies, only 17X of the total units in England and Wales %^re one bedroom dwellings and most was purpose built for the old (Merret, 1979). Further, access to such acconmodat ion is restricted by the demands of existing council tenants, and local authorities usually give priority to transfer requests (Murie et al. , 1976). Amongst transfer applicants, under- occupying tenants (mainly elderly households whose children have left home) are generally given the highest priority. Murie et al. (1976) have found that this policy severely constrains the opportunities of elderly households on waiting lists. Over the past two decades household formation has increased at a greater rate than population and there has been a considerable rise in the nurrbers of small households, especially young single and one or two person elderly households. Accordingly, the nunters of such households in housing need but unable to gain entry to the local authority sector are also growing. The contraction of the private rented sector, the loss of approximately 1.2 million council dwellings as a consequence of the Right to Buy legislation and the reduction in new council build have increased pressure on the remaining council stock. Between 1983 and 1988 the nurTi>er registered on local authority waiting lists rose f rom 0. 74 mi 11 ion to 1.27 mi iI ion (Ever i tt, 1991). Homelessness has also grown; 53,100 households w«re accepted by local authorities in 1978, in 1988 the figure was 117,000 (Everitt, 1991). Countless more households were homeless but not accepted - local authorities rarely accept couples or single people, v^ilst any household deemed to be 'intentionally' homeless is excluded. In surr^ opportunities for access to council housing are very highly constrained and the situation is steadily worsening. Since the mid 'sixties successive governments have aided housing associations with grants and loans so they might meet the shortfall in the supply of rented housing. Housing association accorrmodation has greatly increased and by 1986 constituted around 2.5% of the total dwelling stock. Ihe supply, however, has not compensated for the loss of private rented and council stock, nor - 65 has it been at all sufficient to meet demand. Some associations have been affected by the Right to Buy legislation and consequently have seen some loss of units, whilst in recent years a significant proportion of the ' new* stock has concerned dwellings transfered from the public sector. and so does not signify new rental provision. Entry is usually obtained via an association's waiting list, although local authorities have the right to nominate households from their lists or homeless applicants to associations that receive government funding. Associations vary considerably in whom they house, some cater for general needs, but many provide accorrmodatlon for specific groups, such as the elderly, single people, racial minorities, lone parent families, the unemployed, ex-offenders and the mentally or physically disabled. In this respect housing associations have been reported to have a better record than local authorities (Smith, 1989; Balchin, 1989). Opportunities depend largely on the size of the stock, its rate of turnover and the priorities of the associations in the local area. As with households wanting council housing, those who are able to y/ait stand the most chance. It can be seen then, that access to the main alternatives to private renting is tightly constrained. In this light* the private rented sector has a most vital role within the housing market; it is the only sector which has no formal rules or qualifications determining access. Yet, in view of the substantial numbers ot homeless households, this tenure of 'last resort' clearly fails to address all housing needs. As studies have testified, the sector also fails to meet adequately the needs of those it does accofnnodate; many tenants are unsuitably or badly housed (see, eg. Greater London Council, 1986; Todd, 1990). In the next section, therefore, the available information on access to the private rented sector is examined. 66 2.3. PRIVAIH RENTING: THE PRESENT SITUATION. In this section the objectives are: a) to outline the chief characteristics of the private rented sector and its tenants, and b) to review the information on access to lettings. a) The Charpipter pf thQ Private RentppI Spc^or Information on the character of the private rented sector can be derived from a number of sources. I'he Census provides basic data, and regular surveys such as the General Household Survey and the English House Condition Survey are useful for investigation of specific aspects of the sector. In addition, 'Private Renting in 1988', a national survey corrrnissioned by the Department of the Environment, provides an important source of recent information on tenants and on the privately rented sub-sectors. Rather than present a comprehensive account, the intention in this review is to provide the relevant t>ackground to the Plymouth study, drawing out in particular the available information on the characteristics of privately renting households and their different situations within the sector. Privately Renting Households Table 2.1 presents a profile of households in the private rented sector and in all tenures together. One feature that stands out is the residual isation of the unfurnished sector; over half of the tenants are pensioners, nearly two-thirds are over 60 and most have lived in their accocnnodation for many years - a half for more than ten years. In terms of socio-economic grouping, manual workers are over-represented and professionals and managers are under- represented in unfurnished acconmodat ion; again reflecting the decline in importance of the unfurnished sector as a mainstream tenure. That said, there are signs of change in the character of the unfurnished sector. The 'old' unfurnished sector continues to decline, but in recent years the growth in the use of more 67- restrictive letting agreenente has led to both new lete and relets of unfurnished accomnodatlon. Assured lettings are nalnly unfurnished. These have frequently been let to higher Incone non- manual households, and as a result, the unfurnished sector shows higher proportions of recent residents, young households and non- manual households than It did only a few years ago (cf., eg. Keiq>, igS8a; also 1981 Census data and the annual General Household Surveys). H pf HQUsfihoids in; Unfurnished Furnished All Tenures Household Type Pensioner 56 7 34 Non-pensioner 34 79 41 Householdi »tth children II 15 25 Total 100 100 100 fifle; m head Under 30 17 61 13 30-59 25 32 Si 60 plus 58 7 36 Total 100 100 100 Socio-ficonQiic flroup: M head Professional/nanigerial 16 31 32 Internediate non-ianual 25 34 20 Skilled aanual 39 20 32 Sffii/unskilled aanual 21 14 16 Total 100 100 100 Ecommiolly active 43 72 62 Length of fefiidence; H/H head Under 3 years 27 83 26 3 to 10 years 21 12 32 11 to 30 years 26 6 31 31 plus years 26 - II Total 100 100 100 firosfi mUi H/H IncQwe i Rein 159 200 238 Radian 146 158 204 Source; OPCS 1990. Tables 11.21, 11.20. 11.23, 11.36, 11.19. Household types have been aggregated; pensioner^ one adult aged 6(H and tvo adults one or both aged 60*. non-pensioner' one or tvo adults aged 15-59 and large adult households, households with children^ siall and large faiilies. -68 In the furnished sector there is an over-representation of young, non-pensioner childless households. Few have been resident over three years, Indicating that the sector mainly provides short term accommodation, and the over-representation of Intermediate non- manual workers suggests a use of furnished lettlnge as a stepping stone to other tenures. The data on InconeB demonstrates that privately renting households are significantly less well-off than households as a fcihole. The mean household incomes in the unfurnished sector Is two- thirds the average for all tenures and the median is under three- quarters the median household Income. The proportions are 841 and 77% In the furnished sector, thus even here, despite higher than average proportions of non-manual t«orkers and economically active households. Incomes are low. In the unfurnished sector, low Incomes reflect to some extent the preponderance of pensioner households, although as Bovaird et al. have pointed out, when economic activity Is taken into account, the Incomes of unfurnished tenants are still significantly lo%^ than average Incomes (1985, p.7). Evidence from the General Household Survey indicates that over the years privately renting households have become steadily poorer as cos^ared with all households (see, eg. Bovaird et al. 1985). Recently, ho%«ever, unfurnished tenants, though still comparatively very poor, have become slightly better-off on average In relation to all households. This Is mainly as a result of the growing contingent of non-manual households in assured lettings. By 1983, eg. the mean Income of unfurnished tenants had fallen to only 62% the mean household income COPCS, 1985), but the figure for 1988 was 67X. By, contrast, Incomes of furnished tenants continue to diminish In relation to average incomes CBovalrd et al. , 1985; OPCS, 1990>. Private tenants and their Housing 1) Legal Situation In 1988 most tenants (83X> were located In the regulated eub- sector, le. they were protected by the Rent Acts. 37X had registered (fair) rents. 17% however, had less favourable letting 69 terne: 6X bad resident landlords and 7% were In shorthold or assured letting, and so had reduced or only short term security, whilst 4X had no security, renting In the naln accommodation providing services or under licence agreements (see Todd, 1990, p.12; also Chapter Five for a fuller description of legal categories). Regulated tenancies %«ere predominantly unfurnished (62X), as were shorthold or assured lettlngs (58X>. Resident landlord accosnodatlon and lettlngs providing no security tended to be furnished - respectively 56X and 84X (Todd. 1990, p. 15). TABLE 2. 2: HOUSEHOLD PROFILE BY LEGAL SUB-SECTOR t of Households in: Regulated Resident No Assured/ All P.R. Registered Unregistered Landlord Security Shorthold Tenancies Household Type Pensioner 61 25 3S 3 15 37 Non-pensioner 32 62 60 95 66 53 N/H vith children 7 13 5 2 19 10 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 flge Under 30 II 43 35 74 51 33 30-59 2i 30 30 26 38 28 60 plus 65 27 35 - 21 39 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 yorking Status Eaployed 33 65 50 52 72 53 Unenployed 7 8 16 33 11 9 Retired 60 22 29 - 8 34 Full-tiie education - 5 4 15 9 4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Socio-econonic group Non-aanual 35 42 40 31 57 39 Manual 49 43 42 37 38 45 Other/A. Forces 16 15 18 32 15 16 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Hean net veekly ttnancy incoM £ 97 160 91 109 136 No Data Source: Todd (1990) Tables 4.5. 4.1a. 4.2, 4.3, 4.8. 70 Table 2.2 show the distribution of households be%»een the legal sub-sectors. Pensioners, and the elderly In general were best placed with respect to security as %#ell as rents, being over- represented In the fairly sizeable regulated registered sub-sector. Nost of the lettlngs providing no security tiere occupied by young non-pensioner households, and many households were unemployed or were students, Indicating that the sub-sector accomtodated the financially weaker In the competition for lettings. Families showed high proportions In regulated unregistered accommodation and in shorthold or assured lets. Reflecting the coixq)aratlvely large proportions of retired occupants, both the regulated registered and resident landlord sub- sectors showed the lowest income levels of all the tenancies. Households in lets providing no security also had low incomes, largely as a result of the high proportions unemployed or in full- tlne education in this sub-sector. 11) HoM^Ang Qftn< - 71 according to the 1985 Physical and Social Survey of Houses in Multiple Occupation Although the data Is crude, referlng only to such aspects of housing conditions as amenity provision and crowding. Table 2.3 provides an Illustration of the generally poor conditions in the private rented sector as compared with the average for all tenures. It shows that the private rented sector has proportionately more households In r>on-self-contained dwellings and more lacking or sharing amenities than the average for all tenures. Lack of amenities is especially high in unfurnished lets. whilst in furnished lets a quarter of households do not have self-contained accoirmodation and there Is a very high level of croi^ding and of amenity sharing. Table 2.3 also gives some indication of the housing conditions experienced by different types of household In the private rented sector. Pensioners renting unfurnished lets are the most likely to lack amenities, which suggests that they predominate in old, unimproved accorrmodation. Non-pensioner childless households do badly In the furnished sector; over a quarter are in non-self- contained dwellings and they most often lack or share amenities. Families do rather better with respect to amenities and self- containment than other households In the sector, but are most likely to live in crowded conditions, especially in the furnished sub- sector. 72 TABLE 2.3: SELF-COhfTAirtgKfT. ArgNITY PROVISION AM) CROWDING BY TENURE AhP HOUSEHOLD TYPE Unrgrnished Furnished All Tenures Not self-contained 5 25 I 1 of all pensioners 5 25 1 t of all non-pensioners 6 26 2 1 of all households with children 3 9 2 Lacking bath and inside VC 11 1 1 1 of all pensioners U 6 3 1 of all non-pensioners 8 - - 1 of all households with children 5 1 - Sharing bath and inside VC 2 24 1 1 of all pensioners 2 23 - S of all non-pensioners 3 27 2 1 of all households with children 2 6 - Over 1 person per room 2 7 3 1 of all pensioners - 1 - t of ell non-pensioners ] 5 - 1 of ell households with children 12 21 - Source: OPCS (19B3a} Tables 17 and 20. Household types have been aggregated; pensioner= one adult aged 604 and tvo adults one or both aged 60t, non-pensioner= one or two adults aged 15-59 end 3 or nore adults vith no children. Another subject of interest is whether housing cor>ditions differ between the legal sub-sectors. The 'Private Renting in 1988' survey Ill) HQMsiing Cft^l^s Table 2.4 shows average rent and rates within each of the legal sub-sectors. The figures confirm the findings of previous 73- studies that registered rents are on the whole significantly lower than non-registered rents. The highest rents were In lettings providing no security and in shorthold and assured lets legislation permitting 'market' rents for assured tenancies (ie. excluding them from rent regulation) having been passed in 1980. Furnished properties had considerably higher rents than unfurnished properties, especially outside of the regulated registered sub- sector, suggesting that landlords considered the provision of furniture to be worth more than did Rent Officers. T/SBLE 2, 4; R^fF AM) RATHS BY P^fiAL ^-SEPTQR Regulated Resident No Assured/ Registered Unregistered Landlord Security Shorthold Cgmfxirpbiet mean yeeMy rent pnd rates £s: Unfurnished ?6 35 ?4 - iO Furnished 31 46 31 42 57 Both ?6 41 28 39 46 Source; Todd, 1990, Tables 6.4, 6.5. (I Comparable rent and rates = adjusted to take account of services eg. meals, cleaning). Todd (1990) has shown that length of residence makes a difference to the level of rent paid, long term residents tending to pay less than more recent cx:cupant5 for ec^lvalent accorrfnodat ion. This was related to landlords taking the opportunity to increase rents when a tenancy changed. The difference can be substantial; in regulated registered d>^llings the average rent and rates of tenancies that started prior to 1968 was £18, coirpared with £52 for tenancies that had started in the 18 months prior to the survey. This survey also showed that rents varied according to household type. htot suprlsingly, given their preponderance in unfurnished lettings and often long term of residence, pensioners tended to pay the lowest rents. Households with children generally paid more than childless householcis (Todd, 1990, p. 48). The proportion of income spent on housing Is relatively high in the private rented sector, especially amongst tenants of furnished lettings (Central Statistical Office, 1990). Overall, In 1988 over two-fifths of households spent more than a third of their - 74 Income on rent, and over two-thirds cxjtLayed more than a fifth of their income (Todd, 1990). As the National Federation of Housing Associations consider an 'affordable rent' to be one which amounts to no more than one-fifth of inccxne, these figures are quite remarkable. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 consider rents in relation to incomes, and dependency on, and entitlement to, benefits; in Table 2.5 by legal sub-sector and in Table 2.6 by household type. TABLE g,5s R^fTS, INPQfl^g A^P BI^FiTS BY MEPAL SW-gECTPf^ Legal Sub-secior: Regulated Resident No Assured/ Registered Unregistered Landlord Security Shorthold t of tenancies where: Rent ft rates = 1/3^ Incone 46 38 44 50 50 Slate benefits = 3/4-f income 42 23 23 22 33 Housing benefit = part/all rent 44 20 28 15 27 H/H eligible for housing benefit 56 39 42 50 42 Source: Todd, 1990, Tables 6.9, 7.2, 7.11. 7.1?. TABLE 2.6: rasfTS. INCOfCS AM> BEKEFITSB Y HOUSEHOLD TYPE Household Type Pensioner Non-pensioner Mainly large H/H with adult children No. of adults: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 of tenancies where; Rent ft rates = \fZ^ Incooe 45 16 46 28 28 60 21 State benefits = 3/4i Income 64 11 22 3 3 70 3 Housing benefit = part/all rent 51 36 20 8 9 60 8 H/H eligible for housing benefit 61 45 43 28 20 91 19 Source: Todd, 1990, Tables 6.9, 7.3, 7.13, 7.14. (Pensioner = adults aged 604; non-pensioner= adults under 60). Earlier (Table 2.4) It was shown that tenants of registered regulated property paid the lov^st rents. They were, however, in a less favourable position with respect to rents as a proportion of income (Table 2.6). But tenants in the least secure lettings were In the worst position, over one half of households spent 1/3 or more of their income on rent. It is notable that take-up of housing benefit, which would reduce personal housing expenditure, is the 75- lowest amongst households in insecure and in shorthold and assured Lettlngs. This Is In part because of the relatively large proportion in these sub-sectors of unemployed people, students and non-pensioner adults, amongst Uwxn take-up of housing benefit tends to be low (Todd, 1990, and Table 2.6). However since the process of claiming benefit entitlements can take some time, and insecure and short term acconmodation would tend to oblige more frequent changes of address, In practical terms It would be more difficult and troublesome for such households to claim their benefit entitlements. Certainly length of residence has been found to be associated with take-up of benefits (Todd, 1990). Dependeru:y on benefits is especially high in the regulated registered sub-sector, largely because of the preponderance of pensioner households. Table 2.6 indicates that the single elderly and lone parents were financially the %*)rst off, these groups were the most likely to outlay more than 1/3 of their Income on rent and have the greatest dependency on benefits. What main points then, might be drawn from the information presented above on privately renting households and their acconmodation? First, It is clear that most private tenants have Low incomes. Many are pensioners and many are young - a high proportion of these, given Income levels, are likely to be in low paid occupations, unemployed or in full-time education. Pensioners predominate In the most secure, lowest cost acconmodation, although their housing most often lacks amenities. As Bovaird et al. (1985) point out, many of the pensioners will have traditionally rented from private landlords. Their presence in the sector and association with unfurnished, unimproved accorrmodat Ion represents what remains from a time when private renting was the mainstream tenure. The young predominate In furnished lets and many, especially students, are likely to have wanted temporary acconmodat Ion. A proportion will move on after a short period, and for these private renting will represent a stepping stone to alternative tenures. Some however, will become 'trapped' within the sector; perpetually ur>able to fufll the entry qualifications for the other tenures. Bearing in mind the low Incomes of many private tenants and the 76 priority given to families and the elderly amongst applicants for council accorrmodation, it is probably the case that for most of the single young, private renting was, in fact, the only housing opticxi. Another point that can be made is that, in general, private renting represents pcx>r value for money. In April 1990 the average council sector rent was £23.47 (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, 1990b) ^ereas, as shown, private sector rents in 1988 were much higher. Yet the sector provides less security than local authority accomnodation and a high proportion of private tenancies are unfit, in disrepair, lack amenities or involve sharing. Frcxn this it can be deduced that many private tenants (and not just the single young) are in the sector because they effectively had no other option. Certainly the sector Is the least prefered of all; only 2% of households in 1988 stating that private renting would be a first choice (OPCS, 1990, Table 11.46). Kemp (1988a) suggests that apart from young people entering the housing market for the first time, households who cannot (at least in the short term) gain access to alternative tenures and turn to renting privately, will Inctucie those who have left the two main sectors because of rent or mortgage arrears, relationship breakdown or Job relocation. Families with children may comprise a sizeable proportion of such households. A final observation Is that the top end of the private rental market (aside from luxury lettings - wrf^ich are proportionately very few) appears to be the shorthold/assured sub-sectors, and the bottom end, lettings offering no security. Incomes are higher in the shorthold/assured sut>-sector and there is an over-representation of employed and non-manual households In ccsmparison with the average for all tenancies. Also, rents are high and conditions appear to be better than in other types of letting. This suggests that these new types of letting mainly cater for (or are let to) mobile, higher paying, professional households, and possibly some family households who have high incomes and require short term acconmociat ion ~ although it is not known Aether the families obtained their accoiTfnodation before or after having children. The insecure lettings, which were of some concern to the House of Commons Environment Committee (1982), contain a high proportion of young people, and households who are out of }t0ork or who have 77 never been In work. They involve a high degree of crowding and sharing. Rents are relatively high, yet many of the tenants are eligible for Housing Benefit. So this sut>-sector presents as the one acconmodat Ing those who have the least choice in the housing market and where larxJlords are In the strongest position to exploit occupants. b) Access to lettings In the private rented sector the only formal qualification for access to accofmodat ion Is ability to pay the rent, but the domination of demar>d over supply (House of Commons, 1982; p. xvl) aruj the restrictions imposed by certain aspects of housing legislation have created a situation in %4iLch even the landlords with the poorest property can pick and choose bet%i^en prospective tenants. The significance of landlords' preferences has been stressed by Elliot and McCrone (1975, p. 541): Through their ability to select or reject tenants through their ability. ..to set the conditions of letting they have power over those who rent arKj their many individual decisions combine to produce well established differences in the social composition of nelghtx>urhoods. " Beyond their contribution to residential differentiation, landlords selection policies have important inplications In view of the 'last resort' function the sector has within the housing market. For those who have rK> option but to rent privately because they are arable to buy and are not eligible for council or housing association acconmodatIon, landlords' preferences will be crucial. The disfavoured may be obliged to accept unsuitable or inadequate housing, some, experiencing severe discrimination, may find themselves faced with homelessness. In view of this, It seems surprising that among the many studies of landlords very few have considered their selection policies. These studies have investigated such matters as ownership structure, investment plans, attitudes to legislation and maintenance practices (e.g. Elliot ar>d McCrone, 1975; Housing Monitoring Team, 1980; Forrest and Murie, 1978; CulIingworth. 1963; 78 - Paley, 1979; Kemp, 1980; Crook and Bryant, 1982; Greve. 1965; Short, 1979; Raven, 1985), but letting policies have only been briefly examined, if at all. Direct Investigation Is, however, fraught with difficulties, as has been noted earlier. First, studying landlords poses particular methodological problems. There is no complete or adequate sampling frame so surveys have resorted to varicxjs sources to locate landlords, such as Rent Officers' records, rating lists and rent allowance records, each of which Is biased In some respect. Second, the issue is a sensitive one, ar>d this might explain the lack of research. Landlords are not obliged to reveal their preferences and have nothing to gain by doing so. Certainly they are unlikely to a<*nlt to Illegal racial or sexual discriminatory practices. So any information obtained by direct Inquiry will be limited. Short, for example, found that small-scale landlords in Bristol were concerned to pick 'good' tenants (1979). These were considered to be tenants who did not make undue noise, who regularly paid their rent and who were trouble-free. How landlords differentiated these 'good' tenants from the * bad* when letting the accommodation is, however, not explained. Indeed, the landlords themselves might be urx:lear as to the bases for their decision• making. Some surveys (e.g. Forrest and Murie, 1978; Housing Monitoring Team, 1980) have approached the question of access by asking landlords what sort of households (retired, couple, single person, student etc.) they had as tenants. This provides an unreliable indicator of the opportunities of different groups because the composition of a household can change over time. For exairple, a landlord may let soley to single people but have acconmodat Ion containing ccxiples because tenants had decided to marry or cohabit. For this reason, and because It is difficult to separate the nature of demand from that of supply, policies cannot be cieduced from surveys (such as the General Household Survey or the Census) which detail the social composition of the sector. Despite the problems of Investigating selection policies by direct means some information has been obtained in this way (Harloe et al., 1974; Short, 1979; Paley, 1978), though mainly from the larger landlords w^o appear to be more open and specific about their 79 preferences. Other sources, such as newspaper advertisements and observational data provide additional evidence. Before considering the evidence It should be first be noted that landlords are nunerous - there are about half a million, according to one estimate (House of ComnDns, 1982; p. xvill). Also, there are many different types of landlord, each varying in their attitudes towards the property and objectives in letting. For example, the Royal Town Planning Institute has suggested there are five main types; very small landlords, trustees, medium size landlords, landlords vrfiose property interests are ancillary to their other activities such as builders and estate agents, and specialist landlords such as universities (House of Cocrmons, 1982; p. xvill). Whilst the majority of landlords are private individuals, most stock Is owned by property companies (Elliot and McCrone, 1975; p. 546, Paley, 1978; p. 9). In terms of letting policies a distinction is normally drawn between the larger landlords, property companies and other commercial Interests and the small-scale private individuals (Short, 1979; Bassett and Short, 1980; Elliot and McCrone, 1975; Harloe et al. , 1974). The former are essentially business concerns and therefore interested in return on investment. They adopt formal bureaucratric allocation policies and usually have a greater understanding of the law. For some, renting property may form only a part of a wider strategy. Harloe et al (1974) records that one large property company In London was more Interested in the asset value of the accorrffnodat ion; if rents could be pushed up asset values would Increase so money could be borro^t^ed on the security of the building and Invested elsewhere. In the main, the larger landlords appear to prefer higher Income, childless professional households who can pay higher rents and are perceived to cause fewer management problems (Bassett and Short, 1980; pp. 84-85; Harloe et al. , 1974). Large landlords questioned in a survey in 1977-78 were also found to prefer short- stay tenants (Short, 1979). This was because vacant possession could be assured, rents raised at the start of each new letting so avoiding conflict, and tenants were considered to be unlikely to apply to have a 'fair rent* fixed. Though the legislation with regard to rent regulation has changed since the time of this survey 60 (see Section 2.2), the other expressed reasons are still relevant so the emphasis on short-stay tenants probably remains today. Short notes that this policy meant that hcxjseholds with children were regarded as 'bad risks' as they were seen to t>e the type of tenants who would want long term accoirmodation. It appears that households with children seeking to rent privately might also be regarded as less 'deserving' and even irresponsible, since Short quotes one large scale landlord as saying: ' hfy policy is to let to under 30s, students, single people and young married couples with no children - I steer clear of couples over thirty with children; by this age they should have a house of their own' (1979, p. 71). Short states that this was also the policy of the property management companies. In fact, prejudice against households with children, especially those with low Incomes, is by no means a new phenomenon and predates the growth In home ownership. Families seem historically to be regarded as more troublesome (perhaps because children are considered to disturb other residents or because families might be more likely to protest if faced with eviction). In times of severe shortage, it appears that families will be excluded first. During the First World War, for instance, a local newspap>er Investigated the difficulties of families In Plymouth and quoted one nrwther as saying: ' If you go to a place you get your head bitten off If you say you have children' (Western Evening Herald, c. 1917). Problems of access for families were also reported In the inter-war period (Western Evening Herald, c.1930) and again during the house price boom of the early 'seventies, as has already been noted. Small-scale lar>dlords have other motivations for letting than profit (Bassett and Short, 1980). Some have inherited tenanted property and may regard it as an encumbrance rather than an investment (Elliot and McCrone, 1975; p. 548). Many landlords are elderly (Paley, 1976; p. 10) and see their property as a source of security, however small the return (Bassett and Short, 1980; p. 82) Resident landlords seek primarily to abate their own housing costs, not requiring a return on the market value or purchase price of the property (Paley, 1978; p. 10 and p.26). Many small landlords have been found to let to friends or relatives (Housing Monitoring Team, 1980; p. 17). Thus small landlords let for a variety of reasons and 81 not necessarily on economic grounds. Small-scale ownership, especially %rf)ere the landlord Is resident, makes for a different type of management style. These landlords often deal closely with their tenants and the relationship is at once less formal and more powerful: ' It may involve many subtle elements of mutual acceptance or rejection, many non-econcxnic elements in the 'contract* arrived at between the two parties'(Elliot and McCrone, 1975; pp.547-548). On the whole, small landlords have been show^^ to adopt informal allocation policies (Short, 1979). Agreements are often verbal and therefore based on trust. Though such agreements still confer statutory rights, in general the contracts are seen in terms of mutual understandings rather than as legal arrangements, and tenants are not expected to invoke their rights, hence the dismay apparent in the following statement: 'there are still tenants who behave decently and with %/hcxn landlorcis enjoy a fair and friendly relationship. But all too many tenants have no hesitation in using the overwhelming rights bestowed upon them by law* (Small Landlords Association, 1980; p. 23). In selecting tenants small landlords tend to base their judgements on subjective character assessments. As a result, all manner of prejudices can ccxne into play ar>d control of the property can be perceived as requiring a certain amount of control over tenants* lifestyles. For example, extracts from letters sent to the Small Landlords Associaticxi display moral and somewhat paternalistic tendencies: '...our main problem with six bedsitters has been with young girls keeping their boyfriends overnight, a practice we make great point in prohibiting when Interviewing a prospective tenant...' 'This year the young girls In our top floor flat began to introciuce their respective boyfrlencis who stayed overnight. We registered cxjr disapproval...' '...one of those two lodgers, scroungers who lived off social security...' Despite the differences in management styles bet%^en the large and small landlords, notions of 'good' and 'bad' prospective tenants may be broadly similar. Households with children, for example, have been shown to be disfavoured by property ccxrpanies and these also appear to be considered as both troublescxne, because they might want long term acconfnodat ion, and less deserving by small landlords 82 (Harloe et al. . 1974; Western Evening Herald, c. 1917; c. 1930; 1st Dec. 1973). Both the Small Landlords Association and the British Property Federation (which comprises mostly large landlords) have stated they urge their members to avoid creating security of tenure (House of Comnons, 1982; p. xix), and this policy will prejudice any household perceived to want accocmodation for more than a short period. Like the larger concerns, reslcient landlords have been found to prefer students: 'We have deliberately chosen students because we know that they do go and I gather it's difficult to get rid of other tenants If they're not suitable' (Paley, 1978: p. 31). Paley points out that, even In Instances where repossession would be automatically granted by the courts, such as for resident landlords, the landlords in their survey found it difficult, and in some cases Irrelevant to distinguish between the letter and the practice of the law. This was because of the potential time, trouble and cost of taking the matter through the legal process. Apart from households with children, welfare recipients are widely disfavoured. Newspaper advertisements for rented accommodation frequently Indicate that households in receipt of Income support will not be accepted. This is in part because of perceived rent paying ability or difficulties In receiving prompt rent payments at the start of a tenancy (processing new claims for housing benefit can take some weeks). In addition, landlords engaged in tax evasion or v^o themselves receive means-tested benefits will be unwilling to let to households In receipt of benefits. But factors such as status and moral assessments are also involved - as the earlier quote on social security 'scroungers* testifies. Similarly, underlying the discrimination In the private rented housing market against racial mlrKirlties (House of Conmons 1982; p. xxxill), will be Judgements as to whom Is 'respectable' or 'deserving* and likely to lead an approved (In white British middle- class terms) lifestyle. Differential access will inevitably lead to different housing outcomes. In 1965 the Milner Holland Comnlttee, reporting on the London market, noted that families were less successful than other groups in the coopetltlon for lettings and as the sector shrank w^re increasingly being forced into shared accormiodatIon and Insecure furnished flats or rooms. Studies of Landlords have found that - 83 those who Improved their accoomodation generally prefered to let to higher paying professionals or students; the slum landlord would let to the less acceptable and hence more desperate households (families, ethnic minorities etc.) and make a good return by charging high rents and shirking on repairs (McCrone and Elliot, 1979; Crook and Bryant, 1982). However, beyond such observations, the issue of housing outcomes in the private rented sector has been given little attention. 2.4: HOUSING IN PLYMOmH Pressures for Housing and the Problem of Land. Plymouth is a city which experiences considerable pressure on its housing stock. In marked contrast to the trend of counter- urbanisation affecting most other cities, Plymouth has continued to grow; the population increasing by 2. 5X from 1971-1981 84 trend of new household formation as the young leave the family home), and small family households (partly as a result of an Increase In the nunt>ers of single parents). Historically the city's main constraint In responding to housing needs has been a shortage of land, and currently. In view of the growing demand, this presents a severe problem. As already noted, development In Plymouth Is restricted because the city lies on a peninsular site with the rivers Tamar and Plym cutting north to south on either side. Also the topography is very hilly and so land is more difficult and more expensive to develop. Most of the local authority stock was built before the high-rise mania of the 'sixties, but Plymouth has been actively against high-rise developments and unfortunately this has increased urban spread. Although the city has extended its boundaries three times this century (the last occasion in 1967), the land shortage has continued and neighbouring councils fiercely oppose any further expansion of the city. Plymouth has been forced to make rmch use of Infill sites, losing economies of scale, and eating into the much cherished areas of open space within the city bounds. Demand and Access in the Local Housing Market I) The Owner-Occupier Sector In comparison with other cities, Plymouth has a fairly large owner-occupier sector, 55% of households In 1981 were buying or owned a house (see Appendix A, Table A. 2.1). However, the popularity of the city for retirement and for work together with the high costs of development has meant that buying is expensive. Only the South-East and East Anglia have higher house prices, and over the past decade house price increases In Plymouth have been well above the national average (Levitt, 1991). As wage levels are low in Plymouth, the high costs of house purchase and the inflation In prices have presented particular problems of access. As Levitt (1991) has remarked, there has been a shuffling of house allocation In the private market downward by price: 85 - "a decade ago the average waged Plynouth couple could afford a senl-detached house In the suburbs, today they have to make do with an Inner city terrace. The lower paid worker, Instead of a terraced property, faces an even starker choice, either pay an exceptionally high proportion of their wage In mortgage payment for a flat or rent from the private sector." (p. 6). Many first time buyers in the city now opt for flats, such accoonodatlon often being the only affordable type available (Plymouth City Council, 1991). As a recent report has shown, flat purchase has been steadily gro«ring and the high level of demand has seen prices continue to rise for this accommodation, despite a general downward trend in house prices in the city since 1989. Much of the supply of flats has come from the conversion and selling of formerly rented housing; this has put pressure on the remaining rented property and has contributed to an Increase in harassment and Illegal eviction (Plymouth City Council, 1991). Apart from low wages, comparatively high levels of unemployment in Plymouth acts as a further barrier to owner- occupation (Appendix A, Table A.2.2). In the mid-eighties a number of building societies were prepared to grant endowment mortgages to the unemployed, especially the long term economically inactive such as single parents and disabled households, since mortgage Interest was paid by the DH55. Local social security offices, however, tended to be reluctant to agree in advance to payinent, a pre• requisite for the building societies, and as the opportunity was not widely known, few households gained access to owner-occupation in this w«ay. Also, insurance and repair costs had to come out of benefit payments for normal living expenses, so this must have deterred many households. The Increasing rate of repossessions and nnrtgage arrears in recent years have led building societies to become much more cautious in their lending and few, if any, mortgages are extended to the unemployed at the present time. Since the early 'seventies the city council has been very active in promoting low cost home ownership. Much has been done by providing builders with land at below market value, and some 3,300 private dwellings have been constructed as a result. A nunber of housing associations, notably the Devon and Cornwall and the Spiral, have also attempted to facilitate low cost ownership, through co- 86- owinership and equity sharing schemes and by providing 'starter* homes, often using land made available by the city council. Because the use of council land for private development has meant a loss of land on which homes might have been provided for rent, the merits of the policy have been a matter of some contention. The schemes have been very popular amongst households with incomes not quite sufficient for purchase in the general market, providing them with discounts of up to £23,000, but such help is meaningless for many low Income groups, in particular the young single, the elderly and single parents. ii) The Council Sector Plymouth, as noted, had a massive post-war building progranme which outstripped that of most other local authorities. However, from the nineteen-sixties a policy of selling council housing and later a slow down in building altered the tenure balance. By 1981 the proportion of households publicly renting in Plymouth at 27% was considerably lower than that in most other cities, and was smaller even than the average for England and Wfales (see Appendix A, Table A.2. 1>. Government restrictions on capital expenditure has greatly reduced building in the past decade. At the same time, the 'Right to Buy' legislation of 1960 effected an actual reduction in the national stock of council housing. In Plymouth, some 10,000 council dwellings have been sold, mostly to sitting tenants, 7,000 of these since 1980 (Plymouth City Council, 1991; Jones. 1989). In the period 1986-1990, whereas 3,24-0 properties were sold. Just 600 were added to the stock. Today the council sector accounts for 21X of the city's housing (Plymouth City Council, 1991). The main effect of this change Is that access to the sector has become ever more difficult. Although the City's waiting list has remained fairly constant over the past twenty years at around 5,000, since the 'seventies there has been an increase of households on the 'priority' list to 1,000. In fact, the council estimates that almost 16,000 households in the city are in housing need, because they are overcrowded, share acconmodat ion, are elderly or disabled and in need of specialist acconmodation, or are living with friends or relatives and so have no separate home of their own (Plymouth City Council, 1991). Of these, under 2,000 are registered 87 - on the waiting list, and in view of the continuous monitoring and review of applications, the city council considers that the priority list does not overstate the need for local authority housing (p.10). A declining council stock has meant much Longer waiting times and more points needed before consideration for housing. A serious concern is that the demand for family housing, because of the demographic changes mentioned earlier as well as the cost of buying, is both strong and growing, yet most sales of council dwellings have been of two or three bedroomed houses. Between 1986 and 1990, 2,400 houses were lost from the sector, and the proportion of the stock which constituted houses (as opposed to flats and bungalows) fell from 54% in 1982 to A6X in 1990. Consequently there is a growing pressure for family houses. Since 1987 the points needed for a three bedroomed house, for example, have risen by almost 50% from 75 to 110 (Plymouth City Council, 1991). The single young have especial difficulties in obtaining council BCCoflTDodatIon. Although the local authority has some 3,000 one bedroomed flats, single people in general take second place to childless couples who tend to have higher points on the housing waiting list (Renwlck, 1987a). Priority is normally only given to the single who live In hostels, bed and breakfast Lettings or In lodgings, and as the waiting period can be very long, most have to look to other sectors for accommodation. In the year 1989/90 Just 12 single people who were not disabled or elderly were accepted as In priority need by the local authority (Plymouth City Council 1991). Young and single people who find themselves homeless also have extreme difficulty In securing council accormtodat ion, and their numbers have been growing over the past decade. Unless they are deemed 'vulnerable* (and as the stock reduces, definitions tighten), they are excluded from the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. In practice, only the single young (and only a fraction of these) who have the support and backing of the Social Services are given any consideration for local authority housing. Increasing homelessness amongst the single led in the early 'eighties to the establishment of a 20 bed, government funded nlghtshelter, which is managed by the council for Christian Care. Most of the users have no family in the area to turn to for care and 88 assistance, and many have additional problems such as alcoholism or a criminal record. The shelter is also used by young migrants seeking employment in the city (Levitt, 1991) Since opening the shelter has found that it is catering increasingly for 16-30 year olds who have nowhere else to go (Kaye, 1986). In 1985 a 'Homemakers' project was set up, and in 1988 the city council took over funding. This alms to provide the single homeless, especially hostel dwellers with tittle or no experience of running a home of their OM^, with assistance in gaining more secure accoirmodation. The project also works to prevent homelessness resulting from rent arrears or other difficulties, by giving help with budgeting and with sorting out benefit entitlements (Plymouth Homemakers Project, 1990). The project has been important for individuals with special needs and has seen around 300 of its clients provided with council accorrmodation. Nonetheless, this does not constitute new housing, rather it signifies a redistribution of council housing allotted for the single from the 'less' to the 'more' vulnerable. Recently the city council, in recognition of the need for more accommodation for the single homeless, has begun work on a 30 bed direct access hostel. But as with the nlghtshelter, this provides temporary and not permanent accorrmodat ion; new building of homes by the city council has been directed in the main at provision for the elderly and family households. In 1990 a survey of care, support and advice agencies In Plymouth concluded that the aggregate nurrber of 16 to 25 year olds seeking help In securing acconmodatIon was around 1500 per annum. Of these, 500 were aged 16 to 17 and so (unless able to prove exceptional need) were excluded from t>enefit entitlements, whilst 300 were literally homeless (Levitt. 1990). Homelessness in general is a growing problenk The housing department has reported that homeless acceptances continue to reach above 500 a year and show no indication of reducing (Plymouth City Council. 1991). In 1989, for the first time, Plymouth City Council was obliged to place homeless families (in all. 30 households) in bed and breakfast accorrmodat ion (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, 1990a). Many homeless households are, however, not accepted for rehousing; in 1989 the City's Housing Department did not rehouse 228 households who applied as homeless 89 (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, 1990a). Another effect of the growing numbers of homeless Is that, as the stock of council dwellings has depleted, the proportion of lettings to the homeless (almost all families) has grown. By 1989/90 the proportion had risen to 42%, one of the highest levels in Britain. This has adversely affected waiting list applicants, resulting in a longer waiting period for those badly housed in private tenancies. In the same year waiting list lettings declined from 54% to 4-6%. Ill) Housing Associations Housing associations have made a small but significant contribution to Plymouth's housing stock and presently provide 3,600 dwellings, 3.7% of the total (Plymouth City Council 1991). Some 700 of these have been provided since 1986, although recent years have seen a downturn In activity. Most of the associations operating within the city receive finance from the Housing Corporation, which has targeted significant amounts of money on Plymouth since the city achieved 'stress area' status In the early 'seventies. The local authority has also funded new build and rehabilitation projects via its housing investment programme and In turn the associations accept nominations from the city council for a proportion of their lettings. The housing associations have been most important in meeting specialist housing needs. Eighteen associations have a present interest In the city and 13 provide acconmodat ion for the elderly, 12 for families, 5 for handicapped or disabled households and 3 for the young, ex-offenders or single working households. However, the bias In provision Is mainly tow/ards the elderly and to a lesser extent one-parent families and the disabled. Young single people or couples, unless deemed In special need (this usually means the household has to have the backing of care and support agencies) have had less opportunity to access association lettings. As with local authority accorrmodat ion, housing associations operate waiting lists, and the wait for housing can be a long one. Because stock is limited, most of the associations have a policy of keeping very short lists (normally under 50 households) and refuse to register applications when the maximum has been reached. For example, a survey by the author In May 1987 of seven associations - 90 catering for family households, found that all but two had closed their lists. Thus many applicants find they do not even have the opportunity to express their particular needs. Accordingly, housing associations also tend to be unresponsive to the homeless unless these are referod on by the local authority. There were only 18 homeless households refered to, and accepted by, housing associations In 1989/90 (Plymouth City Council, 1991). Though lettings are subsidized, and charitable associations have always aimed to provide affordable acconmodation, rents in the city have generally been higher for association acconmodat ion than for council lettings. Associations do not have the scale economics of the council nor the advantage of historic costs, also rents are mostly set by rent officers on 'fair rent' principles, and thus reflect to a great extent the levels in the private rented unfurnished sector. For 'cheap' housing, therefore, the local authority lettings usually represent a better 'buy*. Here It should be noted that the city has not subsidized council rents from the local rates for many years. In fact, since the 'seventies, there has been a substantial subsidy in the opposite direction (Renwick, 1987a). Another problem with the associations Is that because few have a local presence (only 4 of the 18 have offices within the city), they are not necessarily In tune with Plymouth's particular housing pressures, responding rather to their own ideas of housing need. A further criticism that has been made is that there has been little co-ordination of activity and developments have tended to be on a one-off basis, with associations competing against each other for land and financial support (Renwick, 1987b). This implies that as providers of social housing, associations are less efficient and less cost-effective than the local authority. The situation has worsened recently as a result of the new financial regime for housing associations, the main effects of which are a much reduced subsidy from the Housing Corporation and greater controls on spending. In the past housing associations In the city have played an important role In rehabilitating dwellings for letting. But this type of activity has declined and the city council believes that the new financial regime effectively inhibits association rehabilitation programmes (Plymouth City Council, 1991). 91 lv> The Private Rented Sector Plymouth has a high proportion of households renting privately, and an exceptionally high proportion of households renting furnished accofimodation - in this Plymouth has more In conmon with London than with other provincial cities (Table 2.7). The size of the private rented sector and of the furnished sub- sector are a great deal to do with the city's function as a port and a tourist centre; historically the city has always had a large proportion of households needing temporary accommodation. Another factor, however. Is that access to alternatives are especially difficult in Plymouth. As noted, house prices are high yet regional wage levels low, whilst the social rented sectors are unable to meet the demand. Developments in these markets during the 'eighties have worsened the situation and ted to increased pressure on the private rented sector. TABLE 2. 7: HOUSEHOLDS RENTING PRIVATELY IN PLYMOUTH: COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SIMILARLY SIZED NON-METTTOPOLI TAN CITIES AND WITH GREATER LOT^OJ. 1 of Households Renting Privately Unfurnished Furnished Total Plymouth i.7 6.1 12.8 Southhampton 7.3 5 12.3 Kingslon-upon Hull 9.7 2.B 12.5 Derby 4.9 2.5 7.4 Leicester 5.7 4.? 9.9 Notiinghan i.? 2.6 9 Cardiff 5.5 5.2 10.7 Greater London 8.7 6.4 15.1 England and Wales i. 1 2.8 8.9 Source: OPCS (1964) Table 17. Table 2.8 reveals that, whereas the composition of Plymouth's unfurnished sector is very similar to that of other cities, there is an exceptionally high proportion of households with children in the furnished sector. This Is indicative of the pressures on the housing stock in the city, especially the lack of affordable family homes to buy. Certainly it is not a matter of preference or a greater willingness amongst landlords to let to families; from an 92 examination of newspaper advertisements and from discussion with letting agencies in the city, constraints on access to private rented accomnodation appear no less tight than elsewhere. TABLE 2. 8: COW05ITIC3N OF HOUSEHOLDS ^KTlt^G PRIVATELY IN PLYMOUTH: COMPARISONS WITH OTfrgR CITIES. Single Single H/H + children Other Adult Total Pensioner Non-Pensioner under U Furnished Plymoulh 5 34 21 40 100 Southhampton 6 51 7 35 100 Kingslon-upon Hull 8 50 10 32 100 Derby 9 51 8 32 100 Leicester 6 51 11 3? 100 Nottinghan 7 52 7 34 100 Cardiff 6 47 10 38 lOO Greater London 6 42 11 41 lOO England and Wales 8 40 13 39 100 Unfurnished PlyttDuth 30 n 16 41 100 Southhampton 27 n 12 49 100 Kingston-upon Hull 29 11 16 44 100 Derby 26 17 15 42 lOO Leicester 28 15 12 44 100 Notttnghan 27 14 15 44 100 Cardiff 28 13 16 43 100 Greater London 29 13 13 45 100 England and Wales 28 11 16 45 100 Sources: OPCS (1982) Table 39; OPCS (1983b) Table 39. Much of the demand from families for lettings comes from ex- service personnel, who, on quitting Ministry of Defence property, rent privately whilst waiting for a council vacancy Personal conmunication with Plymouth letting agencies, 1985). Demand also comes from inmigrants to the city, but demand from Irmilgrant ethnic mtrK}rlties, which in other cities has often accounted for many of the families renting privately, is negligible in Plymouth. Very few of the city's households have a New Coninonwealth or Pakistani born head (Appendix A, Table A. 2. 2). Traditionally private renting is important for the single young, and in Plymouth, as elsewhere, many of the households in the 93 sector are single non-pensioner or adult groups (the latter In the furnished sector mainly 'single' but sharing meals or a living room). Most landlords cater for the single young but benefit and student grant redjctlons during the 'eighties have made it rruch more difficult for such households to afford private lettings, whilst households leaving statutory care or supervision and the unemployed have particular problems of access. A 1990 survey of agencies working within the city to help young people secure private lettings (the Probation service, the National Children's Home and the Social Services) found that all reported an increasing demand, but at the seme time, increasing difficulty in obtaining acconmodat loo for clients (Levitt. 1990). The Probation service, for example, reported that apwrt from a general reluctance amongst landlords to let to those with a criminal record, the withdrawal of benefits for deposits and rent in advance payments since 1968, and the sale of rental properties for owner-occupation had recently exacerbated their problems. Increasing difficulties for single young people has also been noted by the Plymouth branch of Shelter, whose caseload has almost doubled since 1985. Over 250 requests for assistance were made by single under 25 year olds in 1988/89. Most problems concerned homelessness or potential homelessness, housing costs and landlord/tenant disputes, and at the root of many of these problems were changes in the welfare benefit system in 1988 (South West Housing Aid, 1989; 1990). Landlords In Plymouth have responded to the demand for rented acconmodation by subdividing family dwellings to create bedsits and non-self-contained flats. As Table 2.9 shows, In 1981 a comparatively high proportion of Plymouth's rented accoimiodation was not self-contained; remarkably high in the case of unfurnished lett Lngs. In the 'seventies the council pursued an active policy of encouraging conversion to self-contained flats, but many dwellings were subsequently sold for owner-occupation. The demand for flats, as noted earlier, has been especially buoyant in the city. This has created a di lerrmB for the authority: policies to improve standards in the private rented sector appear to effect a loss of much needed accorrmodatIon. Since the 'eighties policy has changed to one of - 94 promoting minimum standards in non-self-contained acconrnodation, rather than requiring conversion, Ho%^ver, the council has noted with some concern that poor standard bedsits and other intensively sub-divided non-self-contained accorrmodation have in recent years been spreading beyond the Inner city (Plymouth City Council, 1991>. TABLE ^. y: HOUSIhJG CCM)IT10NS OF HOUSEHOmS REI4TING PRIVATELY IN PLYMOUTH: COMPARISONS WITH OTf^R CITIES. X of Households Renling Privately who have: Not self-conUined Exdu. use bath No bath >One person Unfurn. Furn. All f inside WC or inside per room Plynouih 36 31 34 69 6 Southhenpion 6 35 18 72 5 Kingslon-upon Hull 2 21 6 56 22 Derby 1 25 10 69 14 Leicester 3 26 12 70 8 Nottinghen 2 28 to 73 9 Cardiff 10 32 21 67 8 Greater London 13 33 22 70 5 England and Wales 5 25 11 81 8 Sources: OPCS (1962) Table 20; OPCS (1983b) Table 20. The city appears to fare no w^rse than others In terms of the proportion of households who share or lack amenities or are over• crowded (Table 2.9), but an absence of means of escape In the event of fire is a particular problem In Plymouth. In 1990 the City Housing Department had a caseload of over 500 properties lacking means of escape, and many of these dwellings were also in serious disrepair and badly managed (Plymouth City Council, 1991). In the eighties, and at the time of the Plymouth survey, the council's activities with respect to the private rented sector had become mainly reactive, le, complaint orientated (Renwick, t987a>. k perennial problem has been that policies to Iniprove private lettings tend to be highly labour Intensive and costly, and more appears to be achieved with owner-occupiers. Also, complaints have continued at a high level, consuming much staff time. Despite adopting a more pro-active approach in recent years, especially with regard to promoting Inprovement grants and enforcement work (the latter In the main directed at fire standards and repair work), the 95 number of coirplaints in 1989/90 remained at around 400 (Plymouth City Council, 1991). No survey of hcxjsing conditions in the private rented sector has been undertaken in the city, but the council considers the size of the problem of sub-standard housing is considerable. A present concern is that addressing the problem will place a heavy burden on resources and the reduction of overcrowding and improvement of fire standards will inevitably lead to increased pressure on the remaining privately rented housing. Plymouth, then, is experiencing severe and growing pressure on its housing stock. High house prices and low wmges In the city have traditionally led to a great demand for rented acconmodat ion, but this demand has escalated as a result of the house price boom of the late 'eighties. At the same time, both the local authority and private rented sectors have been shrinking, and housing association accofrmodation, though growing, is In no way compensating for the shortfall. That the demand is not being met is demonstrated by the increasing numbers of homeless households %^o have turned to the City Housing Department and other agencies for help. Plymouth's private landlords have clearly been in a position to ration their housing, and also appear to have had little incentive to improve its quality - overall, the condition of private rented housing in Plymouth Is no better than elsewhere. Before examining the nature of this rationing, and Its effect on housing outcomes for those households who were accepted, It is first important to discuss the methods used for the investigation. 96 CHAPTFR TtiREE; RESEARCH r^HQP9 3.1. lhn-RQOlJCTIO?si The aim in this chapter Is to describe the methods used for the investigation. The topics discussed are: the definition of 'household' used In the survey and the selection of the household groups; the selection of the interview schedule technique; the design of the Interview schedule; the selection of the sample; the pilot survey; the fleldwork; the data preparation and analysis, and the characteristics of the sample population and their length of residence. 3.2. -mE DEFINITION OF 'HOUSEHOLD' A^g) T^g SELECTION OF THE HOUSEHQU) GROUPS Two initial considerations for the research were: a> what definition of household was most appropriate for the research and b> in what way should the privately renting households be grouped for the purpose of comparing housing situations and opportunities? The most clear-cut definition of 'household' is provided by the Census. For the 1981 Census a household was defined as including individuals w^o regularly share at least one meal a day or a living room COPCS, 1981, p. 6, paragraph 29). Use of this definition for the Plymouth survey was rejected for two reasons. First, it produces some arbitrary groupings. For instance, six single adults %^o have separate rooms In a house and cook meals separately will be considered to form one household if they have a cormunal living roorT\ but six households if they have not. The distinction clearly leads to an ur>der-estImatIon of sharing. Second, and most importantly for the present work, it groups together individuals who may have no other connection than the sharing of living space. A concern in the Plymouth study was with the role of household structure on opportunities. Thus it was important to analyse search experiences with regard to the type of household that had conducted the search, and to examine future aspirations and expectations with respect to those individuals who 97 expected to stay together If any future move took place. On this basis it appeared inappropriate to consider as a household individuals who happened to be sharing accommodation as a matter of temporary convenience. A 'household', for the Plymouth study then, was considered to include only those Individuals who shared living accorrmodatIon and meals and expected to stay together as a unit. Of course, some moves were conducted before the household (as it presented at the time of the survey) had formed; for example, a single person might have married since moving. So, for the examination of search experiences, the type of household that was involved at that time was taken into account (see Chapter Seven, Section 7. 3). As for the grouping of households In order to compare situations and opportunities, four criteria needed to be met. Firstly, so that hypotheses might be generated, the household groups should be conceptually different In terms of their likely opportunities In the private rented housing market, their use of the sector and their future housing prospects. Secondly, the groups selected should be relevant to a study focusing on the Plymouth situation. Thirdly, for clarity in the comparative analyses, and for the practical reason that the total size of the sarrple (given the resources available for fleldwork and the detailed nature of the investigation) was expected to comprise approximately 150 households, there should be a small number of groupings. Fourthly, in order to achieve as comprehensive a view as possible of the housing opportunities of private tenants, a cross section of households should be Included In the survey. Identification of conceptually different household groups was achieved through Investigation of primary data sources (the 1981 Census, the General Household Surveys, and surveys of the private rented sector), analyses of the private rented sector (especially Bovaird et al. , 1985; and House of Cocifnons, 1982), Individualist work on private tenants and infornration on landlords' selection pol icies. The Information on landlords' selection policies was the most useful as it related directly to a central concern of the research; the opportunities of different types of household to obtain access to private rented acconYnodat Ion. Landlords, It will be recalled, - 98 - appear to favour single people and childless couples - more so if they have high incomes - and students; whilst they disfavour households with children, the unemployed and ethnic (especially racial) minorities. Individualist work (although it mostly concerns the United States) confirms this pattern of advantage and disadvantage in access to housing. Primary sources provide Information on such matters as amenities and crowding by tenure and hcxjsehold type, and although this information Is limited as households are generally grouped according to size, some distinction is normally made between households containing pensioners or children. Also, the Census indicates the number of English and foreign-born households within different housing tenures. Bovaird et at. (1985) have examined primary sources to identify the functions the private rented sector fufils for its occupants. Excluding accorrmodat ion provided with errployment, three roles for the sector were identified: housing traditional users of the sector, providing easy access housing and accorrmodating those unable to enter the majority tenures. Bovaird et al. group households in accordance with these roles, providing evidence on length of residence and mobility, incomes and composition of households in furnished and unfurnished sub-sectors to support their conceptualisation. In terms of use of the sector, therefore, they identify three broad household groups. These are: pensioners, who are mainly traditional users; young and mobile households (mainly single people and childless couples) who are considered to use the sector mostly as easy access or first accoofnoation; and families and irrfnigrants, for whom the last resort function of the sector is suggested to t>e significant. The roles Bovaird et al. attribute to the sector are widely accepted (eg. Cul I ingworth, 1979; Murie, 1983; House of Corrmons. 1982) and as they relate not only to present use of the sector but also to households' probable future housing plans and prospects, the household groupings identified were very helpful In informing the present study. Having identified the household groups Important to the alms of the research, the second criterion was that the groups selected for inclusion should be relevant within the Plymouth context. Spatially, the most unevenly distributed of the groups are students and racial minorities. Plymouth has a Polytechnic and a College of 99 Higher Education, both providing only limited campus acconmodatI on, so there are many students privately renting In the city. However, the racial and ethnic minority population Is very sfTBlt and heterogeneous. In view of this, and because the research would need to differentiate both between households with different backgrounds and different compositions (eg. between those of Oriental and African origin and between single persons and households with children), and would concern a relatively small sample, It was decided to exclude racial and ethnic minorities from the sample. Two other groups were also excluded, not because they were inappropriate for consideration In Plymouth, but because they formed 'rare' populations and were likely to differ markedly from other households In respect of their housing opportunities. These were gay or lesbian couples and extended families. As the total sample was to comprise approximately 150 households, to enable statistical analysis (see below) five groupings was considered to be the maximum number viable. Against this restriction must be set the advantage of clarity; a small number of categories facilitates Interpretation and corrmin i cat i on of findings. Therefore, taking Into account likely differences in opportunities and situations, the Plymouth context, the maximum viable number of groupings and the criterion of comprehensiveness, the household groups selected were: households containing persons of pensionable age only (pensioners); non-pensioner single people (single); single students (students); childless couples or couples with adult (aged 16 or more) children only (couples); and households with children under 16 (families). Clearly, although racial minorities, gay and lesbian couples and extended families are excluded, the comprehensive nature of the groups means that there Is considerable room for Intra-group variability on the basis of such factors as age, sex, working situation, occupation and Income; factors which might be related to housing situations. In view of the apparently disadvantageous position of the unemployed within the private rented housing market, these, especially, theoretically merit a separate category. However, unemployed households would require several groupings according to the structure of the household, since, for exarrple, an unemployed single person might potentially be competitively better -100- placed than any household with children, whether the p>arent or parents are Marking or not. Allowing for differences in age. Income and so on would further multiply the groupings. Therefore, it was decided that intra-group differences would be discussed in the text where they figured as conceptually important to an analysis. Income differentials, for exarrple, are given special attention in Chapter Six and unemployed households are considered separately In the examination of households' experiences In the search for accoirmodat ion. 3,3. SELECTION OF THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE TECHNIQUE The data for the study were collected by means of interviews with privately renting households. Survey interviewing is a highly versatile method of social research, enabling a researcher to Investigate * as many dimensions of as many people as resources permit' (Ackroyd and Hughes, 1981; p. 70). Moreover, information can be obtained in a relatively short period of time for little cost, and quantifiable, conparable data can be collected enabling statistical analysis of patterns and associations. Aside from these general strengths, the survey method was especially appropriate for the purposes of the present study. Survey methods are often the sole way of retrieving information about a respondent's past history (Smith, 1981; p. 185). Additionally, a respondent's future plans, as well as their aspirations, motives and perceptions are non- observable phenomena which have to be reported to be empirically understood. It was precisely with such phenomena that the Plymouth study was concerned, namely, respondents' housing backgrounds, their future intentions, their views on their situations and their motivations and experiences in their search for housing. Administering questionnaires for self-completIon Is an alternative to survey interviewing, but w^s rejected for a number of reasons. The principal disadvantage was considered to be the method's inflexlbiIty. Detailed and somewhat complex information was required, but there is no opportunity with this method to explain questions, to seek clarification of responses or to ensure equivalence in understandings of questions and answers between the -101 questioner and the respondent. There is also no guarantee that the most suitable member of the household answers the questions. For the investigation of experiences in the search for accorrmodat i on, for exainple, It was vital the respondent was someone who had been actively involved In the search. A further problem is the impossibility of supplementing respondents' answers with observational data. In the Plymouth study, interviewer assessment of housing conditions was considered imperative to ensure that objective, and hence comparable, information was obtained. Despite its many advantages, the survey method has been subjected to much criticisrrv as even a cursory inspection of the social research literature makes clear. The main criticisms come from two directions. On the one side, there are accusations that the method is insufficiently scientific, on the other are arguments that it Is erroneous to adopt a 'scientific' method, such as the survey, to obtain an understanding of social phenomena (Harsh, 1982). In defence of survey Interviewing, it can be said that with stringent design of the schedule, care In interviewing and adequate piloting, the method is capable of providing reliable data, and, If used where appropriate to the context, the method Is a valid social research tool. These points can be demonstrated in relation to the present study. As a scientific method, the survey is predicated upon the achievement of standardisation across individual cases. To this end much emphasis has been placed on presenting uniform stimuli to respondents, for exarrple, asking the same questions, in the same order, using the same words. However, as has often been noted, questions are not necessarily received in the same way by each respondent (Blalock and Blalock, 1982; Marsh, t982>. Accurate conmunlcation of ideas depends upon shared frames of reference (Cannell and Kahn 1968) but words are open to differing interpretations. Adequate piloting is usually stressed as a means of minimizing this source of error. In the Plymouth survey the importance of pretesting became apparent with a question that was originally phrased: 'Overall, would you say the standard of repair In your home is (very good. .. very poor)?'. One respondent said their landlord's repair work within the property was good but their housing standards were bad because of dairp and structural defects. 102- The question thus appeared ambiguous and since its aim was to tap views on housing conditions rather than landlord's responses to repair problems, the question was rephrased and retested. The problem may not have come to light if the respondent had not cormunlcated their confusion. Therefore, for the final survey, assurance that meanings were shared was sought by checking answers In the course of the Interview. V/lth the closed ended questions this involved rephrasing responses in terms of the question. For example: 'So you receive (services) with your accorrmodation. . . . ? And you don't get (services)....? (this checked the question had been heard accurately) Is anything else provided, or do you pay for anything else here?' (this opened the question enabling a final check on the repondent's understanding). V/ith open ended questions non-directive probes were used to check meanings, for example, 'So you think that...?* or 'You've said you. .. why was that?* Although most questionnaires or schedules Involve a mix of open and closed ended questions, closed ended questions (where the responses are pre-set) are normally favoured In survey research. Apart from the fact that closed ended questions can be pre-coded, reducing the time involved In data preparation, they are considered to produce more reliable data as responses are standardised. The critics who dismiss surveys as scientlstlc, focus in particular on the use of such questions (eg. Clcourel, 1964). They query the validity of the data produced, arguing that closed ended questions impose a version of meaning on the respondent, which might not equate with the meaning the respondent might wish to subscribe to (Ackroyd and Hughes, 1981; Cicourel, 1964). An open ended question format enables the respondent's frame of reference to be elicited since the respondent is given the freedom to answer in any way he or she chooses (Orensteln and Phillips, 1978). They also allow more varied and qualitative Information to be obtained. However, responses can be on different dimensions, making comparisons difficult, w^hilst the problem of validity Is not so simply remedied because there remains the possibility answers will be misinterpreted. The dllerrma this apparently presents can be largely resolved by appropriate and careful use of the two types of question. A number of writers have addressed the problem of when closed 103- or open ended question formats should be used Ce. g. Sellitz et al., 1959; Cannell and Kahn, 19&B; Orenstein and Phillips, 1974). Cannell and Kahn suggest that closed ended questions are most appropriate when there are a limited number of known frames of reference, a known range of possible responses and v^ere the 'choice points' (response categories) are clearly defined and approximate well the positions of respondents. Open ended questions are suggested for situations where relevant dimensions are not known, the issue is corrpiex and where a process is being explored CSellltz et al., 1959). This was the approach adopted for the Plymouth survey, in which closed ended questions were used in the main to elicit fairly straightforward factual data about the respondents' housing and personal situations, and open ended questions were considered especially appropriate for the examination of experiences in the moving process. As much of the v*>rk investigated relatively untrodden areas, open ended questions predominated. Their effectiveness relied upon in-depth interviewing, and as noted, probes were used to check understandings of both open and closed ended questions as well as to ensure a topic had been fully explored. Open ended questions included a prompt where a particular dimension to the answer was required (Question 37a is such an example), and responses were recorded verbatim, removing bias resulting from paraphrasing (Moser and Kalton, 1979; Ackroyd and Hughes, 1981). Thus with careful interviewing, combining the qualitative and quantitative approaches can allow reliable and meaningful data to be obtained. An important criticism of survey interviewing concerns its nature as a social process involving two individuals. As such, interactional effects are part of the outcome of the encounter and this means survey data is to some degree biased (Cicourel, 19&4; Mehan and bfood, 19/5). In an interview, bios can result I rom the respondent's reaction to the behaviour and characteristics of the interviewer as well as to the task; the overall topic, particular questions or question phraseology. It is well recorded that respondents con, unconsciously or consciously, lie about their behaviour or attitudes, attempt to maximise their self-esteem, give answers which might please the interviewer or are socially acceptable, and so on. In turn, an interviewer's opinions and 104- expectations about the respondent can influence Interpretation of answers (Hyman et al, 1954; Sudman and Bradburn, 19/4). Such 'response effects' have been found not to be so great as to undermine the survey method and they can be significantly reduced by good questionnaire design and Interviewing techniques (Moser and Kalton, 1979; Sudman and Bradburn, 1974). As regards the latter, for exanple, the interviewer needs to understand the researcher's requirements, avoid stating his or her views, adopt a non- judgemental attitude towards the respondent and to responses and show interest in the work. In the Plymouth survey, data collection was facilitated by a number of factors. All the interviews v«re conducted by one person (the author) thereby avoiding errors and reducing comparability problems resulting from a team of Interviewers. The researcher and the interviewer were the same person, thus circumventing problems of interviewer understanding of the research aims and assuring the sufficiency of, and equivalence in probing. The issues investigated were not manifestly controversial or threatening, that is, issues which are particularly vulnerable to response effects (Sudman and Bradburn, 1974). In addition, the author's interest In the subject matter of the survey may have had a positive motivational influence on respondents (and there was some feedback to indicate this was the case). The use of the survey Interview to obtain information about the respondents' past, in the Plymouth case, their experiences and behaviour during the moving process, clearly has imperfections. In the time between the move and the interview, respondents may forget some of the details. Their perceptions may have become distorted over time and in reporting the event, repondents may attempt to endow their behaviour with a logic It did not possess. Observation and questioning at the time of the move appears preferable. This, however. Is impractical since it requires prolonged contact with each household. Moreover, observation has its ov^ Limitations, in particular it can affect behaviour unless conducted covertly. Interviewing very shortly after a move is a better option, especially if a later follow-up survey is undertaken to investigate housing conditions and satisfaction (when households have had adequate time to appraise their situations). But two 105 surveys would require a iruch longer field¥K)rk period as well as an initially large sanple to allow for attrition between surveys and to ensure sufficient nurrbers of recent movers were included. As time resources were limited, the corrpromise reached tor the Plyntnouth survey was to question households about their moves if these had occured within a three year period before the survey (in practice, more than three-quarters of the households questioned about their moves had moved within one year prior to the interview). Memory decay is related both to the time that has elapsed since an event and to the relative importance of the event (Sudman and Bradburn, 1974). The house moving experience is theoretically one which is both irrportant and memorable, in view of the stress it can entail. Sudman and Bradburn have also found that the conditions of the survey can significantly reduce memory error. These are: using interviews rather than self-administered questionnaires, placing questions on the subject toward the end, rather than the beginning of the questionnaire (in interviews lasting life hours or less they found no evidence that 'tatigue' produced resonse errors), and using open rather than closed ended questions (pp. 67-92). This informed the Plymouth survey, and, overall, it was considered that the approach adopted could provide sufficiently accurate information on moving behaviour and experiences. It should be added that, as contextual factors influence behaviour and attitudes, on external event occuring during the fieldwork or during a period under investigation, can disrupt the comparability of the results. However, in the period from June 1984 to March 1988 (the potential time boundaries of moves) the external environment was relatively stable. The sale of council houses was continuing to deplete this sector and the stock of private lets was further contracting, but inflation was fairly low and steady and though liouse prices rose, the survey was completed before prices began to soar. Also, there was no new legislation that Intruded In any significant way; neither the Social Security Act 1986, which changed the nature of ability to pay for rentals, nor the Housing Act 1988, v/hich changed the legal Iramekork for new lettlngs, had yet come into force. A final criticism of surveys is that they are concerned with one, frequently Inappropriate, level of analysis. Inlormation 106 collected from individuals, it is argued, is incapable of predicting collective action or perceiving structural effects (Mills, 1970, p. 78; Ackroyd and Hughes, 1981, pp. 63-64). Beyond asserting the fact that social forces are not independent of individual actions (Marsh, 1982) it can be said in response that, for the purposes of the present study, individual households were the appropriate level of analysis. The concern was to investigate individual, rather than collective action and to examine the etl^ect of social processes identified at the meso-level (in this case, norns and prejudices about collectives - the unemployed, families etc.) on the individual household. 3.4. DESIGN OF Tfg IlsaERVIEW SCHEDULE The Plymouth survey had five broad objectives. These were to examine: 1) The housing circumstances of the different households (the nature and terms of lettings, the cost, type and quality of the accoinnodation) and the households* views on, and reponses to, their housing conditions. 2) The relationship between the housing circumstances of different households and their incomes and %M}rking situations. 3) The households' experience of constraints in their search for private rented acconmodatlon, and the relationship between the households' eventual situations and these experiences. 4) The extent to *i*hich 'constraint' rather than 'choice' explained the households' tenure situations. 5) The households' future housing preferences and expectations. The first objective, therefore, was to obtain information on the households' accorrmodation and mostly the type of information 107- wanted was straightforward in nature. But investigating the quality of the households' accorrmodat ion required finding a means by which 'quality' could be measured. The quality of private rented housing can concern many aspects, ranging from the condition of the structure to the state of the facilities and furnishings. Traditionally, the presence of amenities and the number of persons per room have been used in surveys, such as the Census and the General Household Surveys, as indices of housing conditions. However, as the majority of dwellings now have the standard amenities (WC, fixed bath or shower, etc.) measuring housing quality in these terms has become increasingly anachronistic. Perhaps a greater problem tor private tenants today Is not that they are without the use of such amenities, but that certain amenities are In disrepair or are shared by too many. Overcrowding of rooms is a relevant consideration, but measures the use rather than the quality of the accoRTTDdat ion. The need in the Plymouth survey was to assess housing quality in a way that would be sensitive to the various factors that define the issue, would enable the rating of accorrmodat ion on a comprehensive and meaningful scale, and would be justifiable, in the sense that the definitions used would achieve wide consensus. Definitions of housing adequacy that have the backing of the law seemed the most suitable starting point. The legislation referred to was the Housing Act 1985; the 1909 Local Uovernnent and Housing Act, which made certain changes to the criteria for assessing standards (although none which would have materially affected the present work), was not in force at the time of the survey (see Chapter Eight). The 1985 Act consolidated previous legislation on housing standards and set down the requirements for a dwelling to be considered 'fit for human habitation'. The requirements are wide-ranging and concern matters such as damp, state of repair, amenity provision, lighting, and ventilation. As local authorities (speciticalLy, environmental health departments) are charged with enforcing the legislation, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers have drawn up detailed guidelines on expected standards (Institute of Environmental Health Officers, 1986. The guidelines used to inform the present study were those concerned with houses in nultiple occupation (hWOs), since it was 108- anticipated I.hat most, if not all, the dwellings surveyed would be in such houses). Having established what the investigation of housing quality might concern, the next step was to assess what was feasible for the Plymouth survey. Advice was sought from Plymouth's Environmental Health Department and from Mr. D. Armitt, a former environmental health officer. Mr. D. Armitt undertook to provide training in the assessment of housing conditions to a standard appropriate for the Plymouth survey. This involved a one day classroom session and a one day practical In local hMOs. The training and advice confirmed that a fair indication of the extent of damp, structural disrepair and the households' safety In case of fire could be obtained In the survey, whilst the Code of Practice for assessing standards in KffOs could be applied in a simplified form. In sum, virtually all of the aspects of housing covered by the legislation and environmental health guidelines could reasonably be addressed in the Plymouth survey. Operat ional ising the standards proved to be one of the most difficult design concerns. In the pilot survey a semi-structured interviewing schedule was tried. Open- and closed ended questions were devised that sought information on such matters as the state of the structure (walls ceiling, floor etc.) and the fittings and fixtures (sinks, heating, wiring etc.) In each part of the dwelling. The questions were phrased in a neutral way and probing was used to clarify issues. This approach failed, proving tedious and time-consuming for the respondents. Moreover, the respondents' attitudes towards their conditions coloured their answers. That this might occur had k>een anticipated, so observation was used as a supplement to interviewing to promote the collection of objective and comparable data. On the positive side, the pilot survey showed that observation could be used as the primary technique and that it could be undertaken overtly. Observation was more suited to the task, but using it as the tmin method had initially been rejected because it seemed too intrusive as well as inappropriate in an interview situation. But In the pilot survey It was found that respondents often interrupted my questioning with requests for me to 'see for myself; they much preferred to show me their housing conditions and -109- discuss the probleos they had, than simply to answer questions on the subject. Observation (essentially, 'inspection'), of the d%#elllng was achieved In the survey by closely Involving respondents In the process. Introduction of the Issue was follo%#ed by my naklng observations on the room In which the Interview took place. Some of my observations tiere comunicated, and respondents were also asked for their views. This maintained the conversational flow of the Interview. At the point when I needed to examine parts of the room which %#ere not easily observable from ny position, neutral questions were asked (about the state of a door or window, for Instance) and then were followed with a polite request: 'Can I eee?'. Once this type of Inspection had started, requests to see other parts of the dwellings were normally readily accepted (1). The process was much simpler than the above account might suggest. Its success depended on allowing the respondent to maintain control (they had, after all. Initially agreed to be Interviewed, not to have their property Inspected). The early requests to see more closely parts of the room In which the Interview took place had several effects. Firstly, they livened the Interview; the section on housing conditions came after a series of mainly closed ended factual questions which made the respondents adopt a passive role, now they found they could converse In a much freer way. Secondly, they communicated a geiulne Interest In seeing exactly what the respondents meant by, for example, 'a nasty damp problem'. Housing conditions were naturally a matter of importance to respondents and they were generally pleased, and often eager to discuss the Issue and to show what they were describing to someone %^o showed interest and concern. As a result, when questioning had moved on to conditions in other rooms, in most cases it was the respondent who suggested I 'take a look'. Professionalism, In the sense of being thorough and treating concerns seriously, politeness, and real Interest in the respondents' repair or damp problems and their views were crucial to the process. The approach «#as piloted before the final survey and It was found that more information could be obtained in less time than with the original method. The main benefit, of course, was that the information obtained by observation was more reliable than that 110- obtained by questioning. This part of the schedule could take about 5-10 mintutes in bedsits and between 10 and 15 minutes in larger acconmodatlon. Often, of course, It took longer, when respondents wanted to discuss matters in more detail. In all, 74X of the dwellings were seen in their entirety. In the remainder, the majority of the household's accorrmodat ion was seen, but practical problems (such as a sleeping partner or child, or Inadequate light) Inhibited full inspection. Mostly, these limitations were deduced earlier in the interview and requests to view were not put. Judgements about unseen rooms or areas in these cases had to be based on respondents' conments, but many questions could be phrased in a comparative way, so increasing the reliability of the data, for example: ' Is the damp under the window in that room not so bad or worse than in here?' . Another difficult design consideration concerned the households' search experiences. A model of the moving process (discussed in Chapter One) was developed to help generate questions for the survey and these questions were finalised after pre-testing. It was important that the questions allowed for variations In the respondents' searches and experiences, therefore the majority were opened ended and probing was used to stirrulate recall and to obtain more information. The first questions established how respondents had obtained their accorrnodat ion, as not all would have engaged in a 'search' as such. Some might have been transfered by their landlords. Others may have heard of a vacancy at a friend's house or have obtained accorrmodation through a landlord friend. Households who had made 'windfall' moves, moves precipitated by the learning of better accofrmodat ion elsewhere (Rossi, 1980), were excluded from the questioning on search experiences. Households who had conducted only partial searches (such would occur where, for example, an Inquiry to a friend produced Irrmediate results) were included. Thereafter the questions proceded in a logical order following the search, from the households' aspirations at the start, to their application for their present accorrmodat i on at the end. The finalised interview schedule contained five sections. These were: -III A) Background Information on legal and financial aspects of the accoinnodation; type of landlord, letting arrangement, deposits, rent and services. B) Physical aspects of the accofrtnodat Ion; furnished status, number and type of rooms, sharing. C) Housing conditions, Including landlords' responsibilities and responses to repair problems, tenants' repair and Improvement activities, and tenants' views on their conditions. D) Housing backgrounds, length of residence, search experiences and motivations and households' future plans and expectations. E) Household profiles; nuiri>er In household, age, sex, marital and working status, occupation and Income; %»rklng status and household composition at the time the accocrmodation was obtained (if resident less than three years). In constructing the questions a number of general principles were followed regarding question wording, length and order (2). For example, 'catch-all', annblguous and hypothetical <3) questions were avoided and simple wording was used. The more demanding questions (such as those on the households' searches) and personal questions were placed at the end of the schedule, and generally questions were organised so as to promote the conversational flow. A copy of the schedule Is provided in Appendix D. 3.5. SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE The decision to select no more than five household groupings for conparative analysis in the Plymouth study %^s based on the expected size of the total sample. Since one fieldworker (the author) was to conduct the survey, time available for fieldwork was limited, and Interviews were expected to last around 40 minutes, the largest feasible sample was considered to be about 150 households. Conventior^lly, analyses of sub-groups should concern at least 30 -112 cases, this number having certain statistical advantages (Fltz- Glbbon and Morris, 1987; p.116). Statistical tests generally become more unstable the smaller the sample, whilst some tests, such as x^* require a mlnirrum number of cases (at least 20) to be carried out. As Intra- as %^ll as inter-group analyses were anticipated, it clearly was preferable to have no more than five household groups, since with a total saofjle of 150, each group could contain 30 cases. Comparative analysis of equally sized sub-samples lends itself to two sampling procedures: disproportionate stratified random sampling and quota sampling. Generally, random sampling is to be prefered to non-random methods such as quota sampling, if it is at all practicable. This is because random sampling provides greater assurance that the units selected are representative of the population from which they are drawn. Also, in contrast to non- random methods, it Is possible to calculate the precision of sample estimates. However, a prerequisite for random sampling is the ability to obtain or construct a sairpling frame, a list of each unit in the population. In England, no list of privately rented units exists. The main sampling frames used for household surveys, that is, electoral registers and rating Lists, do not provide Information on tenure, and although sources such as rent officers' records or local authority housing lists have been used to identity privately rented dwellings or private tenants in a locality (eg. Forrest and Murie, 1980; McDowell, 1978), these are partial lists and contain obvious biases. Moreover, from such sources, pre-sampling stratification of households according to the groupings required for the present study would not be possible as the relevant information is not aval I able. Therefore, quota sampling was the only practicable method of selecting households for the survey. As with stratified random sampling, the procedure involves selecting units in accordance with pre-set, theoretically relevant categories or quota controls. But it differs from random sarrpling In the method by which units are selected. Instead of using some mechanical procedure (such as random number tables, where the numbers represent addresses or individuals) to identify units, selection occurs in the field; the fieldworker being free to choose respondents within the limits of the quota controls. This element of human Judgement in non-random 1 13- techniques Is a weakness, since bias can be Introduced into the sarnple. Also, as there is no theoretical knowledge of the total population (non-random methods not requiring sampling frames) It Is not possible to attach estimates of standard errors to the sanple results. Thus the representativeness of a sample cannot be assessed. In practice, however, quota sanples have been found to produce reasonably accurate overall results (Moser and Kaiton, 1979. p. 136). This Is especially the case %4>ere safeguards are employed to reduce potential sources of bias. The safeguards decided upon for the Plymouth survey, discussed In more detail below, were: 1) Selection of privately renting households in different wards In Plymouth, In proportion to their nuirider in a word. This ensured different areas in Plymouth were adequately represented. 2) Selection of different types of privately renting household in accordance with their representation In a ward. This ensured inter- group comparisons of, In particular, housing conditions, were free of geographical biases. 3) 'Blanket* surveying of areas selected for fleldwork, involving calls at every property and interviews 4) Selection of an adequate mix of dwellings on different floors In properties (echleved by varying the use of doorbells). This removed Interviewer bias In the selection of dwellings (concentration on basement rooms, for example, could skew the data towards dwellings with problems of damp or Inadequate light). The absence of a cocrplete or accurate record of privately rented properties raised the question of how the households could be located. Clearly, where privately rented dwellings constitute such a email proportion of all residential units, hours or even days could be spent In the field without any contacts being made. Practicalities suggested that fleldwork should be undertaken In -114- locations w/here private rented dwellings are concentrated. As noted in Chapter Two, the majority of privately rented dwellings in Plymouth are in the inner city. In fact, at the time of the 1981 Census, of the twenty wards in Plymouth, the seven central wards contained 73.3% of all privately renting households (OPCS 1983c, Table 29), whilst all but five of the fifty-six enumeration districts in the city with 40X or more of households privately renting, were in these wards. Therefore it was decided to focus fteldwork upon the seven central wards, and, within these wards, upon densely rented enumeration districts, ie, those with 40X or more of households privately renting. The fieldwork would be directed firstly at the enumeration districts with the highest proportions of privately renting households, and within those districts, firstly at the principal streets, calls being made at each property in a street. Of course, concentrating the sample in this way means there is a degree of bias involved in the dwellings and possibly in the households selected for the survey. The bias is almost certainly towards older properties, which are mainly in the inner city, and probably away from whole houses (often let by absent owner- occupiers) or single room lettings in mortgaged homes, both of fc^iich would be more prevalent in the suburbs. Whilst it is important to be aware of these biases in the interpretation of the data, (and to note that generalisations from the data relate to densely rented areas), it should be stressed that the main market for private rented accorrmodat ion is in inner city areas, so the focus is an appropriate one. The quota controls in the survey were the household groupings discussed earlier. Although surveys using quota methods often sample on two or three dimensions, such as age, sex and social class (Moser and Kalton, 1979; Smith, 1981), for the Plymouth survey it was decided not to further sub-divide the household groups. Quota controls concerning age or working situation as well as household grouping would have been theoretically relevant to the study, given, for example, the apparent emphasis placed on young and employed households by landlords. But this would have presented difficulties at the point of contact with households. At the doorstep, it was first necessary to establish whether the accormodation was privately 115- rented, and, if 6o, whether it was of a type appropriate to the needs of the study, then whether the household, if willing to be interviewed, was of the grouping needed to fill a quota, and thirdly, whether the potential respondent was able to answer certain questions, in particular, those relating to the letting arrangement and search experiences. Adding further quota controls would have made the fieldwork unnecessarily arduous, especially as intra-group dlstictions between households could be made where appropriate In the analysis of the data. As has been noted, so that the different wards in the city were adequately represented in the survey, it %ras decided that the number of households to be Interviewed In each ward should be approximately equivalent to their representation in the ward at the time of the 1981 Census. Approximate equivalence was deemed acceptable in view of likely changes In the numbers and distribution of privately renting households between the 1981 Census and the 1987-88 survey, and also because slightly different definitions of 'household' were employed by the Census and the Plymouth survey. The target population of households to be interviewed in each ward, and the actual proportion interviewed are shown In Table 3. 1, and, as can be seen, approximate equivalence was achieved. TABLE 3. I: DISTHIBUTION OF PRIVATELY REhfTlNG HOUSEHOLDS IN THE SEVEN C^t^TRAU WARDS. TARGET PROPORTION QF HQUgEHOLPg TO PE INT^RY^^WED IN EACH WARD A^p APTUAL PROPORTION OF HQM^HPLQS INTHRVI^D Wards St Peter Sutton Hi 6ould Conpton Drake Stoke KeyhaiD roiel No. H/H (1981) II56 1171 1180 850 1767 1305 693 8U2 No. Interviews n 20 22 17 41 22 11 156 H/H as I of Total (1981) (target 1 for interview) 14 U 15 10 22 16 9 100 % Interviewed IS 13 U 11 26 U 7 100 Source: OPCS 1983c, fable 29. Households in 'Other Rented' Unfurnished and Furnished perawnent accornDodation. Another cor>cern was that the different types of household in each ward should be adequately represented in the survey. Unfortunately, as rioted, the Census definition of 'household' cioes -116- not correspond to that used in the present y^rk and the Census also groups households in a different way. Nevertheless, the Census does detail the nurrters of pensioner households and households with children privately renting in each ward, so this provided a rough guideline for the proportion of households in these groups that should be Interviewed. The proportion of pensioners, families and the other household groups (single people, students and couples) Interviewed In each ward as compared with their distribution at the time of the 1981 Census Is shown In Table 3.2. TABLE 3.2: PEhSIO^RS. FAMILIES AhO OT>gR HOUSEHOLDS irfTERVlEVCP IN EACH WARD COMPARED WITH 1981 DISTRIBUTIONS yards St Peter Sutton Ht Gould Conpton Drake Stoke Keyhan Tota 1981 Census: H/K with persons pens, age only 1 12 16 17 9 22 16 8 100 1967'8B Survey: Pensioners Z II 11 11 U 25 25 3 100 1981 Census: HfW with any child age 0-tS 1 17 1? 13 13 22 13 10 100 1987-8B Survey: Families 1 13 16 10 13 29 10 10 100 1981 Census: other H/H 1 15 14 13 11 22 16 9 100 1987-86 Survey: Single, Students Couples 1 U 12 17 9 26 12 7 100 Source: OPCS 1983c, Table 29. Households in 'Other Rented' Unfurnished and Furnished pernanent accomnodation. 3.6. THE PILOT SURVEY After the Interview schedule had been pre-tested on privately renting colleagues and friends, a pilot survey vas undertaken In order to establish the length of interviews, the response rate, and the accessibility of different household types, and to test the adec^acy of questions for producing the required information. The pilot was also useful for examining respondents' Interpretations of, and ability to answer c^estions, especially those more demarKling of knowledge or memories. The pilot survey was conducted In 1986 In an enumeration district which, according to the 1981 Census, contained a high 117- proportion of privately renting households <70X or more) and a mixed population. Any difficulties in obtaining interviews or in locating different types of household in this area would clearly point to a need for methods or aims to be revised. in the event, Interviews were relatively easy to obtain. Twenty-one households were intervie^^ in a two week period. This suggested that, allowing for a lower level of success in locating households in less densely rented areas, and for the need to fill quotas, the fieldwork could be conpleted in about five months. This was within the time limit of six months. The refusal rate was low (10X) but concerned two pensioners, providing some confirmation of anticipated difficulties in accessing this group. As successful interviews were obtained with Just two pensioner households, it was decided that for the final survey, supplementary methods of locating pensioners might have to be employed. Families %«re expected to be the most difficult group to locate, given their low representation in the sector, but these in fact comprised a quarter of those surveyed. Overall, the pilot confirmed that 150 Interviews was a feasible target for the final survey and that contacts could be made with the various types of household relevant to the aims of the research. The pilot survey Indicated that interviews could be concluded within 40 minutes, or 30 minutes If search experiences were not examined (such questions concerning only the more recent residents). It also showed that allowances needed to be made for longer Interviews as the subject of study proved to be of interest to many respondents, especially the questions relating to housing conditions, whilst, of course, some respondents enjoyed conversing in general. But given a potential 'fatigue' factor, it was decided that introduction of the most taxing part of the survey, that on search experiences, should occur within one hour of the start of the interview. A number of problems concerning the adequacy of the questions were encountered. The main problems resulted from the approach used to assess housing conditions, these have been discussed earlier, along with the alternative approach adopted. Investigation of households' search experiences Illuminated another problem, although not the one expected, ie. recall. In the main, households appeared to remember their experiences and behaviour very well. Hoover, in -116- the Interviews and especially in a preliminary analysis of the data, it was found that the subject matter was more complicated than the questions allowed for, and that greater precision was needed in the format of the questions asked. This section of the schedule, therefore, was revised. The pilot survey also revealed a nunt>er of problems associated with question phrasing and order in other sections of the schedule, and a few questions which proved uninteresting in that there %^s little or no variance in responses, were dropped. Tightening of the schedule to allow ample time to be spent on the most inportant questions, also removed some of the lesser items. As time was limited, piloting of the revised schedule concerned five households, three contacted via acquantancies and two in the field. No adjustments to the revised schedule were considered necessary. 3,7- Py^l^PWQRK The interview schedules were actnlnistered to respondents between June 1987 and March 1988. Interviews were not conducted during the period when most students take their sumner vacation (July - September) as this would have produced a bias in the student group to%^rdG those with their permanent residence in Plymouth, whilst there might have been difficulties in filling the quota. Interviewing was also terminated during the Christmas holiday period (mid-OecefTt>er to mid-January), for this reason and because refusals in general might have been greater at this time. The interviews took place between 10.00am and 8.00pm on weekdays, these times and days being considered the most acceptable In a survey ¥^re forewarning potential respondents was not possible. An obvious disadvantage is that households with working members were probably under-represented in the survey, but as noted, errployed and unemployed respondents could be treated separately, ^ere appropriate. In the analysis of the data. 156 interviews were obtained; 28 with pensioner households, 29 with students and with couples, 31 with families and 39 with single people. Therefore, as the quotas were set at 30 households per 119- group, there was a certain amount of over- and under sampling of different household types. Undersampling occured because of difficulty in locating sofne households, and both over- and undersampl Ing because It was not easy to ascertain with precision the group to which a household belonged during the brief doorstep discussion before the interview began. For example, some single people described themselves as students where they attended night school or a CFE. , yet only students In full-time higher education were classified as such. Completing the quotas for pensioners, students and couples was not attempted slrrply because the time allotted for fieldwork had expired. Fieldwork needed to be completed before the end of the financial year and particularly before the Social Security Act 1986 came into force in April 1988. Interviews after this time would have affected the comparability of data concerning incomes. However, it was considered that as the missing interviews were only four and were distributed between three household groups, their absence would not undermine the quality of the data. It should also be pointed out that as the household groups were not to be aggregated, differences between them in the numbers interviewed were irrelevant to the Intended analyses. Overall, the refusal rate was very low and interviews were obtained with 86% of households at all identified privately rented units. As indicated by the pilot survey, the refusal rate amongst (apparently) pensioner households was higher, 50% of the refusals concerned such households. Most households refused on the grounds they were not Interested or did not have enough time. But three pensioners said they 'did not want to upset' their landlord and a number were quite reasonably nervous about letting strangers into their house. Introductions through an intermediary seemed to be the answer to the latter problem, BO a local day centre was contacted and as a result the addresses of a number of willing pensioners \>tBre obtained and three were interviewed. Aside from the refusals. Interviews could not be conducted with some households for a variety of reasons. Five households refused to give Information on their tenure; if these had been privately renting, the interview success rate is lower (83%). Six households could not be interviewed because they were hard of 120- hearing, unable to understand what was required or were intoxicated. Aciditionally, six resident landlords refused access (even though in or>e case an appointment had been arranged with the tenant). In general, however, the landlords encountered In the survey, resident and ncx^-rosident, were found to be very helpful. Given limited knowledge on the types of household that ccxjld not be interviewed or refused, it is difficult to estimate any resulting bias in the households surveyed. It is possible, though, that more vulnerable households (the frail or mentally confused, for example) were under-represented, especially within the pensioner group. The characteristics of the surveyed households are discussed later in this chapter. One of the measures taken to circurrvent interview bias in the field work was that of calling at every property in the selected streets. The potential arduousness of this was reduced in practice by the willingness of reslcients to indicate whether neighbouring properties contained privately rented dwellings. Ar>other measure was that of interviewing one household per property. In fact, circumstantial difficulties meant that two interviews were obtained In one property, thus in all 155 properties %i«re surveyed. The third measure taken to reduce interviewer bias concerned efforts to Include dwellings situated on various floors of properties. A good mix was obtained; of the ciwel lings, A0% were on the ground floor, 361 on the first, 18% on the second or third floors and 6X in the basement or sub-basement. The average length of interviews was MX hours. Few problems were encountered in the administration of schedules. It was found that the close attention paid to respondents' housing cor^ditlons greatly increased rapport, so that by the time questioning had moved on to housing backgrounds, search experiences and future plans, respondents were relaxed and talked freely. After each interview, notes on the property Cits age and the condition of the front exterior, for instance) were added to the schedule, ar>d at the end of the day schedules were checked for corrpleteness, legibility and accuracy of coding. Comnents on respondents and their situations were also sometimes added. Not all respondents were willing or able to answer every question on the schedule. Questions on rent and incomes brought a 121 few refusals, but missing data more often arose from lack of knowledge or poor recall. This occured mainly with questions on housing benefit, incomes and rent registration - although this question was aimed at eliciting respondents' knowledge and understanding of the issue. Also, responses to the question concerning the number of applications for vacancies made in the search that were vague or appeared to be guesses were excluded from analyses. The number of cases on which particular calculations are based in the thesis are made clear either In the text or in the accompanying tables. Interviews concerning households of more than one individual al%rays pose the problem of whom to designate as the respondent. In the Plymouth survey, interviews were conducted with the individual with whom contact was first made, but there were some exceptions. As noted earlier, it %ras important that the respondent was the person who had conducted the search and was the most informed about the terms of the letting agreement. This occasionally resulted In the interview or In parts of the interview being conducted with another individual in the property, in the case of student households 3r8, PATA PREPARATyW AW ANALYgl? Preparing the data for analysis consisted of constructing coding frames for each question, conpillng a codebook containing all the coding frames and the columns on the data matrix allocated to each variable, coding, producing the data matrix, transfering the data to computer and checking the data set for errors. As codes for most of the closed ended questions were pre-set, and the ratio data (incomes, rents, age, etc.) was to be retained as such, construction of coding frames mainly concerned the open ended questions. The research stresses respondents' interpretations of 122- their situations so in devising coding frames the principle followed was that categories should be meaningful in relation to repondents' 'definitions of the situation' (Sllvey, 1975, p. 37) as well as in relation to the choice/constraint framework of the study. The categories developed were exhaustive, and, with the exception of a few questions where rrultlple responses were allowed, exclusive. The procedure for developing categories involved firstly, transcribing all the responses to a question (or relating to a variable) onto separate sheets. Normally, categories are drawn from a sample of about 20 responses (Moser and Kalton, 1979; Sllvey, 1975), but this was considered insufficient for ensuring the various shades of meaning in different responses were adequately taken into account. Premature categorisation can result in an oversized 'miscellaneous' category and, more importantly, risks a re- interpretation of later responses so that they fit categories already chosen. A significant benefit of retaining all the respondents' answers to a question in their original form is that it enables not only indicative reponses to be provided in tables or in the text as explanations of a category, but it also enables the variability of responses within a category to be demonstrated (see, for exarrple, the discussion of tenants' views on their landlords' responses to repair problems). Of course, this procedure is most suited to small-scale surveys, such as the Plymouth study. Next, the sheets of responses were sorted into separate groups of similar responses. With multiple responses (for example, questions 24-25 and question 37a> sorting was carried out for each dimension of the response in turn. Groups were than checked for the consistency of responses and were revised as necessary. For most questions a large number of categories were initially produced to preserve fine distinctions in the data. Combining categories to clarify patterns was undertaken at a later stage, using the SPSS-X computer package ' recode' facility. Classification of resporxJents' housing conditions required a different procedure from that described above. The concern was to compare respondents' ciwellings in terms of state of repair, damp and the envirorvnental health requirements for HMOs. As state of repair and damp are a matter of ciegree, classification raises the question of where to draw bour>daries. Costing remedial work has been used as 123- one solution (in the English House Condition surveys) but in view of inadequate knowledge of costs and the problem of comparing differently sized dwellings, it was unsuitable for the Plymouth survey. A simple classification scheme was therefore drawn up which meant that the boundaries were few and the categories were more distinct and could more easily be understood. Defining the categories was undertGU 124- examine whether there were differences between the household groups with respect to their situations and experiences, in the main data analysis involved the use of relatively simple descriptive statistics. In particular, relative frequency distributions w«re calculated to conpare household groups in relation to a variable. These statistics are presented in tables and are discussed in the text. Tabular analysis involved combining response categories to ease interpretation of patterns and to ensure cell sizes were sufficiently large. This inevitably resulted in a loss of Information, so where appropriate, sub-categories are also presented in tables and examples of different responses are incorporated into the discussion. The most conmon statistical problem in the study was to determine whether an apparent difference in quantity between two or more categories was significant. Such categories generally concerned nominal data, and the test, which can be performed on nominal data, was used to address this probleia The test involved setting up the null hypothesis that there was no significant difference between categories, and calculating the quantities that would have been expected given the null hypothesis. After computation of x2i reference to x2 tables showed whether the null hypothesis could be accepted or rejected. The exact procedure for calculating x2 is described in Blalock <1979), as is the procedure for the other statistical test used in the Plymouth study, namely. Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient. 3.9. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION Al^ LENGTH OF RESIDENCE This section presents some background information on the sample population which is pertinent to the discussion and analyses of the data In the next four chapters. The Sample Characteristics The 28 pensioners intervle^^ comprised 4 couples and 24 single person households, of which 16 were females and 8 males. 125- Three of the couples were narrled and one cohabited. TWo of the lone Dales %iere %#ldowed and the remaining six were single, tjhllst eight of the lone feaales tiere widowed, four divorced, one separated and three single (see Appendix A. Table A. 3.1). Both sexes ranged In age from 60 to 82 years, but the nean age of iroioen MS slightly lower than that of nen, 70 coapared %«lth 74 years. The sao^le of 39 single adults below pensionable age consisted of 23 Bales and 16 females. The majority had altiays been single (16 or 70% of the men and 12 or 75% of the women). The remaining males %«ere either divorced (5 households) or separated (2 households), and the remaining females were either widowed (2 households) or divorced (2 households) (see Appendix A, Table A. 3.2). Both sezes spanned a similar wide age range; the youngest male %«as 17 and the oldest 58, the youngest female was 18 and the oldest 54. But In general most In this group, especially the women, were fairly young; fifteen (65X) of the men and twelve (75%) of the women were aged 35 or less and the mean age of the men was 33, and of the women, 28 (Appendix A, Table A. 3. 3). All of the 29 students Interviewed were single and 18 were males and 11 females. Vlth the exception of three male students, all were aged 22 or less and the mean age In this group was 21 (see Appendix A, Table A. 3. 4). Apart from one narrled couple with an adult female child, all In the couples group were two person households. 12 (41%) of the twenty-nine couples interviewed were narrled, and 17 (59%) cohabited. Ages proved to be similar to those In the single group; they covered a wide range but were predominately young. So, although the youngest person was 17 and the oldest 67, with twenty- three of the couples (76%) both the respondent and partner hiere aged 35 or less and the mean age was 29 (Appendix A, Table A. 3. 5). Of the 31 families, 26 were couples with children and 5 were single female parents. Twenty of the couples were married and six cohabited; four of the single parents had always been single and one was divorced. Most of the families (21 or 68%) had Just one child, eight (26%), Including two single parents, had t*#o children and two couples had three children (6%). These were, for the most part, young parents with Infant children. The ages of the parents ranged from 17 to 60, but with 25 households (81%) the sole or both 126- parents were aged 35 or less and the mean age of the parents was 27 (Appendix A, Table A. 3. 6>. Thirty-five of the forty-three children were aged three or less and only six households had any child aged four or more (Appendix A, Table A. 3. 7). Length of Residence The findings on households' length of reslcience are consistent with evidence from other surveys of the sector (eg. Tocid et al., 1982, Table 4. 15; Todd, 1990, Table II. 19>. TABLE 3.3: LENGTH OF RESIDENCE BY HOUSEHOLD GROUP P^n^onpr gingi? Skd£ai Qmis, EMUX. No. 1 No. S No. S No. I No. t iifingth fff residence Under lyr 3 It 23 59 27 93 15 52 15 ift lyr under 3yrs - - 6 21 2 7 II 3ft 7 23 3yrs under lOyrs 7 25 5 13 - - - - 6 26 lOyrs or nore 18 64 3 6 - - 3 10 1 3 All households 28 100 39 100 29 100 29 100 31 100 As Table 3.3 shows, in contrast with the other household groups rrost pensioners were long term residents. 25 (89X> having lived in their accormodation for three years or more. No student, and only three couples had been resident for three years or more. Single adults and families were divided between newcomers; 23 (59X) and 15 (4d%> respectively having lived in their acconmodation under 1 year, and the relatively settled; 8 (21%> and 9 (29%) respectively in the same tenancy for three years or more. -127- FQPTNPT^g FOR CHAPTER TtiRE^ 1. Parts constituting the 'dwelling' that were inspected In the survey included all parts used by the household, eg. rooms, hallways, yards and paths (whether shared or not), as well as parts that could affect the household's Living conditions, eg. exterior walls, roofs and guttering. 2. The most useful literature was: Noser and Kalton, 1979; Holnvllle and Jo%^ll, 1985; and Smith, 1981. 3. Although it was necessary to ask respondents ^^at they regarded as their ' ideal' tenure. -128- CHAPTER FOUR; HOUSING C0M)1TI0NS i. 1. iriTROOUCTION This chapter is the first of two concerned with investigating aspects of the households* accomnodation and which together provide the context for assessing opportunities in the private rented housing market. It focuses on an area that has been central to debates on the sector, namely housing conditions. The private rented sector has become synonymous with poor quality housing and this in Itself has lent support to the view that most tenants will have been to some extent constrained into accepting private lets as a result of limited opportunities to obtain acconfnodation in other sectors. However, not all private rented housing Is necessarily poor; certainly we have only partial knowledge of the extent and nature of deficiencies. It is important therefore to establish firstly the prevalence of poor quality housing amongst the surveyed households, and secondly, what differences between the household groups are apparent with respect to the quality of the dwellings occupied. The latter could well reflect unequal competitive abilities in the private rented housing market, so findings from this chapter provide the backcloth for a later analysis of income and employment differentials (Chapter Six) and constraints on choice encountered in the search for accorrmodatIon (Chapter Seven). The chapter opens by outlining basic attributes of the dwellings and aspects of occupancy; the age of the properties, number of storeys and density of occupation, the provision of furniture, the type of accormodat ion and nu[Tt>er of rooms, self- containment and sharing. Then the issue of housing quality is addressed. Housing can be of a poor quality for a variety of reasons. It can, for example, lack certain amenities or it can be damp or in disrepair, whilst the internal arrangement and utilisation of the property can lead to overcrowding or create a fire risk. Problems such as these are not always found in conjunction, so use of any or even a number as Indicators of poor quality housing could produce a lopsided picture. Hence a comprehensive approach was needed for the examination of housing conditions. This was achieved by refering to legal definitions of 129- adequate housing and by adopting, as completely as possible, environmental health codes of practice for assessing housing standards. Key areas of concern were identified and then investigated through questions in the interview and personal examination of the property. The findings are presented in Section 4.3, which ends by providing an overview of the quality of the housing obtained by the different household groups. Following this, the final section of the chapter develops the analysis of housing conditions by using the findings as a basis for considering the points of view of the households. Appreciation of the 'consumer' perspective is important because the success of policy initiatives for irrproving accoamodat Ion in the private rented sector depends ultimately on how well the needs of tenants are met. Thus households' attitudes towards sharing, on which policy makers have held a variety of opinions ranging from 'undesirable' to 'acceptable' (1), are addressed, as are households' views on their landlords' maintenance practices and on their general housing conditions. Since dissatisfaction with conditions can be translated into action, strategies adopted by households to deal with poor conditions are also examined. These provide insights into landlord- tenant relationships, the role of private rented accommodation for different households, and the problems of using official help to effect Improvements. PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF Th€ HOUSING All the households in the survey lived In multi-occupied, pre- 1919 terraced properties. Most houses were Large, having three or four storeys, but pensioners tended to be concentrated in the smaller, tvKS storey properties (see Appendix A, Table A.4.1). They also differed from the other groups in that they Lived at rnjch Lower densities <3.6 persons on average per house against 6.4- amongst the other households). A popular view of the private rented sector is one of crowded buildings inhabited by the single young, but in this survey non-pensioner single people and students were found to be occupying Less populated buildings than couples or families. Indeed families were in the most crowded buildings (7.7 persons per house) 130- and a quarter occupied houses containing ten or more people. This compares with a mere five and ten per cent of single people and students respectively (Appendix A, Table A. 4. 2>. Differences in the size of the buildings occupied partly explains the variations In densities. A certain amount of segregation of household types found by the survey was another factor. Pensioners (with a median household size of one> more often than not lived in buildings also occupied by other pensioners; families (median household size three) tended to live in houses occupied by other family households. Pensioners and families were rarely found renting accoamodation within the same building and it was exceptional for students to live In conjunction with either of these two groups. Table 4.1 considers the distribution of unfurnished and furnished acconmodat ion between the household groups, and the number of habitable rooms (rooms %^ich are not kitchens, bathrooms or water closets) for the households' use. TABLE 4. 1: FURNIS^^D AhP UNFURNISHED ACC0rK3DAT10N AND Nl^ER OF HABITABLE ROOMS X if) HougPf)Qltf Qrpup Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanlly Furnilure Furnished 21 90 100 63 66 Unfurnished 79 10 - 17 32 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Number of Habitable Roons One 7 54 66 17 16 Two 57 33 31 59 36 Three or nore 36 13 3 24 46 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 26 39 29 29 31 Again, pensioners' acconmodatlon contrasted with that of the other household groups. Their predominance in unfurnished lettlngs is largely a factor of their longer residence (see Chapter Three, Section 3.9>, many having begun their tenancies when unfurnished lets ^re more widely available. No student rented unfurnished accorrmodatlon and since all but two students had a 'permanent' home 131 elsewhere, returning to their parental home for vacations, in most. If not all of these cases* furnished accorrmodat I on would have been considered more appropriate for their needs <2). After pensioners, families showed the next highest proportion In unfurnished lets. Most students and single people had the use of only one habitable room. By contrast, virtually all pensioners had two or more rooms, In part because they predominated In unfurnished lets which tended to be bigger (only 2% of the unfurnished lets had one room). The majority of couples and families had two or more roomG, nevertheless, despite their larger household sizes, one-sixth In each group occupied one room. T/VgLE 4. 2; TYPE QF ACQ % in Hftugehol^ GfPV^ Type of Accorrmodfition Pensioner Single Student Couple Fsmily BedstL (shore kitchen S amenities) 4 26 14 7 10 Bedsit vtth klchen facilities (share anenities) - 15 10 3 3 Bedsit, kitchen (share emeniiies) 7 6 3 3 3 All bedsits 11 49 27 13 16 Rooin in shared flat - 13 24 - - Room in shared house/part house - 3 46 - - All shared flats/houses - 16 72 - - Two or more habitable roons: (share kitchen S amenities) 4 - - 7 13 (share amenities) - - - - 3 All two or more habitable rooms 4 - - 7 16 Flatlet (one habitable room no sharing) - 3 - 3 - Flat (ivo or more habitable rooms no sharing) 86 33 - 76 68 All flats 66 36 - 79 6B Tolal 100 100 100 100 100 n= 26 39 29 29 31 (An)enities= Vashing and sanitary facilities) As ml ght be expected. It was single people and students %^o predominated In bedsits, and no other grcxjp had rooms In a shared 132- flat or house (Table 4.2>. Pensioners, couples and families were concentrated In flats, although a significant proportion in each group occupied dwellings that involved some sharing of amenities with other households. Sharing is considered in some detail later, but even where there was no sharing of rooms or amenities, there were variations in the degree of privacy experienced by the households as is shown below. T/^\JE i. 3; SgPARATI^NESS QF T>^ HQMg^HQLDS in Hgqgg^ottl firgMP Households with: Pensioner Single Student Couple Fenily Separate entrance from outside the building (o S/C accom. 7 5 - - 6 Shared access fron outside the building to S/C accom. 32 5 - 52 29 No sharing, but not S/C acccm. 45 25 - 27 33 Shared roonts or anenities U 65 100 21 32 Total 100 100 too 100 100 n= 28 39 29 29 31 Couples, then, were in the most favourable position, a little over one-half occupying self-contained dwellings. The larger proportion of pensioners and families were in rooms that were not self-contained, but involved no sharing, %^ilet the majority of single people, and all students (although often as a group in self- contained eccorrmodat lon> shared rcxjms or amenities. Thus significant variations were found in the type of accorrmodation rented by the different household groups. Pensioners' dwellings reflected a residual type of letting; most had t%#o or three roomsd unfurnished flats and few shared rcx>ms or amenities. By contrast, most single peoples' and students' acccximodatIon was furnished, single room units where sharing was the norm. The accorrmodation of couples and families occupied an interim position; the majority in both groups lived in two or three roomed flats, but a significant proportion occupied bedsits and over one-fifth shared rooms or amenities. 133- 4.3. T>^ QUALITY OF THE HOUSING The aim in thl5 section is to examine the adequacy of the households' acconnodation with reference to legal requirements (3>. There is a whole battery of legislation dating back to 1685 to ensure houses are in a fit state for habitation; are in reasonable repair and have certain amenities, for exanple, as well as specific powers granted to local authorities to deal with houses in multiple occupation. If necessary there are procedures by which landlords can be forced to remedy defects or risk the compulsory purchase of the property <4). The physical state of the accorrmodet Ion WAS given much attention In the survey (see Chapter Three) and the interpretation of regulations and the categorization of dwellings was undertaken with the advice and help of officers from Plymouth's Environmental Health Department (5). Environmental health priorities with regard to houses in nultiple occupation Table 4.4^ considers the state of repair of the dwellings (6). There are four categories, the first two (In good repair; minor repairs needed), comprise dwellings that are considered to be in 'reasonable* repair. The third category, acconmodat ion 'in some disrepair' is where the disrepair is not severe but some action should be taken by the landlord to remedy defects. The fourth category 'In substantial disrepair' Is accorrmodat ion that is unsatisfactory. Households would experience some inconvenience, if not be at risk, in occupying the dwelling and repair should be undertaken as a matter of some urgency. Examples of defects and their categorisation are provided in Appendix C. The statistics sho*^ in Table 4.4 are depressing. At best only a little over a half of households In any group lived in accorrmodat ion that was In reasonable repair; nearly one third, on average, of all the households lived In housing that was in 134- substantial disrepair. Amongst the households, single people and students fared best. Just over one half living in dwellings that were in reasonable repair; although couples had the lowest proportion in accommodation that was in substantial disrepair. Pensioners, and especially families were in a relatively poor position. Over one third of the former and nearly one half of the latter were in dwellings in substantial disrepair. TABLE 4,4: STAT^ OF PFPAIR OF P^^I4,yNGS Pensioner Single Student Couple Fenily Dwellings In good repair 22 IS 10 14 13 Minor repairs needed 22 41 42 31 13 In some disrepair 19 U 24 41 26 In substantial disrepair 37 26 24 14 46 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= Alt households, excluding one refusal) Damp in housing, whether caused by condensation, rising or penetrating darrp, can be of major aggravation to households and, where severe, can pose a health risk. In the survey, damp was classified as either 'minor' or 'severe'. A detailed description of the classification Is provided in Appendix C. In general terms, damp caused by condensation %ras categorized as 'minor' As the Leeds study of private rented housing points out, the location of damp problems Is an important consideration (Leeds University Union, 1982). Dampness could be most expected In bathrooms and kitchens where excess condensation can cause Internal damp to form. It irfould be least expected in bedroome and living rooms (habitable rooms) as condensation is normally kept to a minimum and heating is often used. Tenants would generally spend 135- most of their time In the habitable roome so severe damp in these is more serious. TABLE 4.5: DAMP IN ACCOH0DATI(3N t in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family All accotinodfltion: Free from datrf) 33 33 3B 21 13 Has deiip problens 67 67 62 79 67 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Damp in kitchen/bathroon/VC: None 37 44 41 41 22 Minor 33 44 31 35 39 Severe 30 12 26 24 39 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Damp in habitable rooms None 56 64 66 35 32 Hi nor 22 26 17 41 29 Severe 22 10 17 24 39 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= All households, excluding one refusal) The majority of households had damp in some form in their accoinnodation (Table 4.5). Wbrst placed were couples and families, more than three-quarters of %iihom experienced damp. Although households more often had damp in kitchens, bathrooms or water closets, very high proportions experienced damp in habitable rooms. For over a third of families this damp was severe. Winirrvm Stan^prds for Houpep in r^^U^pie occuppt^on The formal basis for local authority Intervention is that the house in multiple occupation The Institute of Environmental Health Officers (1986) have drawn up detailed guidelines specifying the standards expected within different types of ^tlO and most local authorities have adopted this -136- Code of Practice entirely or in a modified form to suit local conditions and priorities <8>. A simplified version of the Code of Practice MS used to assess housing conditions in the survey (see Appendix C>. Households' dwellings were checked to see if they complied with nine standards relating to: (I) space, (ii) natural light, Cili) artificial light, (Iv) ventilation, (v> personal washing facilities, (vi) sanitation, TABLE 4.6: NUhBER OF STAM>ARDS f^J IN I in Household Group Number of Standards Pensioner Single Studenl Couple Fanlty net in HHO All nine 19 5 3 7 3 Host (five to eight) 62 59 69 65 61 Few (none to four) 19 3i 26 28 36 1otel 100 100 100 100 100 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= All households, excluding one refusal) Table 4.6 demonstrates that very little accoonndat ion was totally satisfactory. Less than one-tenth of households in all groups, apart from the pensioner, were in dwellings that met all of the nine standards. Single people and families did especially badly, over one third %«re living in accommodation that complied with Just a minority of the standards. The nature of the deficiencies are explored in Table 4.7, which details the percentage of households in each group %i^ose accomnodatIon failed Individual HMO standards. The main faults In the dwellings, then, were to do with ventilation, sanitation, kitchen facilities and refuse storage. The problems faced by households in respect of each standard are discussed below, and the reasons why a standard was failed are 137- tabulated In Appendix A (Tables A. 4. 3 to A. 4. 10). TABLE 4. 7: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WHOSE ACCOTtlODAT I ON FAILED EACH HIMO STAM)ARD Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily 1 in H/H group failing standard for: Space i 13 34 17 32 Natural Light - 3 10 3 10 Artificial Light 4 26 31 24 23 Ventilation 41 44 41 59 77 Washing Facilities 37 62 3B 28 39 Sanitation 33 62 72 45 46 Kitchen Facilities 44 67 79 48 4B Heating 19 2B 17 28 23 Refuse Storage 5? 62 52 66 74 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= All households, excluding one refusal) Space Students suffered the most from lack of space. The deficiency was mainly to do with overcrowded kitchens, but one-sixth had bedrooms, normally the only room students have exclusively, that were too small. Nearly cxie third of families had Inadec^ate space in one or more rooms, for I35t In the entire dwelling. Two couples were living in bedsits - unsuitable acconmodation for this household type according to the standard, and a further two lacked adequate space in all the rooms they used. Single people, like stucients, suffered mainly because of overcrowded kitchens. Space standards are less generous towarcis families than other household types because a child is not counted as a 'full' person until the age of ten, and is not counted at all If ur>der one. By this reckoning a single parent with any nurrber of babies in a bedsit sized 13ft by 9ft is considered to have adequate space <9>. A debate on the curious logic behind this computation will not be entered Into here, but the effect should be noted, more families In the survey v^ld be deemed to be lacking in space If their children 138- were counted as 'complete' people. The Census errploys a different measure of space which Is useful to apply to the households In the survey because It provides a simple and clear Indication of ' under-occupancy' as %irell as of overcro%#dlng. 'Density of occupation* Is the ratio of the number of people In the acccxmodation (children as well as adults) to the number of rocsms. Rooms Included in the reckoning are all habitable rcxjms and kitchens over 6ft 6ins wide <10). The findings are shown in Table 4.8. TABLE 4.8: DEhSlTY OF OCCi^ATION Pensioner Single Student Couple Fantly Density IK pers. per roon or more - - - 7 3? 1 pers. per roon less than IK - 23 34 59 45 1 pers. per room less than 1 37 49 66 31 23 (ess than It pers. per roon 63 26 - 3 - Total 100 100 too 100 100 n= ?e 39 29 29 31 With the Census definition of overcrowding, that Is, one and one half persons per room or more, families showed a significant proportion overcrowded, a third of In the group in this situation. Ccxiversely, most pensioners end nearly a quarter of single people 'under-occupied' (density less than one half person per rcxim). The definition of 'adequate' natural light used In the survey was quite stringent; habitable rooms should not need to be artificially lit on a sunny day. ROCXTG that were 'gloomy' were discounted Few households had acconmodat Ion that failed this standard, but 10X of student and family dwellings did. In one case, In a student house, the deficiency was severe. The student's only rcx>m for his exclusive use lacked any window or even any ' borro%^d' light. It was a room clearly Intended for occupation; the landlord had sub-dlvlded a larger room to Increase potential lettings and required a fee for the room from the house-sharers, whether or not it was occupied. This room was clearly unfit for habitation. The -139- other households with Inadequate natural light all had some sort of window, skylight or borrowed light, arKJ all lived in attics, basements or sub-basements Artificial Light Around a quarter in all the household groups, apart from pensioners, had Inadequate artificial light. The problems arose almost solely in the comnunal areas of staircases, passages and landings. Time switches giving insufficient time for tenants to reach or leave their rooms was a conmon problem, and was mentioned by parents as a particular hazard w4iere they had to carry Infante to upstair rooms. Lights on stairs simply 'not working' accounted for about one half of the problems In accommodation occupied by single people, students and couples, and a quarter of the problems in family dwellings. However a third of all lighting deficiencies w^ere related to the inadequate provision of switches and fixtures or to faulty wiring. One student had been obliged to cook by torchlight for six weeks and another's bedroom light was operated by a switch In a corrmunal hall. Two households had no problems with artificial lighting purely because of their own activities; one (pensioner) had completely rewired his property, the other (a couple) had introduced electric lighting to their previously unlit basement flat. Ventilation Inadequate ventilation of rooms was a significant problem for many households, particularly couples and families. Since good ventilation Is Important for preventing condensation, the Incidence of minor damp could probably have been avoided in many cases if proper ventilation had been provided. The majority of dwellings had old sash windows and poor maintenance of these was at the root of most defects. Usually households had nultiple ventilation problems and several rooms were affected. Windows In habitable rooms only opening 'a crack' and inadequate provision in bathrooms and WCs was the single most Irrportant problem for all households except pensioners, and affected over a quarter of couples and families. The second largest problem was windows that remained shut, whilst broken sash cords figured third. But the fourth largest problem, UO- was a complete absence of ventilation, whether via a window or mechanical means, In kitchens Reflecting the findings on disrepair discussed earlier, another serious problem was windows that tenants %Mre afraid to touch in case they fell out. In three cases their attitude was certainty appropriate, being based on previous unfortunate happenings. There was only one instance where a window not opening was due to the tenant. Here a bedsit window had been taped to prevent draughts. Two tenants had had their windows nailed shut by the landlord 'for security', but In both cases the landlords would have done better by replacing broken window catches. Personal Washing Facilities Standards for washing facilities in HMOs mainly concern the presence of a washbasin or sink with hot and cold running water Cfor the household's exclusive use except in shared houses or flats), a bath or shower fitted In a proper room, and the appropriate number of facilities for sharers. Only a little over a third of single people's dwellings met the required standard, and just under two thirds of accconrmodatIon occupied by pensioners, students and families. More than any other group, pensioners suffered from a lack of facilities. Nearly a quarter lacked a bath or shower and a similar proportion also had no wash basin or sink. Lack of these facilities was not widely experienced by the other households, although 16% of families and 13% of single people had either no, or no usable bath or shower. The main deficiency overall was an absence of a hot water supply to washbasins or sinks; additionally nearly a quarter of single people did not have exclusive use of either facility. Other problems, albeit less significant, were overcrowded facilities and the bath or shower not fitted In a proper roora As with artificial lighting, two households had Improved their accorrmodation to the extent that 141 It met the standards required. One couple had fitted a bath, a sink and a WC, and provided hot water, and a family who previously had had to descend two floors to shared facilities had converted a room, fitting and plumbing in a cooplete bathroom. Many households did not experience the required standards for sanitary conveniences, three-fifths or more In the case of single people and students. Most failings concerned the lack of a washbasin, its absence from water closet conpartments, or simply the lack of hot water to the washbasin. ^s provided In bathrooms (not normally acceptable according to the standards) was a problem amongst students, couples and families, and over a third of families did not have exclusive use of a sanitary convenience. The main problem for pensioners again was a lack of facilities, one third having no washbasin and a small proportion no Inside WC. On average, one tenth experienced overcrowded facilities. FgQl titles fpr gtorqge. pr^parat^pp an0 PPPKlpg of fPQ^ ftnd for the ^Igpppql pf ypist? vfqtQr ^K^phen Facjl'jU^? Apart from that for refuse storage, dwellings failed this standard more often than any other. Nearly three fifths of all households on average were lacking in some way in kitchen facilities; for one third, the acconvnodat ion was lacking in more than one respect. Usually the main falling was an Inadequate work surface. Around a third of households had Insufficient work surfaces, whilst 151 of pensioners and 10% of families made do with none. These tenants complained of having to prepare food on draining boards or on tops of cookers. Sharing food storage facilities (in all cases this meant a refrigerator) was the primary problem for single people and students, and no household had a separate, lockable facility where kitchens were shared. A number of households managed without food storage facilities (12% on average), either because the refrigerator was broken or not supplied. In such dwellings it was comnon to find tenants storing food In boxes on wardrobes, under the bed or in cupboards under stairs. Many households uere without a hot %^ter supply to the sink, U2- around one fifth of families, single people and couples; but over one third of pensioners, highlighting the particular lack of amenities amongst this group. Another corrmon deficiency was with cooking facilities; tenants using defective or partly broken cookers, or managing without ovens, grills or sufficient rings or hotplates. Nearly a quarter of students and couples were In this situation. Sometimes it appeared c^ulte hazardous. Oie family, for example, had a cooker which leaked gas. They had been told by the Gas Board not to use the appliance but they continued to do so for lack of any other, having fruitlessly asked the landlord for a replacement. In most Instances, ho%i«ver, the problems were more minor, ar>d concerned inadequate provision rather than defunct equipment. The standard stipulates couples and families should have the exclusive use of kitchen facilities, but around 10X of these two groups were obliged to share with other households. Overcrowding of facilities was mainly found amongst students <17X>, and to a lesser extent, single people and couples. Other problems were various. For example, one household in a bed and breakfast had to manage without any kitchen facilities whatsoever, even obtaining drinking water from the bathroom. Another had no sink, and prepared food and washed dishes in a washbasin. HtIO standards concern what is provided, not who does the providing. In unfurnished accoiTfnodation households might reasonably be expected to provide their own food storage facilities, cookers and work surfaces. But no dwelling failed the standard because the tenant had not supplied these kitchen facilities. In fact, over one tenth of all dwellings meeting the required standard did so purely because of the activities of the occupants. The main Input was a hot water supply (5X of all households), whilst in furnished tenancies, kitchen sinks, cookers, refrigerators and work surfaces were each provided by 3X of all households. host active in making improvements to kitchen facilities were couples and families <17X and 23X respectively). Each habitable room in a dwelling should be provided with -U3- 'adequate' heating to meet the htiO star>dard, some forms of heating appliance (paraffin, for example) not being acceptable. As with the standard for kitchen facilities, it is reasonable to expect households in unfurnished acconmodation to have supplied their own heating appliance. Between one sixth ar>d a third In each household group had Ir^adequate heating. Worst placed were single people and couples, students doing comparatively well in this respect. Heating deficiencies w^uld have been much worse If many households In furnished lets, especially couples, had not supplied the heating (15X on average of all households In furnished acconmodat I on, and 21% of couples). The only group not supplied with adequate heating in unfurnished lets were pensioners, 15% of whom lacked an appliance in a bedroom. Refuse S^pragg Very simple criteria were used to Judge this standard; all households should have a proper refuse storage container (a dustbin, not a 'bin' bag), and there should be or>e container for each household or on a ratio of one for every three persons. Because so many households these days use bin bags, this standard was the one most often failed, over a half of households In each group lacking a dustbin or having an inadequate number. But households were rarely concerned about their lack; this standard meant the least to residents of hllOs. Only In houses occupied by a large number of people, w^ere, In the run up to collection day small mountains of rubbish could appear on doorsteps, did tenants express discontent. Such situations also clearly pose the greatest risk to health. One tenth of family households ar>d of couples had no proper refuse containers and were occupying houses with ten or more residents. The preceding review highlights the wide-ranging nature of the standards set for htlOs. Most fallings found In the survey, however, revolved arourxj four facets of the accorrmodat Ion and Its use: sharing, state of repair, facility provision and general suitability for occupation. For students and single people problems mainly arose because too many were sharing facilities, and because the facilities themselves were ir^adequate, especially In kitchens. U4- Sharing a facility, when standards required its exclusive use, was a prominent reason accoirmodatIon failed in respect of single people, couples and families. Few pensioners shared, but their problems concerned the actual provision of facilities. More In this group than In any other had to live without the use of an Inside WC. kitchen sink, washbasin, bath or shower. For couples arxi families the accornnodation was often unsuitable because it was too small, and, for families and students, because of inadequate natural light. Most deficiencies In ventilation resulted from disrepair, hence families, w^o predominated in dwellings which were in a poor condition, showed the highest proportions In acconfnodatIon falling this standard. Safety in Case of Fire An Important environmental health concern with hMOs Is that sufficient precautions are taken and escape routes provided in case of fire. Specific requirements are the responsibility of the local fire authority, the satisfactorIness of each building having to be investigated individually, since the internal arrangement of the acconmodat Ion and the nunA>ers of occupants are Integral to a consideration of fire safety. However it is possible to provide some Indication of the households' safety by examining the nunters provided with any precautlor>ary device against fire (in the survey these were fire doors, smoke detectors and fire extinguishers), and with any means of escape other than an internal staircase. In the analysis, such means of escape will comprise fire escapes, and flat roofs %^ich can be reached from the first floor. As flat roofs are rather unsatisfactory for escape (although providing a way of escaping a smoke filled roorrv access to the ground would stilt entail a drop of around 12ft), the nurrt)ers of households with these as the only means of escape will be Identified. In general, precautions and means of escape would be needed more in larger acconnodation, so it is useful to examine buildings with two, three, and four or more storeys separately. Table 4.9 shows the paucity of measures taken against fires in the HMOs surveyed. Households in larger dwellings were no more 145- equipped with fire precautions or fire escapes than those in smaller, two storey dwellings. Fire escapes were few, only three of the five provided were in buildings with three or more storeys, and one of these was in such a bad state of repair that it was unsafe to use (11). Excluding flat roofs as a means of escape* households least protected were single people and families; but no group had more than M% with any precautionary device against fire or fire escape for their dwelling. TABLE 4.9: SAFETY IN CASE OF FIRE Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Two glom PMildipgs No. of H/H witht Any fire precoulion 1 - I - - Fire escape I - - I - Flat roof t in Ivo storey buildings with any fire precaution or means of escape 17 33 33 Three Storey Buildings No. of H/H with: Any fire precautions Fire escape 2 Flat roof 3 1 in three storey buildings with any fire precaution or means of escape 29 3B 11 Four or ntore Storey Buildinos No. of H/H with: Any fire precautions Fire escape Flat roof 2 1 1 1 in four or more storey buildings with any fire precaution or t&eans of escape 33 29 20 13 17 1 All households havinp any fire precaution or neans of escape 11 26 31 14 13 t All households havinp any fire precaution or fire escape 11 10 10 3 n= 27 39 29 29 31 ln= All households, excluding one refusal) Certainly exacerbating the risk of fire is the presence of unsafe electrical sockets, switches and wiring. A fairly frequent finding in the dwellings were tangled wires hanging from holes in -146- ceilings or walls, antiquated consumer units, sockets which clearly had caught fire, twin-twisted flexes and round pin sockets. It would require a thorough examLr>atlon by a trained electrician to be specific about the nurrbers of dwellings with dangerous wiring, nevertheless a superficial survey of the acconmodatIon, together with tenants' complaints about exposed live wires, sparking or smoking sockets, found that on average, one fifth of all dwellings had electrical fittings In a dangerous condition. Amongst the individual household groups family accomnodat ion was the worst, 39X had dangerous electrical fittings, then the acconiTiodation of couples (28X), students C24X), pensioners <1IX>, and single people (8X>. Thft SptlfifflCtorlness of Housing An examination of the ' satlsfactoriness' of the households' acconmodatlon might also take account of a variety of other problems; disrepair to fittings and fixtures, inadequate or broken furniture, pests and unacceptable noise from other tenants, for example. But that %M>uld perhaps obscure the more objectively discernible Ir^llces of adequacy explored above. Using the preceding data on structural disrepair, damp and so on, it Is possible to compile a composite measure of the basic adequacy of ter>ants' accomnodat ion. In fact, It is better to use two measures, one to Identify the ' satlsfactorlness of dwellings', the other to Identify households vrfio were 'satisfactorily housed". The measure of the satlsfactoriness of dwellings focuses purely on basic physical aspects. The aim is to Identify housing which in iteelf was poor. In the measure the standards for htlOs will not be Included because they emphasize the use of the building and its facilities - which can be a problem of occupancy - rather than the presence of amenities and the condition of the building per se. Unsatisfactory dwellings, then, are those which were In substantial structural disrepair, or with severe damp In habitable rooms, or lacking an Inside VC, kitchen sink, or bath/shower (12>. Satisfactory dwellings are those which were In reasonable repair, had no damp, or only minor damp in kitchens, bathrooms or WCs, and 147- were Lacking in none of the standard amenities C13>. The remaining dwellings are categorized as 'somewhat' unsatisfactory. TABLE 4. 10: SAT ISFACTORI I^SS OF DWELLINGS % in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Satisfactory 22 26 24 17 13 Sonewhat Unsatisfactory 26 46 45 59 35 Unsatisfactory 52 2h 31 24 52 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= All households, excluding one refusal) Table i. 10 ciemonstrates that at least a quarter In each of the groups were living in unsatisfactory dwellings. Pensioners and families fared the worst, more than a half in these groups had accocrmodation that %i«s in substantial disrepair, severely danp or lacked a basic amenity. At best, only one in four dwellings was satisfactory. Although a dwelling might be satisfactory, tenants might be 'unsatisfactorily housed' because of overcrowding. Inadequate natural light, insufficient kitchen facilities and so on. The second measure of housing adequacy will therefore take account of deficiencies with respect to the standards for mOs. Households In acconmodatlon %^lch was unsatisfactory in terms of the previous measure, or which met four or less of the standards for hMOs, or had densities of one and or>e half persons per room or more will be considered to have been 'unsatisfactorily housed'. Households deemed to be satisfactorily housed are those who lived In 'satisfactory dwellings' which also met all the standards for HMOs, and lived at densities of less than one and one half persons per -148- room. Households who were obliged to provide their own facilities, such as baths or sinks, or in furnished accornnodation, refrigerators, cookers or heating appliances, can hardly be said to have been 'satisfactorily housed*. So instances %^re tenants had ifiproved their acconmodation to the extent that it met a standard, will be excluded in the computation of the number of standards met. Also excluded will be the standard for refuse storage (14). As noted earlier this was the standard that meant least to tenants and deficiencies are arguably less problematic than those in respect of the other standards. TAOI-E 4.11; HOgSEHQLDg SATISFACTORILY HOUSED Pensioners Single Student Couple Fatnily Setiefactorily Housed 7 5 - 7 6 SoiDewhst Unsatisfactorily Housed 41 33 52 46 13 Unsatisfactorily Housed 52 62 48 45 81 Total 100 iOO 100 100 100 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= All households, excluding one refusal) Only a very small minority of households, then, w«re satisfactorily hcxjsed. Whilst single people and stucients were the most likely to have accormodation that was satisfactory in terms of the state of the building and amenity provision, they were the least likely to be * satisfactorily housed'; their acconmodatIon rarely meeting all of the standards for mOs. Taking account of densities of occupation and the HMO standards showed that over twc^fifths In all household groups, and over four-fifths in the case of families, Mre unsatisfactorily housed. 4r 4 RESPONSES TO HQM5XNG qqrp^TIPNS In the previous discussion the emphoisis has been on the state of the hcxising in Plymouth's privately rented sector. In itself 149- such an analysis risks 'dehumanizing' the occupants of the housing; ignoring their feelings as wall as an/thing they might have done in response to their conditions. This section seeks to balance the analysis by focusing on how the households viewed sharing and their landlords* responses to repair problems, what actions they had taken either to Improve the acconmodat I on themBelves or to force the landlord to Improve their housing, and households' attitudes towards their general housing conditions. Sharing In the survey households who shared rooms or amenities w#ere asked for their views on the arrangement, the topic being introduced by means of a question on their preferences. At present the official view is that sharing Is acceptable except ^ere facilities are overcrowded or where certain types of household (mainly couples and families) share certain amenities such as kitchens <15). It was expected that the sharers themselves %#ould view the arrangement in a different way; its acceptability depending not so rnjch on numbers or the type of household involved, but on whether company had been sought and the co-sharers had been friends before the arrangement began. Table 4.12 shows the proportions in each household group who shared, and their preferences. Preferences were then analysed In conjunction with information indicating whether co-sharers were friends or were strangers at the beginning of the arrangement. Pensioner Single Student Couple Family 1 of Households vho Shared 18 67 100 21 32 1 of Sharers who: Prefer to Share - 11 48 - - Prefer Not to Share 60 54 14 67 100 Not Hind Either Vay 40 35 38 33 - Total 100 100 100 too 100 n= 28 39 29 29 31 150- There \>tere marked differences between the household groups in the proportions sharing. All the students and a majority of single people shared, pensioners and couples shared the least, %irtiilst faniiLleSt who more than any other group might have been expected to prefer separate accorrmodation, had a significant minority sharing rooms or amenities. Indeed none of the families prefered to share. The majority of households in the other groups, apart from students, also disliked the arrangement. Amongst those prefering to share, a few liked the arrangement because it was 'cheaper', but most <88X) liked having company and 71X were sharing with friends. All but one of those who had sought conpany were students who had moved Into 'student houses' . Already knowing co-sharers was also a significant factor for those who said they did not mind sharing. Nearly two fifths of these households had found acconmodation with a friend or a group of frien(te. They were not entirely positive about the arrangement because they regretted the 'lack of privacy*. f4o household who was sharing with strangers but did not mind the situation cited company as an advantage. They found sharing acceptable because they were 'not In very much' or because the co-sharers were 'alright' or 'clean'. Virtually all (91X)of the households who prefered not to share were sharing with people they had not met before beginning their tenancies. The three sharing with friends would rather have been able to afford separate accorrrnodation. Amongst the other households the main objection to sharing was to do with hygier^e or others' ' mess' : "(the bathroom and toilet> is always left for me to clean up...it's not hygienic for the child" Lack of privacy and a dielike of co-sharers because they were 'odd' or stole food from conrrtinal kitchens were also cited as problems. Overcrowding, one of the main official concerns with shared rooms or amenities, was seen as a problem by hardly anyone. So, in the main, sharing was not liked. In cases where It was -151 considered acceptable, the majority were non-pensioner single households whose co-sharers had been friends before the arrangement began. Landlords and Repair Problems Apart from the time %^en the accorrmodatlon was initially let, arKJ In Instances where the rent %irais collected, tenants' only other contact with landlords was generally repair problems arose. Thus it tended to be over the issue of repairs that households decided whether their landlords %^re 'good' or not; If the landlord cared for the property, then the household felt that the landlord was taking care of them. Households' views of their landlords as managers of the property and the nature of their experiences %^en requesting repairs, were investigated In the survey with the c^uestlon: 'How Is your landlord over repair problems?' Their responses are shown in Table 4. 13. TABLE 4n 13: HQUS^HOj-Pg CM J}^m l-ANDLORDS' R^9P(?^e^g TP REPAIR PRQBI^ 1, ift HoMPp^pl^ grpup Pensioner Single Student Couple Family Landlord Seen As: Good-prontpt/alright/tries 50 59 56 50 32 Slov-but repairs eventually 9 IB 32 12 7 Poor-doesn't bolher/wlll only do sone repairs/ so slow gave up asking/denies responsiblity 41 23 12 38 61 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 22 34 25 26 28 (n= All households, excluding one refusal and twenty households who could not costftent having neither requested repairs nor been aware of work done.) Comparing the household groups, single people and students were the most likely to have favourable attitudes, and families the least likely. Families apart, favourable attitudes tended to outweigh or balance unfavcxirable attitudes; one half or more in each 152- household group thought their landlords were good over repair problems. Landlords were seen as * good' for various reasons. Households were most content when they did not have to ask for repairs to be done or when the landlord showed a particular interest: •He's alright.... he comes In and fixes things, he works during the day so he fixes things in his spare time. He was brilliant when the pipes froze, he came over two days running and brought barrels of fresh water for us. He felt so sorry for us he bought us pints In the pub. " "I think she'd do anything rather than be told she'd let the place go. I see her quite a lot, she's down every fortnight" "He's good, he's always got someone doing something around the house" Landlords were also appreciated when they were prompt over repairs or made themselves readily available: •If we have a leak or something all M have to do is ring him and he sends a plumber - when the cooker %rasn't working we went to SUEB (South Western Electricity Board) and the landlord paid quickly - no problenf' •He's as good as gold. You just 'phone up and he' II come right out. " •He's a gent teman. ... he looks after us. I'd get on the 'phone and in i8 to 72 hours he'd be here" But some households, whilst considering their landlords to be 'good' because they 'try', ^re somewhat ambivalent about the help given: •He's good at heart, but If you ask him to do something he never leaves, he starts doing lots of things. ... he's a perfectionist, though he always botches Jobs. He tried dampproofing (employing someone) but I think he got taken for a ride. We don't usually bother him because he'll be round fussing" •He tries - but he's not in the building trade so he doesn't know what should be, so what he sees is good. He doesn't see the problems (of the refurbishment)." 153- Around one fifth of the households complained that their landlord was 'slow*. Mostly vM>rk did eventually get done if the household reiterated their request: "We see an agent and he gets things done, but we have to ask three or four times. He only comes to errpty the 'phone then M grab him" "He's a bit slow on the uptake but with sufficient kicking he comes straight" Sometimes stronger persuasive tactics were used: "He's pretty good but he drags his feet.... I've threatened him with the Health and Safety %4>en he's been a bit slow. It's always worked. " Landlords who did not check the properties regularly, caused difficulties: He's slow, he means well but he's hardly ever here so he doesn't see the problems." Some landlords seemed unconcerned about the nuisance large repair work caused to tenants ar>d took longer than tenants thought reasonable. r4ulsances ranged from kitchen floors being 'up' for nine weeks to the situation of the individual who moved into a house without realising conversion was about to begin: "The landlord has made a mistake moving people In when he's doing the place up (the water was cut off) and for three days I had to go next door and ask a stranger for water. He didn't %i/arn me. One night I came home and found another (additional) door in my wall - there was dust everywhere - I started panicking, it was a total shock, I thought 'what's going on, people can get in my rooml'. (So> I nailed up the door. I had to pay out of my deposit £30 for the dairege I did to the door a big chunk was taken out of my room. I wasn't told that alterations were going to be done." Turning to the households %«ho regarded their landlords' responses to repair problems.as 'poor*, a nurTA>er coaplained that for one reason or another only certain repairs would get done: 154- It's like talking to a brick wall....he's not Interested in the mould - I've suffered headaches and sickness from the fungus. He's not interested as It's an lnterr>al problem which (he thinks) won't damage the structure. He does external repairs, I've helped him put felting on the flat roof." You wait until the cows come home. ... I have to go to the landlord again and again then eventually something happens By for the most common problem, affecting over three fifths of the households who had the greatest difficulties over repairs, was landlords who simply didn't bother with the property: He's bloody rotten. He won't port with his nroney to do anything. He's just not interested." Some tenants had given up approaching their landlords because of past experience of Inaction. Others had only succeeded in having repairs done, or were expecting repairs to be done because official action had been taken: Water pours down through the light fitting from upstairs - a girl moved out because of that. The landlord has a court order to do something to the crack in the walls (but) he's not willing to do (it)....he says he's hard up for cash but he's just bought another house. " The environmental health officer said three years ago that the roof had to be done.... It wasn't done until a year ago (in the meantime) the lar>dlord changed - he took five months to do the job.... It still needs darrpproofing but I think it won't get done. " In the case of five households, landlords were not doing repairs because they Intended to sell or refurbish the property. Although this was sometimes understood at the beginning of a tenancy, it could cause problems: "bfe signed an agreement that we'd accept the property in its present condition, but we thought the landlord v^ould at least do essential repairs." 155- In three of these cases the landlords refusal to do repair work was accompanied by efforts to force the household to leave: •He said he wanted to get me out so he could do the roof. . .. he came In and said: 'This is my house, get out!'." •The landlord won't do anything as (the property) is being put on the market. (He's) trying various ways to get me out. When I told him he'd have to give me a htotice to Quit he said he knew a landlord *»*io'd thrown someone's dogs out of the window." Thus tenants views on, and their experiences of, their landlords' responses to repair problems were very varied. What is clear is that. In the main, tenants were not ' complainers'; they were ready to acknowledge landlords who made an effort to maintain their properties. Only when repeated requests had to be made, or when landlords were either cavalier towards tenants or showed no interest in the state of the property did tenants become aggrieved. However tenants did not always rely soley on their landlords' good natures for solving repair problems, nor did they necessarily put up with poor conditions when the landlord was unhelpful. Of course an improvement in circumstances could potentially be achelved by moving house. But amongst the households who had wanted better conditions in their present acconmodation, there were two kinds of strategy adopted. One was that the household Itself attempted to remedy defects, the other that the household sought official help to force the landlord to deal with disrepair. Repair and Improvements Undertaken by Households It is important to distinguish betweeen improvements and repairs, and between 'major' and 'minor' repairs. Minor repairs Included mending electrical sockets, refixing handbasins to walls, screwing electric meters back onto walls, repairing small cracks and holes in ceilings and refixing door hinges. Such repairs might well have been undertaken for reasons of convenience and do not necessarily reflect dissatisfaction with the landlord, as Table 4.14 -156- shows. TABLE 4. 14: REASONS FOR DOING MIMDR REPAIRS Pensioner Single Student Couple Family 1 of Households doing hlnor Repairs M 23 14 26 26 Reasons as X of All doing Hinor Repairs Landlord - not do/take loo long 66 56 25 63 37 Convenience/Can do self/too ntnor to ask/make place nice 33 44 75 37 63 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= All households, excluding one refusal) Overalli around one-fifth of the households had unciertaken minor repairs, slightly more in the case of single people, couples and families, and slightly less in the case of pensioners and students. Also, such repairs were as likely to be have been done for positive reasons (convenience etc. > as for negative ones (the landlord would not do them or would take too long), although there was a tendency for pensioners, single people and couples to have done minor repairs for negative reasons. Major repairs Included rewiring the acconfnodatton, replastering MUS, fitting windows and mending roofs. The expectation is that households liquid generally have done major repair work because their landlords were Inactive. Improvements to the dwelling, which included fitting showers, central heating, bathrooms, sinks and fireplaces (small improvements such as fitting shelves ar>d any cosmetic %#ork were excluded from the reckoning), and major works of repair suggest a conmltment to the property. Table 4. 15 lr>dicates the proportions in each household group who made Improvements and major repairs, arxl the reasons given for doing repairs. 157- TABLE 4. 15: 1 MPROVEICrfTS AhD REASONS FOR DOING MAJOR REPAIRS I Ip Housphffi(| Qfpiip Pensioner Single Student Couple Family % of Households doing HaJor Repairs II 3 - U 19 Reasons as a X of Alt doing Haior Repairs Landlord-not do/take loo long 100 100 - 50 63 Convenience/can do self/nake place nice - - - 50 17 Total 100 100 100 100 100 1 of Households wklng IraproveDents 7 3 - 10 19 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n= All households, excluding one refusal) Just under one tenth of all households had made major repairs or Innprovements to their property; pensioners, couples and families most often having engaged in either activity. The majority of repairs were done because the landlord was unresponsive. In all the cases where the tenant did the repairs for 'positive' reasons such as convenience, the landlord had paid for materials. All improvement work was undertaken 'to make the place nice', as one family put it: "We did it because we want to live in a decent home and want it to look like a proper home, not privately rented." All the households who undertook major repairs, were also, In a sense, 'making the place nice'. This suggests that for the households %^o had engaged In either activity the private rented sector fufllled the role of providing accomnodation on an indefinite or permanent basis. Certainly the majority (70%) of these households had lived in their dwellings over three years 156- waiting to be rehoused by the local authority. Only one of the households who had undertaken major repair or Improvement work was what might be termed a tenporary resident, moving Into their acconmodatIon and plarvilng to move out within two years. Qfficiflt He^p SoMght Tft ¥\i\\ Ropr Cpn^itlftns In the Interviews, households were asked if they had ever sought advice from anyone abcxit any problems of disrepair In their accommodation, and, If so, who was consulted and what had happened It was found that households were slightly more likely to have sought advice on disrepair than they were to have dealt with large repair problems themselves (13X as opposed to 9X>. Also, the strategies for dealing with poor conditions were not mutually exclusive; one fifth of those who had sought advice had done major repair work In their homes. But all who had contacted officials had done so because the landlord was either not interested In the state of the property or was dismissive of their complaints. Households had mainly contacted environmental health officers, whilst just over a third had spoken to rent officers, solicitors or local authority housing officials (Table 4.16). Families had clearly been the most active In seeking help, reflecting the greater prevalence of poor housing experienced by this group. Ir>deed, all but two families who had sought help were in unsatisfactory dwellings (as defined In Section 4.3). Amongst such households overall, SOX were In unsatisfactory dwellings and the remaining 20% In somewhat unsatisfactory ciwel lings. ^k> student had scxjght advice, as with the ur>dertaklng of major repair work, the probable Impermancy of the tenancy must have made such an activity appear rather pointless. Most of the households %^o had approached environmental health officers had achieved satisfaction. In that action against the landlord had been promised or had taken place (64-X>. The other households either were still awaiting a visit, or had had a visit and were unsure as to what was being done. But one family household was disappointed because they had hoped the officer would also help in their rehousing, artd this had r>ot been forthcoming. 159- TABI^ 4.16: HWgm(?M>S S^KINg OFFICIAL ^^M> Qy^R t^PAlR PRgpi-gng t In Household 6roup Pensioner Single Student Couple Faaily y flf HPHgghPttfP gflghing Hpip n 10-7 36 Type of Help Sought as 1 of All seeking Help H/H contacted EHO. 66 25 - 100 55 Other contacted EHO. on H/H's behalf - 25 - - 9 H/H contacted rent officer/ solicitor/housing official/CAB. 33 50 - - 36 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 28 39 29 29 31 lEHa= Environnenlal Health Officer; CAB.= Citiiens Advice Bureau) The seven hcxjseholds who had spoken to other officials had had mixed experiences. Two, one approaching a housing officialt the other, a rent officer, had been told to 'nake the best of It', for one family, a solicitor's letter had not brought about repairs. One hcxjsehold, . %^o had been advised by the Citizens Advice Bureau to contact the rent office, thought more might be achieved by calling In an environmental health officer. But three households had had scsme success. One had his rent reduced by a rent officer, another had a housing official contact the Envircxvnental Health Department on his behalf, and the third had become enpowered to take action: *I told the rent officer and he said get on to the Environmental Health. I didn't know where to go to before. But I'm going to have him (the lartdlord) r>ow! I've the acidress to go to the Environmental Health, I'll tell them - the rent officer insists I go." The feeling of 'not knowing where to go' expressed by the tenant above, was mentioned by a nunter of households %rfho had not sought advice. Although the reasons were not pursueci, some were volunteered. Some tenants said that they did not want the 'hassle' or did not like dealing with officials: -160- •I wouldn't ask the CAB. or Shelter, I wouldn't dream of complaining to any officials, 1 don't know how to deal with them. " Two students said an easier solution was Just to move, and a reason given by four tenants was that someone else in the property had called In an environmental health officer and they were waiting to see If they would benefit from any repair work done. But other households were afraid of upsetting their landlords: •What! I'd be out on my ear!" "It could get difficult - there aren't many places you can go with a dog or children." In fact households who had sought help were not iimune to such fears. According to one tenant, her landlord was furious at having had repairs forced upon hirT\ and was determined to find out who had contacted the Environmental Health Department. As she had been the culprit, and the landlord lived downstairs, she requested the interview be conducted in whispers (and it was). Another tenant was rather glad a housing official had contacted the Department on his behalf - and that he lived on an upper floor. He said that the person who Lived on the ground floor (and so answered the door to visitors) had been told by the landlord that 'he'd do him in' if he let the health Inspector enter the house. Thus there are problems Inherent In the use of officials to effect improvements: tenants have to weigh up the risk of antagonizing the landlord against their need for improved conditions. The process of enforcing repair works could take some time and better conditions could potentially be obtained more quickly and with no danger of retribution by moving, either to other private rented acconmodat ion, or out of the sector. As with the taking on of repairs, help sought over disrepair, then, implies an expected long or Indefinite term of residence. This was found to be the case; SOX of these households planned to remain in their accoavnodation permanently, had no plans to move or intended to stay until rehoused by the local authority. However, despite the risk of retribution from the landlord, one-fifth of the households who had -161 contacted officials over repairs occupied fixed term or licence Lettings, and so had limited or Ittle tenure security. Households' Views On Their General Housing Conditions Finally It remains to consider households' overall views on their accoamodation. In the survey, householcis were asked to state whether they thought their 'general housing conditions' were: 'Very Good', 'Good', 'Adequate'. 'Poor* or 'Very Poor'. These views are best placed in context, so shall be related to the findings on the 'Satisfactoriness of Dwellings' (discussed in Section 4. 3>. VIEWS ON GENERAL HOUSING COtPITIOtB BY SATISFACTORINESS OF DULLING I in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Salisfaclory Dwellings View: Very Good/Good 100 100 40 100 Adequate - - - 40 - Poor/Very Poor - - 14 20 - Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 6 10 7 5 4 Somewhat Unsatisfactory Dwellings View: Very Good/Good 43 47 38 71 U Adequate 57 47 6? 23 21 Poor/Very Poor - 6 - 6 21 total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 7 19 13 17 11 Unsatisfactory Dwellings View: Very Good/Good - 10 11 14 - Adequate 20 Si 29 12 Poor/Very Poor 70 33 57 68 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 13 10 9 7 Ail households (n) 2i 39 29 29 31 (n= All households excluding two refusals) Although there were no particular patterns according to the type of household; views on conditions appearing to be idios/ncratlc, a significant finding is that households In all 162- groups were irK:lir>ed to be ger>erous-mlnded about their housing conditions. Few thought their conditions were poor when by the objective criteria they were satisfactory, whereas quite high proportions considered their housing to be good or adequate when it was classed as unsatisfactory. Examination of the housing conditions in sairpled units In Plymouth has shown that iruch of the acconmodat ion provided by private landlords was very poor. The findings concur with those of previous national surveys of private rented housing with respect to state of repair, amenity provision and overcrowfdlng (16). Through adopting a more comprehensive approach this analysis of cor>dltions in Plymouth's private rented sector has also been able to show the extent of problems such as darrp and Inadequate fire safety measures as well as the numerous deficiencies with regard to standards expected in houses in multiple occupation. Households of all types experienced poor conditions. Even using the most basic measure of adequacy; ciefinlng as 'unsatisfactory' dwellings which were In substantial disrepair, had severe damp in habitable rooms or lacked the most basic of the standard amenities, It was fcxjnd that the majority of pensioners and families, and a quarter or more of single people, students and couples were In unsatisfactory dwellings. Exploration of households' situations in relation to environmental health requirements for HMOs showed that the accommodation of one-fifth or more In each group failed at least five out of nine key standarcis, with only 7% of the dwellings on average meeting all nine. Overall, fallings were mainly to do with inadequate ventilation, sanitary convenierKes, kitchen and refuse storage facilities. The variations In the def ic lern: les found are In part associated with the different types of acconmociat Ion rented by the household groups. Thus whilst In nuch accorrmodatlon there were lr>adequate facilities for the rujmber of users, this particularly affected single people ar>d students who mostly had single rocxn units U3- and were obliged to share. By contrast few pensioners shared and they did rather well with respect to the standards, although, as a large number lived in unimproved, unfurnished flats, disrepair and lack of amenities figured as significant problems. The majority of couples and families lived in two or three roomed accorrmodation, but the couples tended to occupy self-contained converted flats, and the families, unimproved and in many cases unfurnished lets. A number of the problems experienced by the couples had been caused by landlords cost-cutting over the refurbishment and in the provision of facilities, whereas the faults In the families' dwellings were more to do with disrepair. The family group also had a sizeable minority occupying bedsits or sharing amenities, hence the comparatively high proportions overcrowded and with inadequate washing and sanitary facilities. Taking account of the required standards for h^lOs to obtain an overview of who was 'satisfactorily housed*, revealed that a tiny minority had apparently good housing, whereas over two-fifths in any group were unsatisfactorily housed. In the case of families the picture was particularly bleak; four in every five families were found to be unsatisfactorily housed. In fact families came off worst with respect to every measure of housing quality. This was so consistent it strongly suggests they had been at a severe competitive disadvantage when seeking private rented accorrmodat Ion. Since the 'adequacy' of the housing was investigated with reference to legal requirements rather than to any subjective Idea of acceptable conditions, the findings provide clear justification for the view of one tenant, that (in Plymouth at Least) landlords frequently let poor accorrmodatIon: "Landlords have no corx:eption of how It is to live in the places they let - my larxJlady wouldn't cook out of the saucepans she left for us, or use the shower. .. Landlords distance themselves from the situations of tenants - they wouldn't dream of living in the places they let... (They) should be errbarassed to let poor accorTTTX>dat Ion. " This tenant was not so nwch complaining as remarking on the reality of the market as he saw it, and households in general wifere found not to be 'complalners'. In discussing their landlords' U4- responses to repair problems, households with landlords who tried to maintain their properties were ready to acknowledge all efforts. Many households were prepared to take on minor repair jobs themselves and not trouble the landlord, a few went as far as doing major repairs, the landlord supplying materials. Thus there were clear Instances of good Landlord-ter^ant relations functioning on a basis of goodwill and give and take. But two-fifths of pensioners and couples and three-fifths of families considered their landlords' responses to repair problems to be poor and a significant minority In each of these groups had found It necessary to do major repairs because their Landlords were unco-operatIve. One In ten pensioners and single people, and one In three families had felt the need to seek official help to oblige landlords to remedy defects. In general, though preferences might lie elsev^ere (certainly preferences amongst all sharers ap>art from students was overwhelmingly not to share), households appeared to adopt an approach of pragmatic acceptance of their present conditions. This was reflected In their expressed views, households in all groups tending towards tolerance and even generosity about their general housing conditions. Of course, it could well be that the households had low expectations of privately rented accorrmodat ion. Also, some households anticipated being resident in their acconrnodation only for a short time. Households regarding the dwelling as a stop-gap or 'crash-pad' would logically be less likely to have taken an interest in Its quality or have sought to Improve their housing either by themselves or by using officials to exert pressure on the Landlord. It was certainly the case that the majority of repairing or irrproving households, and households who had sought official help over repair problems, expected to remain In their accommodation for some time. In the next chapter households* legal and financial situations will be examined. Having considered In some detail housing conditions, it will be particularly Interesting to explore the relationship between the quality of acconmodatIon and Its cost. 165- FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER FOUR 1. In Plynouth, policy until the early 19806 was to encourage conversions of dwellings into self-contained units. In recent years the drive for self-containment has eased and now the emphasis is on ensuring adequate facilities are provided vi^ere sharing takes place Plymouth City Council). 2. In the survey all but two students said they had a 'permanent' home elsewhere, these being parental homes. Two single people and two couples also said they had separate permanent homes; these were ovr>er-occupier homes they either had bought just prior to the survey or were finalising contracts for. In addition, one family household had a separate home. They owned a house abroad and intended to return there after a year's stay in Plymouth. 3. This refers to the emphasis In the legislation, v/hich is on disrepair, dasrp and so on, and does not necessarily mean any legal action could be taken under a Housing Act in respect of any deficiency. 4. The legislation of 1885, founded on the concept of unfitness, was mainly directed at areas of 'slum' housing. The Housing Act 1?57 gave local authorities powers to require landlords to carry out prescribed repairs and from 1969 these could be used against landlords whose property was not unfit but was in substantial disrepair. Compulsory improvement was first Introduced under the Housing Act 1964. By this, landlords could be required to supply any 'standard' amenity. These are: a fixed bath or shower, a washbasin, a sink, hot and cold water supplies to any of the preceding, and a water closet. Powers to deal with overcrowding were first Introduced in 1866, and specific procedures for houses in rrultiple occupation have been contained in the Housing Acts of 1957, 1961, 1964, 1969 and 1974. The Housing Act 1985 consolidated legislation to deal with unfitness, overcrowding and the provision of facilities in -166- houses in multiple occupation. This, together with the guidelines of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers (1986), provided the main references for assessing conditions in the survey. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has since strengthened local authority powers for enforcing repairs and improvements. 5. Much help was given by Mr. P Doige end Miss. A Lakeman. hlow^ver it should be stressed that the reponsiblIIty for designation of the various problems rests entirely with the author. 6. This is the structural state of repair, not Included is any disrepair to furniture or fittings. It should be noted that it was not possible to undertake a thorough survey, for example, lofts could not be entered or floorboards lifted. As a result the survey probably underestimates structural defects. 7. Housing Act 1985 Section 345 8. In Plymouth this Code has been adopted In Its entirety, although there is much room for subjective interpretation. This is mainly because of inconsistencies between the Code and the Housing Act 1985 (over definitions of overcrowding), and because the use of such terms as 'adequate* (eg. with respect to artificial lighting) and * sufficient' (eg. with respect to refuse storage containers) allow for Individual decision making. 9. This measure was taken from the space standards required in single person units of accormodatIon. Institute of Environmental Health Officers (1986). According to the Housing Act 1985, however, a room just 7ft by 10ft Is adequate for such a household (Housing Act 1985. Sections 324-326). 10. OPCS 1981, p. 12, paragraphs 43 and 47. For the computation, rooms that were shared were divided by the nurrter of sharers. Thus a household with two persons who have the exclusive use of one room and share another with four other people was considered to have one and one third rooms. Thus, although a different 167- definition of 'household' is used in the study from that used In the Census (OPCS 1981, p. 6, paragraph 29), the same results are obtained ^en computing persons per room. 11. The household having been toLd not to use the fire escape by an environmental health officer. 12. Dangerous electrical fittings are not included in the measure for two reasons. Firstly, because it would be inappropriate to classify a house as unsatisfactory if the only problem %^re a sparking or smoking socket, and secondly, because In many cases dangerous electrical fittings reflected a general neglect of the building, and state of repair is already included in the measure. 13. These are defined in footnote 4, but an inside WC is also Included, as a 'standard' amenity in the present study because outside WCs are generally no longer considered satisfactory. 14. These changes meant reassessment of the number of dwellings which met four or less of the hfflO standards. 15. There is also some concern for security, in that ' lockable' food storage facilities are required in shared kitchens. 16. The main sources are: The English House Condition Survey 1986 (Department of Environment, 1988); the Census 1981 (OPCS, 1983a); Todd et al., 1982; Todd, 1990; and the General Household Surveys 168- CHAPTER F>VE: U^PAL ANP FINANCIAL AgP^CTg OF TH^ ACCQMHQPAT1 Of^ 5r If KmRqpUCTlQN In addition to physical aspects of the housing it is important to examine what households obtained legally. In terms of protection from eviction and excessive rents or rent increases, and what sort of acconmodation they obtained for their money. Consideration of the degree of legal protection afforded the households is of especial pertinence since it has come to the fore in discussion of the sector in recent years. As the climate of tenant support In the wake of the Rachran scandal abated during the nlneteen-seventles, attention became focused on the role of security of tenure and rent regulation In Inhibiting investment in the private rented sector and contributing to its decline. Such 'statutory restrictions' (1> were at odds with the free market ideology of the political right and, once elected, the Conservative government were quick to Introduce via the l-k>uslng Act 1980, new sub-sectors; 'shorthold' and 'assured' tenancies which provided more limited security of tenure. The main onslaught on rent control came later, with the passing of the Housing Act 1988. This established two Legal categories of Letting, assured and assured shorthold tenancies, which would apply to all private lettlngs (apart from resident landlord and licence lettlngs) created after 15th January 1989. From that date rents could be set at 'market' levels and no new tenant could have the degree of tenure security enjoyed by those In the old regulated sector. Critics of this policy have argued that the main causes of the decline in the private rented sector lie elsewhere Section 2.2). They also point out that rent regulation and security of tenure were frequently cIrcum^^ented by the use of various forms of licence agreement, whilst within the sub-sectors subject to rent regulation, rents that had been registered (that is, 'fixed') were always in a minority (see eg. Ginsburg, 1989; Doling and Davies, 1984; Kemp, 1988b; Balchin, 1989; House of Conmons, 1982). The Plymouth survey provides additional evidence on the matter. Further, as It was undertaken during 1987-88, the survey is able to show the extent of unregulated lettings and registered rents 169- amongst the sampled households just prior to the new legislation. These topics are addressed in section 5.2. The overall alms of the section are as follows: a) to assess the distribution of the households between the various private rented sub-sectors and examine the relative degree of tenure security experienced by different household groups. b) to seek explanations for the location of households within the least secure lettlngs and the extent to which they reflect on differential corrpetltlve abilities in the search for private rented accommodat ion. c) to examine the proportion of households provided with a rent book or having a record of rent paid. d) to assess the proportion of households in sub-sectors subject to rent regulation and the proportions In each household group who had registered rents. e) to examine the relative proportions of applications for rent registration made by landlords and by tenants. As legal protection does not necessarily correspond with perceived protection, the analysis will also investigate the households' understanding of their legal rights and what security of tenure and rent regulation rreant to thera Section 5.3. examines housing costs. In the private rented sector there are potentially three types of expense involved. There is the basic rent and rates (2), then there can be an additional charge where services such as cleaning are provided, and finally money is sorretimes required at the beginning of the tenancy, r^ormally as a deposit to be set against damage to the property. With regard to rent and rates, a relationship between the acconmodation and its cost might be expected; the larger and better quality accorrmodat ion costing rrore. If this were the case, income would be a prirre determinant of housing opportunities. However, there are several features to the private rented housing market which could distort such a relationship. Firstly, as previous studies have shown (eg. Paley, 1978; Doling and Davles, 1984; Allen and McDowell, 1989; Crook and Bryant, -170- 1982), landlords are very diverse, they have varying degrees of business acumen and different objectives in letting: "Landlords cannot alL be viewed as businessmen or women in the usual sense. .. For many rent is a secondary rather than a primary source of Income, and for some the asset may not be considered in terms of monetary resources" (Doling and Davies, 1984, p. 142). Secondly the sector is very diverse, comprising for example, furnished and unfurnished accorrmodation, indefinite and fixed term lettings, resident landlords and non-resident landlords, regulated and unregulated Lettings. As a result: •The level of rate of return, the possibilities of profits to be made elsewhere, and the value gap will thus have a different significance in different parts of the tenure" (Doling and Davies, 1984. p. 142). Thirdly, some rents are registered and others not, whilst even between registered dwellings inconsistencies have been found in the levels of rents set (Doling and Davies, 1984). Fourthly, state payment of rent and rates will affect the relationship, especially at the tower end of the market. In the Plymouth survey, a number of Landlords had lowered the rent for households totally dependent on benefits to the level of housing benefit payable by the local authority (3). Others appeared to charge more where letting to households reliant upon benefits (4). Also, housing benefit levels in Plymouth were found to relate to household type as well as to the accofTYTodation (see Chapter Seven, Table 7.7), which could Indicate a response to charges In the private rented sector being based partly on household size. Whatever, landlords prepared to let to the economically inactive or unemployed can take advantage of housing benefit levels and set rents accordingly. In view of these complexities, the links between housing and rents and thus income and opportunities are unclear. The aims in the examination of rent levels are therefore: I) to examine the extent to which there is a relationship between the accommodation and Its cost. The Investigation will 171 focus on attributes of the dwellings expected to produce variations in rent levels. These are; the presence or absence of furniture, the number of rooms, the degree of sharing and the quality of the accommodation. ii) to compare the rent and rates paid by different household groups in accoamodatIon with similar attributes and assess whether per capita charges were made. Examination of money paid as a deposit follows. Deposits are an IfTportant consideration In terms of housing opportunities. Low income households will effectively be barred access to a tenancy where a large deposit is required (5), especially If substantial advance rent is also wanted. So, all else being equal, the greater the household's financial resources, the greater the ability to exercise choice In the search for accontnodat ion. As with rents, it might be expected that landlords demand larger deposits for larger accorrmodat ion. However, It is up to the landlord whether to ask for a deposit and what amount to charge. Business-minded landlords who let under restricted agreements might be more Inclined to require a deposit as an additional safeguard. Also some landlords, whilst being prepared to let to different sorts of household, may think there Is a high risk factor to certain types, for example households with children, and so demand more money from certain households. Thus the aims in the examination of deposits (which will be confined to the more recent residents) are: to assess whether a requirement for a deposit more often accompanied restricted letting agreements and to assess the proportions in each household group who had paid a deposit; and to examine vi^ether the amount of deposit related to the size of the acconmodation and whether there was evidence of discrimination over amounts demanded from different household types. The section on housing costs opens with an Investigation of the nature of the sevices provided by landlords, their cost, and the opportunity/cost of receiving services. -172- 5.?. (JEGAU AgP^CTS OF TH^ ^q^qnnOQ^JlW Se^url1:y Qf TPHMre anti The PfiVPte Rentetf gMb-sectorg Within the private rented sector the most secure lettlngs are regulated periodic and fixed term tenancies. With these, repossession is allowed only In certain instances (Department of Environment, 1983a). However it should be noted that even In these sub-sectors households are disadvantaged with respect to tenure security in comparison with tenants of housing associations (resident prior to 15th Jan. 1989) or local authority tenants (Arden, 1990). Less secure are shorthold tenancies and resident landlord lettings, as the courts will always grant repossession if the landlord has followed the correct procedures (Department of Environment, 1981, 1983b>. In lets offering board (even a light breakfast) and other licence lettlngs there is no protection from eviction. Classed alongside hostels and hotels as short stay lets they are exempted from the protection afforded by the Rent Acts to the other sub-sectors. These comprise all the sub-sectors identified in the Plymouth survey (6). To establish the degree of tenure security afforded a household it was necessary to identify the legal category of their letting. Information on this was gained by investigating the tenants' letting agreements and their situations. Sometimes a written agreement was produced, which was helpful. Thorough 'check' questioning was also used, specially in cases where the agreement had been verbal (7). Though ultimately the legal status of a letting can only be established by the courts, it was thus possible to allocate each letting to its de facto sub-sector. A different approach was used for categorizing licence lettlngs. Many of these can be 'sham' in that they do not reflect the true situation; landlords using such agreements simply to avoid granting security. Because an important concern in the work was to find out the extent licences were used and what household types were most likely to have been given such agreements, licences, which in the course of the survey, appeared to be sham were not re-categorized according to their probable true status. Agreements can be In any form and as restrictive or as open as 173- the landlord chooses - although as the above remarks on licences Indicate, not all would stand If put to a legal test. Some encountered Involved little more than a statement (often verbal) as to the weekly or monthly rental, in others numerous rules of the house were minutely listed; no overnight visitors, no baths after a certain hour, no movement of furniture etc. But the legal status of the letting embodied Implicitly or explicitly within an agreement or arrangement is the most Important element, because that establishes the tenant's degree of security of tenure upon which the enforceability of any other clause or recpjirement effectively depends. Table 5. 1 shows the distribution of the households between the various private rented sub-sectors. TABLE 5.1: Tl^ PRIVATE RENTED SUB-SECTORS t in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Coupli Fently Legal Category of Letting Regulated Tenancies Periodic 75 65 38 55 58 Fixed fern - to 35 2\ 13 Shorthold 4 10 3 14 13 Resident Landlord 2] 5 3 3 13 Licences Let with Board - 5 - - - Other licences - 5 ?1 3 - Don't Know • - - 3 3 Total 100 100 100 100 too n= ?8 39 29 29 31 The most secure legal categories, regulated periodic and fixed term lettings, acconmodated the majority of households and similar proportions (approximately three-quarters) of each type of hcxjsehold were In these sub-sectors. This still meant though, that around a quarter in each group were in accommodation granting Limited or no security. In particular, because the possibility of being obliged to move implies more upheaval for pensioners and families than for the other household groups It might be expected that they would have sought the security offered by the regulated sub-sectors and 174- consequently have had a rruch greater representation. One quarter of families and pensioners rented from a resident landlord or had shorthold agreements and so had Limited security. So why did they take on such tenancies? In the case of the shortholds (which were all one year lets) all the families said they had little choice; they had wanted a let they could have Indefinitely but their tenancy was the only one they could get. The pensioner in this sub-sector also had wanted a longer let, but, needing to move quickly, had decided that the let would at least offer a base for looking for a more permanent home. The situations of the other groups were quite different. The single people and the student were not concerned they had a short let saying they did not plan to stay permanently. Most also pointed out that the agreement was renewable and so there was a possibility the landlord would allow them to stay longer than a year. Responses given by the couples were similar although they had placed more emphasis on ensuring they would not be required to vacate until a full year was past. In the resident landlord sub-sector not only are lettings less protected but the sheer proximity of Landlord and tenant affords a greater potential for a conflict of Interests which itself could precipitate a landlord Into taking action to repossess. There were fourteen households In this sub-sector of which three did have equivalent security to households In regulated periodic tenancies, having been resident prior to the date when protection was reduced (8). The remaining households were not aware of their limited security, one pensioner, for example, assumed she had full protection because she was in an unfurnished let. In deciding whether to accept a resident landlord let It was the proximity of the landlord, not legal security, which had been the central concern: a hostile landlord rather than legal action being seen as the instrument obliging vacation. Thus In the resident landlord sub-sector tenants showed especial keenness to maintain friendly relations. Pensioners were particularly fearful about their position. Two were worried their landlords would learn they had been Interviewed about their tenancy, one saying: -175- •I wouldn't like to get on the **rong side of the landlord as he could sake my life miserable. I don't want to leave." Two other pensioners who said they had a good relationship with the landlord and wanted to keep It that way, refused to divulge any Inforoatlon (on level of rent, repair problems etc.) which they thought might upset him. The other household groups appeared to be less deferential, albeit aware of the fragility of their position. Again, in their reasons for taking resident landlord lets, fanilles and pensioners differed from the other households. All the pensioners and one family said that the lets provided the only unfurnished accommodation they could find and the remaining families had accepted their accommodation after experiencing difficulties in finding any flat. They all hoped to stay indefinitely if not permanently. The other households said they did not mind if the let proved to be temporary. Lack of privacy was seen as a problem to some extent, but these households had been attracted by some aspect of the accommodation and for two single people the very fact the landlord was resident had appealed: "I prefer it to having a bedsit in a big house, it's more friendly. it gives me more security - I know things %#on't get nicked.- Pensioners and families were not represented in the highly insecure licence sut^sector; t^th the exception of one couple, this accoaraodated the single young, and students In particular - one in five having t>een given a licence agreement. It appears that landlords most concerned about repossession not only select 'known' short stay households, le. students, but also favour agreements providing no tenure security. Most licensees were unaware of the possible Implications of their agreement. The two households In lets providing board had sought this type of accomxKxlatlon because it was 'more convenient' for their lifestyle. Amongst the other nine licensees only one fully understood the terms of the contract: I «ianted to have a month's notice, the landlord Is bending the law with a licence to share. .. %fe wanted a house for seven and 176- we felt we wouldn't have found somewhere apart from this one." Two households thought the agreement was unlikely to apply, one because he had omitted to sign, the other because it was reasoned that: "It's a standard form given to most landlords by solicitors... it goes on about things like using the 'phone that the place hasn't got... It's just a thing constructed for landlords." Here the Landlord had said the maxirrum duration of the letting was nine months and the tenant said he probably had security for that long. Another household considered they had six months security because a clause in the contract demanded penalty money equivalent to three months rent or fee in the event of the tenant moving within six months of accepting the let. But four households believed they had signed an agreement granting a regulated pericxdic or fixed term tenancy. Fortunately all the licensees intended their stay to be short, up to a year at most and this probably explains why little attention was given to the terms of the contract. Only one household had felt constrained thrcxjgh lack of choice in the market into accepting a licence agreement. Indeed, the majority of households in all the sub-sectors were unclear about the degree of security granted by their agreement. It seemed that any protect icxi offered by the Rent Acts w#ould only be used as a last resort by tenants who, particularly wanting or needing to stay, had investigated their rights and were prepared to put up a fight. In the course of the survey it became apparent that, whatever the legal position with regard to security, a tenant's feeling of security was governed by the state of the relationship with the landlord. As a result even tenants In the most secure (regulated periodic) lettings and on good terms with their landlords expressed some concern about their poslticxi: I can stay until the landlord wants me to go. I never know, It's a *^rry. He's friendly now, but will it be the same in the future?" 177- Feeling insecure in private rented accormodat ion emerged as an important reason many households wanted to move into the council sector and was an underlying worry for those ^o hoped to stay in their let permanently (see Chapter Seven, Section 7.4-). It also restrained tenants from taking steps to enforce repairs, as was shown in Chapter Four, Section 4.4. Tenants felt no more secure in lets owned by property companies (9) or in cases where they dealt with an agency rather than the landlord. In the first place there was no guarantee any owner would want to continue letting indefinitely. In the secor^d, when paying rent or asking for repair works, tenants virtually always dealt with one person. The personal, one-to-one nature of transactions (10) was seen by tenants as condusive to unprofessional, intimidating behaviour on the part of the landlord or agent if eviction was wanted and found to be resisted. With this possibility, security in law had limited relevance. As one tenant who had moved several times from highly secure regulated periodic tenancies explained: ...rather than stay and face arguments, it was better to move and live in peace." Thus the private rented sector as a whole, rather than specific sub-sectors within it , was seen by most households as providing insecure acconnodation. In this, the generally personal nature of the landlord-tenant relationship was all important. Whilst it was the case that many households were ignorant of their rights, it appeared that few would even seek to clarify their position if asked to leave because when unwanted, moving seemed less disagreeable than staying. h4evertheles5, legal security of tenure provided an essential safety-net. There were a small number of households 178- families, having an insecure let or one providing security for a short period could be especially troublesome. Certainly they, in contrast to the other household groups in such lets, had wanted accommodation they could have indefinitely and had felt to some extent constrained into accepting a less favourable agreement. If evicted, apart from the upheaval of moving, there is the problem of finding alternative accoomodatlon. Relative conpetltive abilities Is to be examined In detail in Chapter Seven, but already findings on housing quality have suggested that families fared badly in competing for acconmodation and, given their reasons for renting from resident landlords end accepting shortholds, this group may well be suffering the most from the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies. Security of Tenure and Rent books Legally, non-payment of rent Is one of the most clear-cut cases for permitting repossession (11). Thus a record of rent paid is a safeguard for the tenant in the event of any dispute with the landlord. Where the rent Is payable weekly, the provision of a rent book is obligatory in regulated and resident landlord lettings (Department of Environment, 1983a, p. 28). Table 5.2 shows the proportion of households in such lets who were provided with a rent book. TABLE 5.2: PROVISION OF A RE^^^ POOK 11 in Hpy?ghoi(i group Pensioner Single Sludenl Couple Family 1 of Households in regulated and resident landlord iettings provided with a Rent Book 91 42 70 45 83 n= n 12 10 II 12 (n= All households in regulated and resident landlord lettings paying rent weekly) Table 5.2 indicates that the law was often flouted, particularly by landlords letting to single people or couples. However, most tenants had some protection, because in -179- virtually all cases there was a record kept of rent paid; whether by Eoeans of a rent book, receipts given to tenants or In the form of local authority accounts where Housing Benefit covered all the rent due. In only five Instances was there no record of paynent. One was where the rent was paid to a relative (pensioner household) and another was a let %d.th board (single person household). The other three ccH&prlsed two student households and one couple, all of whom were In licence lettlngs. Rent Refflstratlon Landlords or tenants with regulated tenancies created before the 15th Jan. 1989 can apply to the local Rent Officer to set a •fair' rent. With resident landlord lettlngs created before 15th Jan. 1989 there Is a similar system; the landlord or tenant can apply to a rent tribunal to set a 'reasonable' rent. The 'fair' or 'reasonable' rent registered is the maximum chargeable rent and remains In force, even If there is a change of tenant Registered rents can be reviewed two years or more after the date of the last registration. By Introducing an independent assessor of the appropriate rent for a dwelling, the system, first set up In 1965, was seen mostly as a my of protecting tenants from excessive rents %^llst allowing landlords an adequate return. As vias revealed In Table 5. 1, most lettlngs in the Plymouth survey **ere found to have been subject to rent regulation. However, nearly a quarter of student lets and one in ten lets occupied by single people were In the unregulated sub-sectors. Table 5.3 examines the proportion of regulated and resident landlord lets where the rent had been registered. Since sone of these registered rents can feasibly be up to twenty-three years old, Table 5.3 also examines the proportion of regulated and resident landlord lettlngs with 'up to date' registrations, that Is, rents newly registered or reviewed In the two year period before the date of the survey (12). Table 5. 3 demonstrates that very little use had been made of the legislation. Only one half of rents were registered in lettlngs occupied by pensioners, whilst one-fifth or less of single people, students and families had registered rents. The findings on 'up to 180- date' registrations Indicate that very few new registrations (In fact, only three) had been made and there was a great deal of apathy about having the registration reviewed. In the lettlngs occupied by students and families, for example, none of the registered rents were ones which had been reviewed. It Is questionable whether landlords had continued to require only the amount of rent registered, even though legally obliged to, in lettings %Aere the rent had not been updated. Two lettings %rfiere registration %iaG still legally In force (not included in Table 5.3) had become licences to occupy. TABj.^ 5. 3; R^QIgTEREP yEJfTg 1 in HflusehQld Broyp Pensioner Single Student Couple Faiiily I of Households in regulated or resident landlord lettings with registered rents 57 20 9 37 13 I of households in regulated or resident landlord lettings uith 'up to date' registrations: neif registrations - - 1 - 7 revieied registrations iS 3 - 4 - n« 28 35 23 27 30 (n: All households in regulated and resident landlord lettings) Consistent with Doling and Davles' findings (1984, p.146), few applications for registration (8X) had been made by a tenant, and none of these by a tenant still resident In the accommodation. Most of the 'up to date' registrations were reviewed registrations. Re- reglstratloD Invariably results In an Increase in the rent so in these cases it %ras In the Interests of the landlords, not the tenants, to make reapplications. The fact that all the 'up to date* registrations were for periodic tenancies underlines this point. Landlords letting under fixed term or shorthold agreements could easily increase the rent unilaterally (albeit unlawfully if the dwelling already had a registered rent) with the arrival of a new tenant. Similarly resident landlords might be well a%mre the threat of eviction could be used if their tenants dispute rent increases. Landlords letting under periodic tenancy agreements would have found It much more difficult to Increase previously registered rents 181 without going through the correct legal channels. Thus pensioners, %^o predominated in periodic tenancies and in man/ cases had been resident for a nu!Tt>er of /ears As noted, none of the tenants surveyed had applied for rent registration. Legal or perceived insecurity, or an anticipated short term of residence NWSlNq gQSTg Services and Service Charges It is Irrportant to distiguish between services which are 'minor', in that their cost is minimal and so are ignored In assessments of housing benefit, and services which are 'major', these being more costly and ineligible for housing benefit -162- provision of a telephone (but not payment of the rental fee) or a garage. Major services include provision of breakfast, heating or hot water. A coirplete list of the services received by the surveyed households is shown in Appendix A, Table A. 5. 2. Table 5.4 examines the proportion in each household group receiving major and minor services. Pensioner Single Sludeni Couple Family I Receiving Any Service 21 59 66 46 45 1 Receiving Minor Services 14 38 45 36 45 1 Receiving Hajor Services 7 21 21 10 - 26 39 29 29 31 In contrast to the other households, most students received services, probably in part because they tencied to cx:cupy furnished, single room lets for which landlords more often provicie services. All households received minor services more often than major. These minor services mostly entailed cleaning and lighting of cormDn parts of the property, the major, heating end lighting of the tenants' accmmodat ion. The charge for services can be inclucied in, or separate from the rent. In the survey, all but three households paid for services in with the rent and none who did knew the service element of their rent. Interestingly, two of the three householcis who paid for services separately (and so knew their cost) received identical services; heating and lighting of their single rcxxn dwelling, but paid very different amounts: £3.50 as against £8. This uncierlines the degree of freedom landlords have in the setting of charges. Tenants receiving services had no control over the cost or the quality so for some the service was disadvantageous. Households receiving minor but no major services made the most ccxnplaints. Those who were particularly disgruntled were paying for cleaning and lighting of the ccxrinon parts of the house. A frequent complaint %ras that the cleaning never appeared to take place and that lighting meant little if no light bulbs were provided. Not knowing how much 183- was charged when the service MS unsatisfactory also caused disquiet. Most tenants receiving major services had actively sought accofmiodation where they were provicted. In particular students receiving hot water, heating and lighting of their accocmiodation had liked the idea of comfortable cormditlons In which to study and the convenience of paying for the services In with the rent. Households receiving major services often did have some conception of their cost, either because they could not obtain full housing benefit or they had made rent comparisons with accoinnodat ion providing no services. Only five households (a quarter of those receiving such services) felt they paid over the odds but considered the convenience or the quality of the services to be sufficient conpensat ion. Rent and Rates Weekly rent and rates (henceforth, for brevity termed simply 'rents') varied widely, from £1.50 to £87.83, but very low or high levels were rare. On average, pensioners paid the least (£20.90> and couples and families the most (respectively £37.26 and £38.54), whilst students paid Less than the other non-pensioner single people (£25.69 as against £28.66). A comparison of the rents paid by the different household groups would be most informative where account is taken of differences In the acconmodation rented. Table 5.5 considers furnished and unfurnished accorrmodation separately amd examines rents for dwellings with one, two and three or more habitable rooms. Tables 5.5 to 5.7 exclude tettlngs with rents that Included an unknown charge for major services. Table 5.5 shows that rents did relate to the presence of furniture and the nurrfcer of rooms; furnished acconmodat ton generally costing more than unfurnished, and two or more rooms more expensive than one room However, where two and three or more rooms were concerned there appeared to be no correlation between the size of the dwelling and the cost in both the furnished and unfurnished sub- 184- sectors. JA^ RENTS QF u^FijRNySfgp AND FURNISH i^COHnQPAT^QN BY NMM^R OF RQQWg Hcan Weekly Rent £s Penstoner Single Studenl Couple Family Type of Accommodation Furnished one roon 21.641 26.97 25.75 34.38 33.44 two rooDS 37.50 34.50 28.85« 4?. 58 U, 28 three or (lore roons 29.491 37.501 25.651 40.43 50.28 Unfurnished one room 7.15* - two rooDS 2?.12 29.231 - 28.4e« 25.161 Ihree or twre roons 1 7.62 20.97 - 25.57 25.30 n= 22 28 21 26 31 (n= All households excluding those in lets with rents thai included an unknown charge for najor services and households who shared habitable roons. i = Cells containing less than three cases.) TABLE 5,6; RENTS OF DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD TYPES IN ACCOTtlODAITON WITH SIMILAR ATTRIBUTES Hear) WeeMy ^ Pensioner Single Student Couple Family Type of Accommodation one habitable roon, furnished, sharing kitchen or amenities - 26.71 25.75 33.33 33.44 n= 0 14 16 3 5 two habitable roois, furnished no sharing of roons or anenities 37.50 34.50 - 42.56 45.94 n= 3 7 0 13 7 three habitable rooms, unfurnished no sharing of roons or anenities 17.62 20.97 - • 25.57 27.46 n= 8 3 0 3 6 (n= All households excluding those in lets with rents that included an unknown charge for najor services and households who shared habitable roons.) In unfurnished accomnodatIon pensioners paid less than the other households, possibly because many of their rents were registered . Table 5.5 also shows clearly, in furnished acconmodatlon at least, that rents Involved per capita charges. In 185- one roomed and two roomed accocrmodation, couples and families paid much more on average than single people and students. As Table 5.6 ir>dicates, these differences cannot be attributed to variations in the amount of sharing. So, when households in like accormndation are compared, couples and families consistently paid much more than the other households. In this, families can be seen to have been doubly disadvantaged. Needing more space than any single person and, arguably, than couples, they paid extra for larger accoofnodation and extra for their larger household size. The quality of the accooinodat ion is another possible factor producing variations in rents, so in Table 5.7 the weekly rents of accommodation with similar attributes but differences in quality are compared. For this analysis the household grcxjps are combined and selected accormiodation types examined to maximize cell sizes. TABLE 5. 7: RENTS A^D HOUSING QUALITY nean Wepkiy Repj £s Satisfactory Soriewhat Satisfaclory Unsatisfactory DtAllings Dvellings Dwellings Type of Accotnnodation one habitable roofi, furnished 28.10 ?B. 61 26.24 n= 20 15 two habitable rooiis, furnished 41.91 38.01 42.29 n= / 15 11 (n= All households excluding those in lets with rents that included an unknown charge for nejor services and households who shared habitable roorw. ) Table 5.7 indicates that there was no relationship between the quality of the accormodation and its cost. Although unsatisfactory one rcxxn dwellings cost less on average than those which were satisfactory, somewhat satisfactory ciwellings cost more; whilst unsatisfactory two rcx3med acccxrenociat ion was on average more expensive than equivalent satisfactory or scjmewhat satisfactory dwel I Ings. As rK>ted in the introduction to this chapter, one factor which ccMjld distort the relationship between the accornnodat ion and its cost is the difference between landlords in their business abilities 186- and interests in letting. In this respect it might be supposed that small landlords who have been letting to the same tenants for many years might be Less responsive to inflation and changes in market prices than larger landlords who experience a high rate of turnover in their tenants. Some evidence of this was found in the survey, for eKanple there were six households (four pensioners and two families) in two roomed, unfurnished accofrmodation, all of whom had been resident a nuni>er of years, %^ose (unregistered) rent and rates came to £15 a week or less; lower than that found in equivalent accomnodatIon in Plymouth's local authority sector. One household, whose tenancy was probably a formerly controlled one (15), paid a total of £1.50 each «i«ek, insufficient to cover even the rates. None of these households ^re renting from a relative which might have explained their low rents. A coiTparison of households in similar accotimodatIon ^o had been resident less than three years and three years or more provided some evidence that the longer residents had lower rents and so were possibly benefitting from a certain inertia amongst their landlords in the raising of rents (see Appendix A, Table A. 5. 3). Hence there was an uneven relationship bet^^en the private rented acconmodation and its cost. Whereas furnished acconmodation generally cost more than unfurnished, and two roomed dwellings more than one roomed, there was no association between rents and the quality of the accorrmodat ion. The findings indicate that the relationship may have been distorted by tardiness in the raising of rents on the part of landlords had been letting to the same tenants for many years, but a significant intervening factor was the landlords* apparent tendency to include a per capita element in the setting of rents. PQpo^its Households who had lived in their acconfnodat ion less than three years were asked about deposits (16). All but one household who had paid a deposit believed them to be returnable, and said that they were in case of any damage to the furniture or the property. The one exception was a licensee who had had to pay an (illegal at that time) key deposit. The paying of a deposit, it should be 187- noted, places a household In a vulnerable position, because a deposit can be used as a sanction held over the head of a tenant If there Is any dispute Involving the %#lthholding of rent or the obligation to repair damage. In view of this use of deposits it might be expected that it was with the more restricted letting agreements that deposits were more often required, and this was found to be the case TABLE 5. 8: DEPOSITS AND THE LEGAL SUB-SECTORS Private Rented Sub-Sectors Regulated Resident Licences Periodic Fixed Tern Shorthold Landlord Vith Board Other I where Deposit Required 55 92 85 iO 50 100 n= 29 22 II S 2 9 (n= All lettings lade less than three years before the survey, excluding tvo vhere the sub-sector could not be identified) In lettings made for a set perlcxi (regulated fixed term lets and shortholds), and lettings where the landlords were especially careful to ensure repossession rights ('other' licences) landlords were much more likely to have demanded a deposit. Table 5.9 examines the proportion in each household group required to pa/ a deposit, the mean and median amounts required and the mean and median amounts paid by households in different working situations. It might be expected that households %^th greater financial resources paid larger deposits. As it was not practicable to obtain information on the households' financial resources at the time they moved Into their accommodation, iiiorking situation at that tine Is used as a surrogate; households with a head In full-time work «K>uld tend to have had higher Incomes than households where no head was employed. Because their numbers are low, pensioners and unfurnished accommodation are excluded from this and ensuing analyses of deposits (17). Around 70% in each group had paid a deposit, though proportionately more in the case of couples and less in the case of families. Without looking at the households' search experiences (Chapter Seven), it is unclear why there should be these differences -168- as they cannot be attributed to a greater or lesser preponderance in the legal sub-sectors where deposits w^re more often required. The lowest mean and median amounts required were found amongst the single, especially students, whilst households with a head in full- time work showed a tendency to have paid larger deposits than the economically inactive or unemployed, underlining the iirportance of financial rescxirces in providing opportunities of access to housing. In fact, the 'working' households also paid on average larger sums for advance rent (see Appendix A, Table A. 5. 4-). TABLE 5. 9: AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT REQUIRED Houpehol d Group Single Student Couple Fanity X of Households Paying a Deposit 71 69 ;9 59 Hean Deposit £s SS 50 95 86 Nedian Deposit £s 65 50 too 100 H/H with head in fuU-iin)e eriployrent 1 of H/H paying a deposit 50 N/A 69 17 Nean Deposit £6 86 N/A 102 501 Hedian Deposit £& 100 N/A 100 504 H/K with no head in fuU-tiine pnplpypfnt 1 of H/H paying a deposit 81 N/A 100 82 Hean Deposit £s 73 N/A 8S 89 Hedian Deposit £s 70 N/A 90 100 n= 31 29 24 17 (n= All households resident less than three years and in furnished accottiDodation. Cells containing one case only) But It is Interesting that households without a head in full- time work %^re much more likely to have paid a cieposit (85X overall as against 53X of working households), perhaps reflecting that landlords regard these householcis to be less 'reliable'. Certainly such Landlords might have used deposits (and rent in advance) Uiich could be claimed as 'urgent needs' payments from the DH5S Cnow DSS), to safeguard themselves against non-payment of rent. As benefit claims can take scxne %^ks to process, a tenant could potentially stay in a property rent-free until the benefit payment arrived, then -189- pocket the money and move on to another letting. In April 1988 such urgent needs payments were stopped. The high proportion of unemployed households required to pay deposits in the survey Indicates the scale of the problems caused by this change. Unemployed households now have to turn to relatives or to charities to furnish deposits, but not all can find help and as a result many households have been unable to secure acconmodat Ion (South West Housing Aid, 1990) Table 5. 10 examines the relationship between size of deposit and size of acconmodation. Greater financial resources would have enabled the working households to obtain the larger, more expensive accofmiodation, and Table 5.10 does show that Larger deposits were generally required for two roomed dwellings than for one roomed dwel I Ings. TABLE 5. 10; AMOUhfT OF DEPOSIT BY SIZE OF ACCOmOOATION Single Sludenl Couple Family Ail Households ftMmber 9f Habitable Rppn? one roon nefin deposit 65 48 100« 351 59 nedian deposit 60 50 too« 351 50 lowest 26 25 100 35 15 highest 150 50 100 35 150 two roofts nean deposit 92 60 100 87 69 nedian deposit 100 50 99 68 99 lowest 40 40 40 50 40 highest 150 100 220 120 220 three or nore roons nean deposit 1001 38i 67 100 62 nedian deposit 1001 381 50 100 100 lowest 100 38 50 100 38 highest 100 38 100 100 100 n= 22 20 19 10 71 (n= All households paying a deposit, t = Cells containing less than three cases.) However, there was little difference in the mean and median deposits between two and three roomed dwellings. Students appeared to pay lower deposits than the other households (though perhaps not less than the unenployed In the other groups), but there was no 190- evidence to show that large deposits were required from any particular group. The most notable finding on amounts required is their variability, and in Table 5.10 the lowest and highest deposits demanded by landlords have been presented to Illustrate the arbitrariness In deposit requirements. For example, amounts demanded for three roomed accoamodat ion could be much less than for one roomed lets. Sunmary This chapter has focused on the households' situations with regard to legal and financial aspects of the accorrmodat ion. It has been shown that although most households did have the maximum security of tenure offered within the private rented sector, in general, legal security meant little in the face of possible harassment by a landlord. Few households were clear as to their legal rights and because most placed great emphasis on having equable relations with their landlords, it appeared that few would seek to clarify their legal position and invoke their rights to tenure if asked to leave. rtotwithstanding, in contrast to the other households, for pensioners and families an understanding that a let wras to be for an indefinite period was very important. Those in these two groups who had accepted shorthold tenancies would have prefered longer lets but had felt obliged to accept a less favourable agreement. Similarly, families and pensioners renting from resident landlords would have prefered non-resident landlords, not because of any knowledge of reduced legal security, but because the greater possibility of discord made them feel less secure. Hence whilst similar proportions In each household group were In the less secure lettings, because of their greater expressed need for tenure security (and arguably their greater objective need), the disadvantageous position of families and pensioners in such lets was all the more apparent. Rent regulation meant little to the households. Only a small minority apart from in the pensioner group had registered rents, and few showed much interest In registration, possibly because many relied on benefits to pay the rent. All the recent registrations 191 concerned regulated periodic tenancies and all had been applied for by landlords, the vast majority being re-registrations. Thus for the most part, it appeared that rent registration was only instrumental for landlords who wanted to increase rents and had no alternative legal way of cioing so. One of the most striking findings was that although rent levels were related to the presence of furniture and to the size of the accomncxlation, landlords letting to single people or students charged less for equivalent accorrmcxiation than landlords letting to couples or to families. So in general, couples and families were disadvantaged in the market, needing to outlay comparatively more for their housing. As rents were not related to housing quality and families were concentrated in unsatisfactory dwellings, it appears that families were particularly disadvantaged; paying more on average, but obtaining poorer conditions. The pensicx>er group fared best with regard to rents, even after taking into acccxjnt their predominance in cheaper unfurnished lets. This, it was suggested, may have been because a large proportion of pensioners had registered rents and some were benefiting from a degree of inertia amongst their landlords over the raising of rents. Deposits were found to be related to the type of letting and working situation; landlords granting limited or no security, or letting to unemployed households, were nuch more likely to have required payment of a deposit. The amounts demanded varied widely, but to some extent related to the size of the accorrmodation and to working situation - employed households paying more than the unemployed, and students paying less than other households. Having now examir>ed physical, legal and financial aspects of the acccximodation obtained by the different household groups, the next tM> chapters will be concerned with seeking explanations for the households' situations. 192- FQQTNQT^g FOR CHAPT^P FIVE 1. So termed In the (Sovernmenf s White Paper 2. Except In the 'rent free' sub-sector, which has not been Included in the Plymouth survey. 3. After being refused the full amount by the City Treasury, three families In the survey had had their rents reduced from £50 to £45, tvA agreeing to be responsible for the cleaning of the conmon parts of the property In exchange. 4. One household In the survey was told by the landlord Uien accepting the let that the rent would be more If they were unemployed. 5. Prior to the Social Security Act 1986 which came Into effect In April 1988, households In receipt of Supplementary Ber^flt were able to obtain urgent needs payments for deposits and advance rent, although notions of 'reasonable' amounts were applied. 6. 'htollday' lets (which were being used by the occupants as their sole home) and assured tenancies, If encountered, would have been Included In the survey. 7. Though the status of lettings could be Inferred to some extent from general arrangements (eg. If the landlord provided any meals), correct classification of the Lettings was to some extent reliant on the tenant's memory. Inaccuracies are most probable In the regulated fixed term and shorthold sub-sectors, as shortholds are also forms of fixed term tenancies. Shorthold agreements have to be %^ltten (Department of the Environment, 1983b), so where the household could r>ot remember If the written agreement had been described as a shorthold, or the agreement was verbal, the letting was classified into the regulated fixed term category. 193- 8. Protection %ras reduced for tenancies granted after 14th August 1974 (Department of the Environment, 1981). 9. 7X of the lettings in the sample were made by property conpanles, 87X by an Individual landlord, 3X by a relation of the tenant and 3X by business partnerships. 10. The personal and Informal nature of transactions In rruch of the private rented sector is underlined by the fact that many of the letting agreements had been verbal (51X). The proportion of households having a written agreement by legal sub-sector Is shown In Appendix A, Table A. 5. 1. t1. In the regulated periodic and fixed term lettlngs It Is the first of the discretionary cases for permitting repossession (Department of the Environment, I983e, p.10). 12. Information on registered rents amongst the sampled units was obtained from the Plymouth Rent Office and rent assessment panel office. Registered rents which had been cancelled are excluded from the analysis. 13. As defined at the time of the survey (Child Poverty Action Group, 1987). U. Unfortunately it is not possible to conpare registered rents with unregistered rents, because registered rents exclude rates, whereas most of the tenants %rfhose rent MS Inclusive of rates did not know the rate element of their rent. 15. The tenancy fufllled the conditions for having been a controlled tenancy. By 1980, when they were brought Into the 'fair rent' system most controlled tenancies had very low rents. 16. Given Inflation ar\d the limitations of memory. It was considered Impractical to ask households who had been resident three years or more about deposits. 194- 17. Three pensioners had been resident less than three years (two of %/hom had paid a deposit) and cxily nine unfurnished lettings had been made in this period (four of %^ich had required a deposit). 195- CHAPTER SIX: INCOME ^ EMPLOYMEKfT DIFFEREt^lALS AM) HOUSING 5ITUAT|gr4g, 6.1. im-RODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to examine the extent to ^ich differentials primarily in Income, but also in working situation and socio-economic status, might explain the differences in the sort of acconmodatIon obtained by the households. In capitalist economies the most Important determinant of life chances is, of course, money, and for the majority of the population this depends on Income. In the British housing market Income is fundamental to explanations of tenure situations and opportunities; an adequate Income being prerequisite for ability to choose between privately renting and buying. The financial advantages and social inducements attached to owner-occupation have now meant that most who can afford to buy, do so. Thus the private rented sector has increasingly fufllled the role of acconmodat ing those \^o are not in a financial position to buy. Within the private rented sector, however, the relationship between Income and the sort of housing obtained is obscure. Certainly an income advantage can provide the opportunity to obtain better housing; the preceding analysis of rents shoved that amongst the Plymouth sample, space at Least could be bought, If not good quality housing. Yet whatever money can obtain In the private rented sector it cannot buy the potential capital rewards associated with house purchase, it provides no return other than current living conditions. In this context higher Income households might choose to spend more on improving their general living standards or to save - perhaps with a view to raising a deposit for house purchase - rather than outlay more on present housing. Working situation, too, affects opportunities. In large part the relationship Is a matter of income differences; the employed tending to have higher incomes than the economically Inactive or unemployed. But in the private rented sector working situation can have an indep>endent effect on opportunities. ' Accormndat ion to Let' coluims in newspapers reveal significant nurrt)ers of landlords who 196- are prejudiced against letting to households dependent upon benefits. Thus households with an enployed head appear to have choice over a larger ocnount of lettings. ^Jotwith5tanding, such households might not use their apparent advantage to the extent that they obtain the better tenancies. Also, financial position will still influence their ability to exercise choice over different types of accommodation, as clearly, *«rking households with low Incomes will be restricted over the rents that can be afforded. Accommodation advertisements stating: 'suit professional' Indicate a preference amongst some landlords for higher status (and working) households, so these households appear to have an advantage In the competition over lettings. The extent to which such adverts express a 'real* preference is, hov^ver, unclear. Landlords prepared to accept only working households might prefer this phrasing to 'no DH55* . And again, what accoomodatIon is obtained can be seen to depend (other possible factors, such as landlords* preferences for different sorts of household, aslde> on income and on the priorities of the household. So whereas income and employment differentials Influence opportunities In the private rented housing market, their value in explaining differences In actual housing situation Is not clear. Therefore this chapter will examine the extent to which these differentials can account for variations in the type of acconmodation obtained by the households. First, it is important to explore the characteristics of the households with respect to their Incomes, working situations and occupational statuses. 6.2. INCOME, tePRKING SITUATION AND OCCUPATIONAL STATUS Income The households' financial situations can best be appreciated by drawing comparisons with 1987-88 Supplementary Benefit rates and with data from the Family Expenditure Survey CFES). Table 6.1 shows the proportion of households in each group living at or below the supplementary benefit basic rate and the proportion at or below 140X of the supplementary benefit basic 197- rate. Both rates are traditional measures for estimating households in poverty, the former signifying households in a situation of actual poverty, the latter, households living on the margins of poverty; their resources being: "so seriously below those conmanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities" (Townsend, 1979, p. 31). TABLE 6. 1: HOUSEHOLDS IN OR ON THE MARGINS OF POVERTY 1 in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Net Income less housing costs ( SB baste rate 35 U 11 U 27 Net Incoi&e less housing costs ) SB basic rate < UOI SB rate 35 51 82 25 50 Net Incoi&e less housing costs ) 140X SB rate 30 35 7 61 23 n= 26 37 27 ?B 30 (n= All households giving adequate informalion on their incone. Net incofie= incone after lax and national insurance deductions. Housing costs= rent and rates.) Table 6.1 clearly show^ that the vast majority of the private renters were living in, or on the margins of, poverty. The proportions with incomes above 140X of the supplementary benefit level might be ccxrpared with an average of 711 for the population as a whole (Oppenheim, 1988, p. 2). The poorest groups were pensioners and families, a third of pensioners and a quarter of families had lr>comes at or below the supplementary benefit basic rate. A tiny minority of students, and no more than two-fifths in any other group apart from couples had incomes above 140X of the supplementary benefit level. Mostly, the hcxjseholds* low incomes can be explained in terms of unemployment or economic inactivity. But even amcxigst households with a head employed full-time there was a significant proportion with incomes at or below 140% of the supplementary benefit basic rate. In the case of the families, nearly a half of the households with an employed head had such low incomes (1>. The low incomes of the majority of the private renters. Including those with an employed head, is uncier lined wiihen -198- comparisons are made between their incomes and those of households In all tenures, information on %iihlch Is provided by the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) (OPCS, 1989a, Table 22, p. 64). In Table 6.2 the household groups have been subdivided for purposes of comparison with the groups In the FES. In addition, as the unenployed content In the Plymouth survey may skew Incomes do%mwards, where appropriate households have been subdivided Into those with at least one head employed full-time and those with no head employed full-time. A consequence of the subdivisions is that the nunters In some groups are very small, so In these cases the data must be treated.with caution <2>. H/H Av wkly FES av wkly H/H income as No. H/H All H/H incone £ incone £ I FES income below FES Pensioners 20 26 1 adult nainty dependent on slate pensions 49.70 SO. 98 97 10 14 1 other adult 90.48 117. 70 77 7 8 2 adults nainly dependent on state pensions 95.16 88.53 107 2 3 2 other adults 62.00 182.53 45 1 1 Single 37 37 enployed full-tine 90.01 }144. 14 62 12 12 not employed futl-time 36.64 ) 27 25 25 student? SI.97 144. 14 36 27 27 Couples 25 28 2 adults 138.07 2S6.85 54 24 27 3 adults 162.81 299. 25 54 1 1 one/more enp. full-tine 173.33 1256.85 67 16 19 none enp. full-tine 66.40 ) 24 9 9 Families 30 30 couple 1 child 68. 9S 243.23 37 18 18 ? children 114.17 283. 24 40 5 S 3 children 174.89 2S5.58 66 2 2 single 1 child 48.92 95.25 51 3 3 2 children S3.18 111.74 46 2 2 one/fflore enp. full-tine 122.22 }243. 23 50 14 14 none enp. full-tine 66.48 27 16 16 (H/H= households in the Plynouth survey, excluding those providing inadequate infornation on their incone. av= average; w4(ly= weekly; eaip= enployed) 199- The Income disparities between the private renters and the FES households are marked. Apart from pensioner couples mainly dependent on state pensions, all private renting household groups had lower Incomes than the norm for their equivalent FES household group. Income differences remain even when only employed private renters are considered. Employed families %«re worst placed, having Incomes that were on average Just 501 that of the mean for the FES households. Errployed single people and couples fared a little better, but their incomes still achieved only 62% and 67X the FES average level. Overall, out of the 148 households providing Information on Income in the Plymouth survey, Just 9, (6%), had Incomes that were at or above the average Incomes of FES households. Other surveys have shown that private renters have low Incomes In comparison with households In other tenures Csee Chapter Two, Section 2.3), but the Plymouth findings are Important because they Indicate that the low Incomes are not a product of a preponderance In the sector of certain household types, such as students and pensioners. They suggest that the majority of private renters, even those usually considered to be using the sector as a temporary expedient; the 'young and mobile' enployed single people and couples, have low Incomes and so are, in opportunity terms, very restricted. In fact, In the Plymouth survey, about one In six couples and one In four families with a household head working full-time were to some extent dependent on benefits to boost their Incomes, as Table 6.3 show«. Table 6.3 also shows the proportion of households reliant on housing benefit to pay some or all of the rent. Very few households with economically Inactive or unemployed heads did not receive any housing benefit whilst between one quarter and one seventh of households with a head in paid eirplo/ment received some help towards the rent; employed family heads, especially, requiring assistance. As by no means all households entitled to benefits receive them (see Chapter Two), the low Incomes of the private tenants becomes even more apparent. 200- TABLE 6.3: DEPENDENCY ON BENEFITS X in Household Group Pensioner Single Siudenl Couple Fanily Working Not Working Not Working Not Working Working Working Benefits as X 9^ Incppe lOOX 42 - 92 67 - 100 - 94 50-99X 23 - - 15 - - - - 1-491 23 25 8 18 16 - 100 6 01 12 75 - - 64 - - - Total 100 100 too 100 100 100 100 100 n= 26 12 25 27 19 9 14 16 Housing Benefit as X of Rent lOOX 16 - 56 - 5 56 - 61 50-991 30 6 35 - 5 22 13 13 1-491 IS IS 4 69 5 11 13 - 01 37 77 4 11 6S 11 73 6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ?7 13 26 26 20 9 15 16 (n= All households providino adequal e infornation on incone, benefits or rent. lncotK= net income. Benefits= state pension, student grant, child benefit, supplementary benefit, housing benefit, fenily incone supplenent, nobility/attendance allowances etc. Working household5= households with a head, nale or female, in full-tine eisployment excluding government training schemes. The figures do not represent all those entitled to benefits as it is likely that some eligible households would not have claimed, or would not have claimed their total entitlenent. ) So, the majority of the privately renting hcxjseholds had low Incomes ond low ir^comes were not confined to the economically Inactive or unemployed Althcxjgh employed households did have higher incomes than the unemployed or inactive, Incomes were still consicierably lower than average levels as indicated in the FES. Moreover, some employed hcxiseholds were partly reliant upon benefits. It appears that the employed hcxjseholds might not have been able to afford much higher rents than the unemployed. Indeed, for some, a 'poverty trap' might have made it necessary to find lower rentals. Differences in rent levels, as long as they fall within housing benefit limits, do not affect the living allowances for households totally dependent on benefits so for the period of depenciency it would be In their Interests to optimize on present hcxislng. Households with incomes just above the level granting entitlement to benefits might find themselves not much better, or 201 even worse off than benefit claimants if their rents were too high. From these findings on ir>comes, and especially the incomes of employed households, it is reasonable to suggest that, (presuming the patterns are much the san»e elsewhere) in recent years it has been the low incomes of the bulk of the consumers of private rented hcxjsing, not any type of rent control, that in reality have regulated rents in the sector. In this, the main instrument of regulation until 15th January 1989 would have been housing benefit actninistrators' notions of acceptable amcxjnts that can be paid out for private rentals <3). Working Situations It has been mentior^ed earlier that the survey probably sampled proportionately more unemployed or economically inactive single, couple and family household heads than might in reality be fcxjnd within Plymouth's private rented sector. So here the concern is simply to provide background information and cJescribe the differences between the hcxjsehold groups. Table 6.4 shows the working situations of the hcxjseholds, excluding the economically inactive pensioner and stucient groups. It indicates that many of these hcxjseholds had the sole, or both heads either unemployed or economically inactive; 62% in the single group, 49X In the family, and 31X in the couples group. Ur>employment was especially high amongst the single people (54X of hcxjseholds) whilst 41X of couples and 26X of families had either one or both heads unenployed. But with the unemployed there is the possibility of future economic activity, such Is much more limited for the permanently sick. In this respect the ccxjples group, who were apparently in the best econcxnlc position, 69X of the households having one or both heacis In full-time work, fared the least well; 31X had one or both heads permanently sick or disabled. This compares with just 8X in the single group and 10X in the family group (4). Paid full-time employment is generally a prerec^isite to choosing betwen renting and buying <5>, so the low level of econcxnic activity, along with the prevlcxjs finding that even households with a head in full-time work had low inccxnes, supports the view that, at the time of the survey, these households probably had little choice -202 over tenure Icxiatlon. TABLE 6.1: WORKING SITUATIOf^ X in Household Group Single Couple Family One Adult H/H Enployed full-line 33 N/A Enployed part-line 5 N/A UnetDployed 54 N/A Economically Inactive 8 N/A 16 Two Adult H/H Both Eoployed full-tioe N/A 35 One Eoployed full-time: one part-tioe N/A 7 7 one Unenptoyed N/A 17 N/A one Inactive N/A 10 41 One Employed part-time, one inactive N/A 3 Both Unenployed N/A 10 N/A One Unenployed, one Inactive N/A 14 26 Both Econonically Inactive N/A 7 7 Total 100 100 100 39 29 31 Occupational Status Opportunities, anci Income too, are assoclateci with occupational status; lower status and especially manual occupations usually being less renuneratIve, less secure and offering fewer prospects (and hence less chance of an increasing inccxne) than higher status, non-manual occupations. Higher status households seeking to buy are more favoured by financial Institutions (see Chapter Two, Section 2.2), and, as noted, they also appear to be favoured by private landlords. Previous surveys have shown that private tenants are very heterogeneous In terms of cx:cupatlonal status - although proportionately less than the norm are In the professional, employer ar^j manager groups (see, eg. the General Household Surveys, also Chapter T%ro, Section 2.3). Analysts have suggested that households in different socio-economic positions will be using the sector In different ways: for the higher status, particularly nor>-famlly 203 households It will more often provide a convenient first, short-term home, Uiereas for lo%#er status households it will more frequently offer 'last resort' accofimodatlon Since other surveys do not present information on socio• economic group by household type. It Is not possible to examine the Plymouth findings in relation to these, therefore, as in the discussion on %#orklng situations, the concern Is foremostly to provide background Information on the households. The socio• economic characteristics of the households are presented in Table 6.5 (6). TABLE 6.5: OCCUPATIONAL STATUS 1 in Household Group Pensioner Single Couples Fanilies All ' All H/H Head All H/H Heed Alt H/H Head Erp FT Enp FT Enp FT Professional - 3 - - - 7 13 Enployers/Hanagers 9 - - - - 4 7 Inter. 4 Junior Non-manual 26 49 54 17 19 17 7 Skilled Hanual 44 30 15 37 36 41 53 Semi-skilled Hanual 17 15 31 29 31 14 13 Unskilled Manual 4 3 - 17 13 17 7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 All Non-Hanual 35 52 54 17 19 26 27 All Hanual 65 4B 46 63 61 72 73 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Non-Hanual Hales only 10 36 33 17 14 26 27 Hanual Hales only 90 64 67 83 66 74 73 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 n= 23 33 13 24 16 29 15 (n= All household heads excluding 6 neoiiers of the armed forces and 12 never economically active. Household head= sole head, or, where Ivo heads, the male unless economically inacilve/uneiDployed and fenale employed full-time) Table 6.5 shows that the majority in all groups apart from the single were or had been In manual occupations, most in skilled work. Turning to households with a %#orklng head, the findings provide some explanation for their low Incomes. noted earlier. Firstly, especially in the couples group, there %ras a predominance in manual •204- occupations, (the econcxnically inactive or unemployed content apparently not biasing the data towards the manual categories <7>>, and secondly hcxisehold heads who were in non-manual work tended to be in the lowest status and less remunerative intermediate and Junior category. In the single group many of these household heads were women, occupied most often as lowly paid shop assistants, sales or wages clerks, secretaries and nurses or nursing auxilaries. As such they wcxjld have had limited financial ability to enter the owner-cx:cupier sector whilst the single in general have restricted access to local authority acccxnTDdation. In fact, women's occupations tend to be ccxicentrated in the intermediate and junior non-manual category; the 1987 (9er>eral Household Survey shows that 39X of the wcxnen working full-time as against 17X of the men were In this group (8). The finding that many single wcxnen, despite their non-manual status, were in low paid and often insecure work has wider implications for the tenure opportunities of a large section of private renters - presuming the single women are concentrated in much the same kinds of cx:cupatlon - as much of the private rented sector accofTfnodates single non-pensioner hcxjseholds (see Chapter Two, Section 2.3) and many of these will be women. The financial and employment situations of the households can now be surrmarized. The pensicxiers were pcx>r; despite inccxnes closely approaching average levels for their household group over two-thirds lived in or on the margins of poverty. Only one in ten pensioners had been employed In ncxi-manual work. The single people might be divided into households who were unemployed or econcxnicalIy Inactive and mainly dependent on benefits for their inccxne, these comprising the majority, and households w^o were employed and had Inccxnes that were above 1401 of the supplementary benefit level, though still well below average inccxnes. The employed were mainly engaged in non-manual occupations but many of these were wcxnen on the lowest echelcxi of the intermediate and junior status group. As might be expected students were the most hcxnogeneous of all the hcxjsehold groups and nearly all were living on the margins of poverty. Most couples had inccxnes that set them above poverty levels and most were working, predcxninant ly in manual occupations. However, all but three had incomes that were below the mean level 205 for couples In the general population, and, with a third of the hcxjseholds, or>e or both heads was permanently sick or disabled. The main characteristic of the family group was their low incomes. Three-quarters lived In or on the margins of poverty and even hcxjseholds with an employed head (just under a half in the group) had Incomes that were a half on average of mean Incomes for their hcMjsehold type. Thus, regardless of their working situation, most households in the Plymouth survey were poor. In Itself Indicating that tenure location had been less a matter of choice than of constraint. The Implications of the findings as regards situation within the private rented sector are less clear, particularly In view of the likely signlflcar>ce of the differential preferences and prejudices of landlords with respect to different sorts of household. But certainly it can be seen that, in econcxnic terms, very few hcxjseholds at the time of the survey were in a strong bargaining posit ion. 6.3. 1NC0^^ AND EMPUQYHEhfT DIFFERBsfTIALS AM) HOUSING SITUATIONS An 'income' explanation of variations in housing situation within the private rented sector would take the following form: higher income households can afford higher rents and so they obtain the best housing. Hov^ver, this explar^tion rests on three assunptions. Firstly, that higher income households will be prepared to outlay more for their housing. As has t>een noted, a monetary advantage might be put to other uses. Secondly it assumes the ccxisumer will conform to an 'economic-man' mociel of hurrain behaviour, whereas more appropriate would be the 'bounded rationality' model proposed by Simon (1957; see Chapter One, Section 1.2) as in reality households seeking a private let will have irrperfect knowledge of the market arxi different abilities to spend time looking for the best deal, apart from being limited to acconmodation that is obtainable at the time of their searches and having different preferences. As a result, a wholly consistent relationship between rents ar>d lrx:omes Is unlikely to be found. The third assumption Is that higher rents can be equated with better 206- hcxjslng. In the previous chapter it was shown that the relationship between housing and its cost was very uneven. Certainly rents were associated with the size of dwellings, yet some one room units cost more than two room units. Furnished accofrmodat ion was more expensive than unfurnished, but the preser>ce of furniture cannot be viewed ur^amblguously as 'better*. Moreover, the market scarcity of unfurnished lets over recent years r>egates their role as an easily accessible alternative for householcis chcx>slng to spend less on their housing. Finally, arxl most significantly, there was not even a tendency for poor quality hcxjsing to cost less than the good. Thus In examining the relationship between Income and housing situation it is important to Investigate r>ot only whether there was a tendency for higher Income households to have paid higher rents, but also whether any apparent differences In housing costs between the higher and lower Inccxne households did, in fact, signify physical differences in the accorrmodation. At this point it is important to note a further possible distortion to the relationship betwen Incomes and housing situation, that of disproportionate changes In level of Income or of rent since occupancy began. Some households, for example, might have accepted a letting with a rent in accordance with their means, but by the time of the survey had exF>erlenced an unusual rise or fall in income, perhaps as a result of gaining or losing work. Similarly some hcxjseholds might have benefited since their occupancies began from stagnant rents or rent Increases below the level of Inflation; others may have suffered large rent increases. Such cievelopments will obviously disrupt a direct income-rent relationship although It anight be expected that any substantial change in finar>cial conmltment would Itself precipitate change in actual housing situat Ion. The analysis Is necessarily confined to comparing the Incomes and housing situations of similar household types. Standardization of ir>comes to allow for different hcxjsehold sizes could easily be achieved, for example by defining high ar>d low levels in relation to supplementary benefit rates, however, the relationships found between rents and the accofrmodation effectively block any inter- group comparisons. Sir>ce rents were associated with ciwelllng size, space clearly could be bought, but the larger households might be 207- expected to cx:cupy the larger dwellings. Certainly rent allowances take into account the different 'needs' of different hcxjsehold sizes. Therefore to examine whether higher inccxne households tended to occupy larger acccxmodation without taking into account the different needs and normal expectations of the hcxjseholds would be erroneous. A theoretically viable alternative would be to examine whether the higher inccxne households tencied to occupy better c^ality hcxjslng (that is, the 'satisfactory* dwellings), the measure of hcxjslng equality being divorced frcxn consideration of different needs of different sorts of hcxjsehold. But, as noted, rents were not related to housing c^allty so obtaining good quality acccxrmodation was apparently not a simple matter of money. The per capita charge element found In rents places another restriction on the making of inter-group ccxnparisons. This said, it is clear that household type in Itself is an Important factor In ability to pay required rents. Couples with both partners working are likely to be better placed than families with cxie or even both parents v^rking, and most would have a greater ability to afford the more expensive flats than single people. In fact scxne of the low inccxne single people in the survey had opted to flat-share in order to avoid restriction to bedsit accofifnodat i on. Students, as McDowell (1978) has pointed out, are in a unique position, being able to pool their rescxjrces and group together to fit the acccxrmcxiatlon available. For the analysis of intra-group differences, hcxjseholds which ccxjld distort the picture - such as the pensioner couples, who probably had higher incomes than the sole penslcxiers - are cxnitted. As the furnished and unfurnished sub-sectors ccxnnand very different rents, also excluded are householcis renting furnished acccxrmodation In the pensicx>er group, arxJ hcxjsehlds renting unfurnished acccxTfnodation amongst the other groups (9). As a first step. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the strength of the relationship between inccxnes and rents within each group. Given the disruptions to a straightforward inccxne-rent relat icxishlp detailed above, it was not unexpected that no significant asscx:iations were found; none of the coefficients achieved the 0.05 significance level (10). After this, the 'higher' and ' to%#er' inccxne hcxjseholds within -208- each group were identified by referlng to the median income of the hcxjseho Id group. Rents paid by the hi gher and lower i ncome households could then be compared (Table 6. 6). TABLE 6. 6: REhTTS AND INCOtC Veekly rent £s Pensioner Single Student Couple Fami ly Unfurnished or Furnished Lettings Only! Income ) Kedian for H/H group Hean Rent 21.68 26.6? 25. 76 41.43 43.50 Hedien Rent 23.90 30. 00 25.00 40.00 45.00 Income ( Median for H/H group Kean Rent 20.01 25.96 24.96 39.49 36.96 Hedian Rent 20.?3 25.00 25.00 39.23 34.38 n= U 27 22 19 1? (n= All households excluding those providing inadequate information on incofte or rent, those in dwellings where an unknown amount was paid for major services, pensioner couples, three adults in couples groupt single parents and parents with two or nore children. •= pensioners: unfurnished only; other households: furnished only. I Table 6.6 shows that in each of the household grcxjps median and mean rents were higher amongst the higher Inccxne households (11). Thus ciespite the absence of a consistent association there was ncxietheless an overall tenderKiy for the higher Income households to have outlaid more for their acconmodation. Before Interpreting the patterns in terms of motives, it is important to check whether the differences in rents do signify differences In the accomnodation, specifically, differences in dwelling size and sharing (see Appendix A, Table A. 6. 1). The larger units v^lch involved no sharing will be defined as the 'better' accocrmodat ion. Investigation of the characteristics of the accofmodatIon revealed that. In the case of the pensioners, although the higher Income households more often had larger acconmodatIon (50% had three or more rooms, as opposed to 25% of the lower Income households), they were no more likely to have had exclusive use of all amenities, and most Irrportant ly. It was not the better acconmodat ion that %ras on average the more expensive. So the higher income pensioners paid -209- more, but obtalr>ed worse accorimodat I on, this ar>omaly probably resulting from disproportionate changes in incomes or rents over t ime. By contrast single people, students, couples and families did appear to have optimized to some extent on their housing; those with higher Incomes were much more likely to have had larger acconmodation and exclusive use of all amenities, whilst the 'better' accormodation in ell of these groups conniandod the higher cnean rents. Up to a point, therefore, income differentials explain differences found In the accomrodatIon obtained. The relationship was by no means even, but, with the exception of pen6iof>ers, higher income households tended to obtain the more costly, larger, self- contained acconvnodat ion. So far the analysis of incomes and rents has concentrated on absolute amounts, but it would also be useful to explore whether households wAio spent a high proportion of their Income on housing simply had low Incomes or whether they had high housing costs. If the latter, did they obtain 'better* housing? In Table 6.7 the financial cofffnitment of the households is examined. TAQLE 6> 7; REKT AS A ppOPOf^T|[Qr< pF INCOME I in Household ^rygp Pensioner Single Student Couple Family Rent as 1 of Incone < One-fifth 21 6 - 26 13 One-fifth < Two-fifths 50 29 25 46 43 ) Two-fifths 29 65 73 24 43 Total 100 100 too 100 100 n= 24 31 22 25 30 (n= All households excluding households providing inadequate information on rents or incone and those in lets vith rents that included an unknovn charge for laajor services) The most striking feature about Table 6.7 is the Large proportion of households for whom the rent amounted to two-fifths or more of income. Generally, 'affordable' hcxjsing costs are considered to be where rents amount to one-fifth or less of income (see Chapter Two, Section 2.3>. That so many paid In excess of this -210- amount shows that housing costs were very high in relation to Incomes. This was especially the case with single people and students; the higher lr>comes of ccxjples and the cofKrentrat ion of pensicxiers in the cheaper unfurnished lets reducing to some extent the financial burden for these two grcxjps. Still, it Is not clear whether the households spending two- fifths or more of their Income had had the opportunity to spend less. Their housing costs were certainly higher CTable 6.8). TABLE 6.8: MEDIAN REm-S BY PROPORTION OF INCOME SPENT ON RErfT Hedian Weekly Rent es Pensioner Single Student Couple Faroily Rent as 1 of Incone < Two-fifths 19.48 25.00 22.25 36.25 26.00 ) Two-fifths 29.49 27.50 25.6? 42.50 50.00 n= ?i 31 22 25 30 (n= All households excluding households providing inadequate inforatatlon on rents or incone and those in lets with rents that included an unknown charge for major services) In all household groups, then, but especially the pensioner and family, those who were spending two-fifths or more of their Income on housing had higher median rents. So It might be ccxitended that these households had opted to outlay more for better housing condi t ions. The results of chl-sc^are tests performed to test this hypothesis w^re surprising (Appendix B, Tables B. 6. 1 to B.6.3>. Hcxjseholds spending two-fifths or more of their Income on housing had, in fact, smaller accomodation, were more often sharing rooms and amenities and w«re no more likely to live In dwellings that were of a satisfactory quality than households who spent a smaller proportion of their income on rent. Whereas such households also predominated In furnished acconmodatlon which tended to be smaller than unfurnished and to Involve sharing, removal of unfurnished lets from the analysis did not significantly alter the pattern (see Appendix A, Table A. 6.2, and Appendix B, Tables 8.6.4 to B.6.6. The housing costs of hcxjseholds spending two-fifths or more of their Income on rent were still higher, but they did not have any more space, share rcioms or •21 1- amenities any less nor occupy the better quality lets any more than the other households. Therefore, the households who spent proportionately more on housing and had higher rente did not have better housing conditions. The argument that they actually chose to outlay more of their income on housing looks very tenuous, even allowing for the possibility that extra was paid for other aspects of housing, such as location or appearance. The cor>clusion can only be that many households probably had little alternative but to pay more, perhaps because cheaper accoamodatIon was unavailable when they conducted their search, because they had had limited time to look or because their rents had risen disproportionately since they had accepted their let. It is of some significance that the households who paid proportionately more for their housing had lo%«r Incomes and a much greater dependence on benefits (Appendix A, Tables A. 6. 3 and A. 6. A, and Appendix B, Table B.6.7>. As already mentionned, households for whom benefits cover the rent might be less concerned to obtain the 'best deal'. However, in view of the apparent prejudice of landlords against • DUSS' beneficiaries some households, in particular unemployed single people, couples and families, may have been unable to obtain the best deal; fewer lets being available to them and the acconmodotIon that was accessible perhaps also costing more. The availability of accormodat ion for households In different employment situations will be examined in the next chapter. Unfortunately, because of limited numbers, It is not possible to examine %i«hether unemployed households paid more for their accofrmodation. Such an analysis would need to control not Just for differences In the accomrtodat Ion, but also differences in household type, given the per capita element in rents. Although working households might have had greater opportunities In the private rented housing market and might have been able to pay lower rents for equivalent accocifiodat ion, It does not necessarily follow that they will have obtained better housing than the unemployed or economically inactive. Because households will have differing preferences, knowledge of the market and abilities to conduct a thorough search, the relationship needs to be 212 efnplrlcally tested. As the working households tended to have higher Incomes, an analysis of whether they obtained the better accorrmodat ion in terms of size would probably duplicate the findings on income and housing situation; the larger acconnodat ion tending to be more expensive. But the fact that rents were not related to housing quality effectively provides a control for the interrelationship of income with working situation. So it is possible to examine whether employment situation was, independently of income, associated with housing situation and test the hypothesis that working households, having greater access to lettings, tended to obtain the better quality acconmodatIon. In percentage terms, there was evidence to support the hypothesis. Proportionately more households who had a head in full- time work at the time of moving were in satisfactory dwellings <21% as against 13X of households with no head in full-time work) and proportionately less were in unsatisfactory dwellings <181 as against 32X). Also, households with a head in full-time work at the time of moving were more likely to be satisfactorily housed than non-working households (46X as against 32X>, and less likely to be unsatisfactorily housed (54X as against 68%). Although the differences were not statistically significant (see Appendix B, Tables B. 6. 8 and B.6.9), it is likely that household type acted as an intervening factor; employed families, for exa/rple, possibly facing more restrictions on access than the unemployed single. The relationship between family status and housing situation is examined in Chapter Seven. There was no evidence to show that households with heads in non-manual occupations tended to obtain the better housing (Appendix A, Table A.6.5). As was suggested earlier, landlords might simply be using the phrasing 'suit professional' in adverts to indicate that only working households need apply. Certainly, no respondent in the survey employed in a manual occupation had felt debarred from a letting on encountering this preference. 213- Sunmary In this chapter explar^ations for variations in the sort of privately rented acconvnodatIon obtained by the households have been sought through an examination of the households' incomes, working situations and socio-economic statuses. Investigation of income levels amongst the surveyed households revealed that most were poor; few had Incomes at or above national average levels, and many were dependent on benefits. In examining the relationship between income and housing situation therefore, the study effectively focused on the differences in situation between the * poor* and the 'not so poor*. Since other surveys of private tenants have shown that the majority are poor, this focus was, however, a valid one. The study first discussed the contention that, as higher income households could pay higher rents, ipso facto they obtained the better lettlngs. It was argued that, although there would be such a tendency, a direct or strong relationship was unlikely for several reasons - not (east of which was the very uneven relationship between housing and Its cost. The findings of the analysis gave support to this view; there was no consistent association between Income and housing situation, but overall, the higher Income households paid higher rents and (with the exception of pensioners) more often occupied the better - and generally more expensive - lettlngs, le. acconmodation that was large and provided exclusive use of amenities. The Investigation of the situations of households who paid a large proportion (two-fifths or more) of their income on rent revealed that this could not be explained simply In terms of low Incomes; such households also had nuch higher housing costs. As they did not have any better housing conditions, it was concluded that, because of factors such as discrimination ar>d the nature and timing of searches, these households probably had had little alternative but to pay more. Working situation was found to have a weak association with housing situation; households with an employed head or heads tended to have obtained the better quality housing and were less often in unsatisfactory dwellings. The households were necessarily grouped together for this analysis and it was suggested that controlling for •2U- household type would probably show a njch stronger relationship between economic activity and housing situation. No association between occupational status and housing situation was found, probably because actual occupation was much less important to landlords than whether a household was In employment or not. 215- FQOTNQTHS FOR PHAPT^R 1. The figures were: single 17X, couples 21X, families 471. 2. 'Average weekly household income', examined in Table 6.2, is the total net weekly Income of the household Ci.e. gross Income less deductions, tax and national insurance) less any help with housing costs (Housing Benefit). This is the same definition as 'average weekly disposable household income* used in the FES (In Table 6.2 termed for brevity 'average weekly income') (see OPCS, 1989, p. III). The categorization of the households basically conforms to that used In the FES, although 'pensioners' in the Plymouth survey have been equated with 'retired' in the FES, students and single people have been compared with the FES 'one adult non-retired household' group and the one family containing two adults and one child over 18 and one child under, has been included in Table 6.2 In the families: couple, two children category. In the FES this family would be in the three adults, one or more children group. As the FES does not examine Incomes by both household type and working situation, incomes of single people, couples and families with the sole or both heads employed full-time, or with no head employed full-time have been compared with the incomes of one adult non-retired households, two adult non-retired households and one man, one woman and one child households respect ively. 3. Since January 15th 1989 their role has been reduced, and that of rent officers Increased, because rent officers now decide whether the rent of a property (necessarily refered to them by the local government treasury if a claim for housing benefit has been made) Is equivalent to a 'market' rent (as Indicated by newspaper advertisements, letting agencies etc) for similar properties. The assessed market rent dictates the maximum amount of subsidy local government can claim from central government to cover the housing benefit. Market rent levels, however, are of course dictated by the amounts that can be afforded by the majority of the consumers. -216- 4. More in the family group appeared to be ' inactive' but the economically Inactive includes parents engaged in full-time chiid care. 5. Building societies have been known to grant endoMnent mortgages to the unemployed, In particular to single parents, If there is an assurance from local government treasuries that the mortgage interest wl11 be paid. 6. The collapsed version of the Registrar (general's socio-economic groupings has been used, mainly for reasons of comparability. Also, this study resorted to the convention of selecting the male as the household head %rfhere there %tfhere two heads of household. This was for the sake of comparability, because jobs were classified with men in mind, and because alternative measures (Goldthorpe and Erlckson's 'dominance' principle and Heath and Britten's method) presented problems of their own (see Abbott and Sapsford, 1987, and Social Research Association, 1986). 7. The unemployed tend to be concentrated in the manual occupational groups (Griffin and Rose, 1990, p79). 8. OPCS., 1989b, p. 151. These findings Illustrate the insensitivity of standard occupational status measures to women's disadvantaged position within the economic system. 9. The need for adequate numbers to perform analyses meant that separate consideration of both unfurnished and furnished acconfnodation was not feasible, so for each group the sub-sector selected was that occupied by the most households. 10. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients %rare: pensioners, 0.276 217- t1. There was little difference between the high and low Income students In rent levels, but this might be expected as income differentials were not wide In this group (standard deviation^ £5.06). •216- CHAPTER SEVEN: 1H£ TENAWTS' HOUSING EXPERIENCES AM> THEIR FUTURE PLANS 7. K yrfTRpplJCTION This chapter continues on from the last in that It also aims to find explanations for the households' housing situations. Here, though, the approach used Is one of combining qualitative with quantitative techniques and the emphasis is on the households' personal situations, views, behaviour and especially experiences to elucidate the factors which constrain choice over housing. The chapter Is divided Into three sections. The first (section 7.2) is concerned with the issue of tenure choice, and examines why the households were privately renting and whether they felt other tenures were options at the time they moved into their present home. Special attention Is given to the use of the private rented sector by former owner-occupiers, council and housing association tenants. Section 7.3 focuses on the experiences ar>d the behaviour of the households during the search for privately rented acconrnodation. By tracing the households' searches It Is contended that much can be learned about the factors that constrain or facilitate access, their Importance for different groups, and thus the relative positions of different types of household in the market for private rented housing. It is also possible to assess what factors are significant in explaining eventual housing outcome; In particular, whether 'constraint' does, in fact, appear more Important than 'choice*, and whether discrimination plays a major or a minor role. The analysis in this section is organised around the housing search process, as described in Chapter One, and considers: a) the households' reasons for moving from their previous acconmodation, and the extent to %^lch they chose or were obliged to move. b) the households' aspirations over aconmodat ion; ie. what vrais initially sought with respect to dwelling type, tenure security and cost. -219- c) the factors that could lead households to hold 'high' or 'low' aspirations over accormiodation. d> the nature of the various sources of information on vacancies; the households' use of different sources, and the constraints on choice that emerged as a result. e) the households' experiences when applying for lettlngs; the proportion of lettings that were found to be unavailable or were considered unsuitable and the reasons why lettlngs were unavailable or unsuitable. f) the households' views on their degree of choice over accocrmodat i on. g) the proportion of households in each group who, in the course of searching, changed their initial aspirations over accomnodatIon, the reasons why and the manner in which aspirations were altered, and the extent to which these households had been obliged to modify their original ideas. h) the households' reasons for accepting their present letting and whether they had been able to obtain what was originally wanted,. The section concludes with a review of the findings on the households' searches, and an Investigation into the importance of the factors identified as influencing access for explaining the sort of accofrmodation that different households obtained. The final section is concerned with the households' expectations and preferences over future housing. Within this, a number of Issues are given special consideration. These are: the extent to which residence In the private rented sector was regarded as temporary; demand for local authority housing and the reasons for the demand; views on choice over tenure at the time of the survey; tenure expectations for the short- and mid-term future; the relationship betwen family and occupational status end tenure expectations; the degree to h^lch tenure expectations matched tenure 220- preferences, and the relationship between satisfaction and expectat ions. 7.2. g>TUATlQN WITtilN Thg PRIVATE REMm? ^^CTPR The survey Investigated the role of choice and constraint In explaining why households were privately renting through two questions. The first question (37a) asked the households what their reasons were for renting privately, as opposed to buying, renting from the local authority or a housing association, at the time they moved to their present acconmodat Ion (1). This question gave households the freedom to answer in terms of their preferences or in terms of perceived constraining factors associated with the accessibility of alternative tenures. However, as the question did not directly address the Issue of limitations on action, a second question (37b) asked households If they felt they had to rent privately at that time. Thus It focused directly on perceived ability to exercise choice over housing tenure. In giving their reasons, very few households said that privately renting had been their first choice, had certain advantages or that an alternative tenure had not been wanted (Table 7.1). In fact most nnentioned constraints on their entry to the other sectors. For a question which gave households the opportunity to reply purely In terms of self-determination or at least to optimize a restrictive situation by reference to a personal preference, It Is striking that so many cited negative reasons, effectively saying that a lack of choice over housing %^s the sole factor. There were notable differences between the household groups in the reasons they gave for privately renting. In particular, proportionately more pensioners than any other type of household had preferred to rent privately. When It Is borne In mind that private renting was the main tenure and was conmon In almost all social classes until after the Second World War, It Is not surprising to find that the elderly held more favourable attitudes towards the sector. Proportionately more pensioners also expressed disinterest in or a dislike of other forms of housing provision. In general, -221 owner-occupation had been considered too much of a responsibility whilst council renting implied a lowering of status; pensioners frequently saying they had always been 'too proud' to apply and that council housing was 'for the needy*. X in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family Reasons for not buying Not vant/disliked owner-occupation 18 18 10 3 - Not afford/not have got Dortgage 61 69 52 76 97 Not want and not afford 18 e 14 14 - Not considered 3 5 24 7 3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Reasons for not council renting: Not wanl/disttked council housing 32 13 - 14 3 Thought or found ineligible for/wait too long for council housing 25) 44) 41) 55) 42) Unable to get or unwilling to wait for transfer or exchange front council lei 7)3? -J59 -)41 -)76 14)91 Had too few points on council waiting list 7) 15) -) 21) 35) Not want and not able to get council housing 7 10 7 - 6 Not considered 22 18 52 10 - Total 100 100 100 100 100 Reasons for not renting from housing association: List closed/wait too long for/not afford /ineligible for housing association let - 13 - 10 - Not considered 100 87 100 90 100 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Preference for or advanla9es of privately renting: Prefered to rent privalely 29 15 17 3 - Advantages; tetnporary/convenient/no ties 21 5 10 - - No preferences or advantages mentioned 50 80 73 97 100 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 28 39 29 29 31 In marked ccxitrast to the pensioners, not one family hcxjsehold had wanted to rent privately and none mentioned any advantages of doing so. More often than any other, this group refered to barriers on entry to the other sectors as reasons. All but one family said they could not have afforcied to buy and all but one had forseen or had experienced difficulties in obtaining council housing. One- third had been awaiting rehousing by the local authority, but had not acquired sufficient priority to be considered at the time they 222 had wanted or needed to move. After families, single people and couples most often mentioned constraints on their ability to buy or to rent from the local authority as reasons. Three-quarters of the couples said they had been unable to buy and three-quarters said they could not have obtained council housing. Only one couple had prefered to rent privately. Interestingly, the very groups, single people and students, which might be expected to have either preferred to rent privately or considered it advantageous to do so (at least for a short period) showed few Inclined towards the sector. Whilst it Is the case that students tended not to have considered other options, a number saying they had rented because their friends did or because it was a 'logical' thing to do, it is also clear that students, like the other non-pensioner single in the survey, did not so much want to rent privately as felt they had Little choice. Of final note is the small nurTt>er of households who had considered housing associations as a tenure alternative, which reflects the minor role these still play In housing provision. It is Important to consider the households' responses in the light of their housing backgrounds. By no means all the households had had no personal experience of any other tenure than the private rented since leaving their parental homes. Indeed, up to one-fifth In each group had at one time been owner-occupiers or local authority tenants, as Table 7.2 demonstrates. This movement is against the norm; housing careers usually start in the private sector and then progress to either owner- occupation or public renting (Murie, 1983). Since few of the households had expressed a preference for privately renting (Table 7.1), this movement should be examined. Of interest is whether these households had moved for personal reasons, such as divorce, or had found particular shortcomings or difficulties with their housing. If the latter, had their experience made them more inclined to disfavour their previous tenure and favour the private rented? Table 7.3 examines the respondents' reasons for moving from the sector they had occupied Inmedlately before privately renting. 223- TABLE 7.2; FORfCR OWER-OCCUPIERS. LOCAL AUTHnRITY OR HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS t in Household Sroup Pensioner Single Student Couple Fani iy Former: Ovner-occupiers 21 15 10 10 10 Council tenants U 10 - 3 U Housing association tenants - 3 - - - Owner-occupier and council 4 - - - - Had always rented privately since leaving parental hone 61 72 90 67 74 Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 2t 39 29 29 31 (n= designated respondent in household) TAB^^ 7,3; REASONS FOR nPYHNQ FROM TH^ OVff^-pqCUPIER Previous Housing Sector Owner-occupier Council Housing Association Reasons (X): Personal: Divorced/separated 29 33 - To live with relative 9 7 - To live near relative - 13 - Needed to raise capital 19 - - Hoved for work/college 9 27 - Hoved abroad 5 - - Housinq/Environnent Accon was too expensive 29 - 100 Disliked location - 20 - All Personal 71 60 - All Housing/Environinent 29 20 too Total 100 100 too = 21 15 1 = designated respondent in household. Note that many of the households did their previous sector directly into their present accomodation. Respondents' reasons by household group are shown in Appendix A, Table A. 7.1). Table 7.3 shows that the Instigating reasons for movement were mainly persor>al. Housing reasons prorrpted a change of tenure for only a quarter of former owner occupiers and indirectly, for one 224- fifth of council tenants. These owner-occupiers had moved because the expense of buying had proved too much and the council teneints because they did r>ot like the area In which they had been placed and had been unable to obtain or unwilling to wait for a transfer or exchange within the council sector. Perceived or experienced difficulties in obtaining alternative council acconmodation near relatives, workplace or where work sought, caused an additional two-fifths of the former council tenants to enter the private rented sector. Overall, actual housing dissatisfaction had prompted sectoral change for none of the former council tenants and a minority of the ov«^er occupiers, so it Is not surprising that the households with personal experience of either sector were no more likely to have prefered to rent privately at the time of moving to their present accommodation than the other households (13X of the one time council tenants as against 13X of other households had prefered to rent privately, and 14% of the owner-occupiers as against 12% of the other households (2)). There were, however. Interesting differences In the households' attitudes towards the owner-occupier and council sectors; personal experience appearing to produce attitudes which were not In the direction one might expect from the popular and propagandised Images of the two main sectors. Former council tenants were less likely than the other households to have mentioned a dislike of council housing as a reason for renting privately (7X of former council tenants as opposed to 20% of other households), whereas former owi^r-occuplers were more likely to have mentioned negative aspects of buying a home amongst their reasons for taking a private let (32% compared with 18X of other households). Whatever their attitudes and preferences, the vast majority of the households felt they had no choice but to rent privately at the time they moved Into their present home, as Table 7.4 shows. The most notable feature of Table 7.4 is that all the families felt renting privately had been their only choice (3). Amongst the other households the main alternative had been owner-occupation, an option for one-fifth or more single people and couples. Students' and single peoples' main reasons for deciding against buying was a 225- desire for temporary accommodation or a ccx^cern over the conmitment involved, with the couples the expense was the main deterrent; they wanted to feel more secure financially before buying. Pensioners had mainly not wanted to be responsible for repairs. Only a quarter of those able to buy had been former owner-occupiers; 731 of the households who once had owned or had been buying felt unable to re- on*>ark on house purchase at the time of moving to their present acconmodation. For three households, all pensioners, council housing had been an option. One had turned down housing offered by the Local authority as it involved leaving the neighbourhood, and two households, previously council tenants, had not wanted to wait for a transfer or exchange. TABLE 7.4: F>ERCE1VEP DEGREE C3F CHOICE OVER HOUSING TCNURE I in Household Grpup Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Had to rent privately 75 79 86 76 100 Could have bought U 21 14 2i Could have obtained council housing 11 - - . - Total 100 100 100 100 100 n= 26 39 29 29 31 This investigation into the role of choice and constraint in explaining why the households were privately renting has shown (despite the sizable minority of pensioners v^ose preference was to rent privately), that the overwhelming reason for households of all types were the barriers to entry to the two main alternative tenures. Access to council housing involves being able to wait and amongst many childless hcxjseholds the potential waiting period was seen as so long, and the liketihcx^d of success so slim, given the demand from family households, that they considered themselves effectively debarred entry. Renting privately as opposed to buying was to do with inability; most hcxjseholds (who, as indicated in Chapter Six, had very low inccvnes) considered house purchase beyond their means. A small proportion of the households surveyed had been at one time owner-occupiers or council tenants (14X and 101 respectively). -226- Most had changed to privately renting for personal rather than housing reasons so these moves were not precipitated In the main by tenure dissatisfaction. However, former owner-occupiers did tend to hold less favourable attitudes towards their previous tenure than the other households. By contrast, former council tenants tended to hold more favourable attitudes. When asked to set aside their preferences and consider their options at the time of moving, four In every five of the households said they had had no choice but to rent privately. In view of the minimal extent to which private renting had been prefered, but was perceived to be the only tenure option, Madge and BroMi's cocmient that tenure 'choice' is scarcely an appropriate terirv since 'the housing system channels people Into a hierarchy of tenures according to selection rules that have little to do with individual preference' (1981; p.160), appears at its most pertinent in relation to the situations of the private tenants in the Plymouth study. 7.3. 5ITUATK3N WITHIN PART|qU|-AR PRIVATE REfsfTED ACCOMMOOATI OS This section examines access to private lettings and seeks to explain eventual housing situation by focusing on the households* search exp)erlences and behaviour. For the analysis it was decided to exclude households who had lived In their accommodation over three years (see Chapter Three). Since this removes all but three of the pensioners, the pensioner group will be omitted from the following discussion. Also, the households k«re regrouped In this section according to their household structure and working situation at the time they moved (see Appendix A, Table A. 7. 2). Pregnant women with no other children were placed In the 'family' category because their reasons for moving and aspirations over accormodat ion were likely to have been Influenced by their family status. However, in discussing experiences of constraints and feelings of choice, It Is Important to take Into account the apparent household type that interacted with the agencies and landlords controlling access to housing. Revising the categorisations of the households with this in mind showed that five households would need to be regrouped for analyses concerning interactions. All were families who, having anticipated •227- difficulties in finding accorvfnodat ion because they had or were expecting a child, purported to be childless couples, and in one case a childless single person, during their searches. Rfipgoos fpr hovmg It is important to start the examination of v^y the households were situated in their particular letting by considering their reasons for moving from their last accorrmodation. Since the central theme of the present study is F>rivately renting households' degree of choice or constraint over housing, one topic of interest 16 clearly the extent to v/ilch the households, especially those who had previously been privately renting, had had any choice over whether to move. A sizeable proportion of the former private renters' moves may have resulted from evictions. Also, the households' reasons for moving might well influence their Initial aspirations over accoofnodation (those suddenly finding themselves faced with homelessness, for exairple, may simply t>e concerned to find any letting) and hence may have an effect on the type and quality of the housing eventually obtained. Most analyses of why people move differentiate between voluntary end involuntary moves. However, definitions of the terms vary from study to study so their use can be more confusing than enlightening. For example, Rossi (1980) refers to involuntary moves as those 'forced' by outside circumstances and includes evictions, changes in Job location and changes in marital status. Clark and Onaka (1983) reserve the term 'forced' to refer to moves resulting from evictions or demolitions and use 'induced' to refer to moves resulting from changes In household composition or Job changes. Therefore in the present work these categorizations of moves will be avoided, although as some attention Is given to households v^o were rendered homeless and were ipso facto forced to move, It should be stressed that many more households than these felt they had no choice but to seek alternative accomnodation. From Table 7.5, it is irrmediately apparent that a remarkably high proportion of moves had been prompted by a crisis. Around a quarter of single people and couples, and two-fifths of the families had been homeless or faced with homelessness. Most of the homeless -228- (76X) had been living in private lets and had been served a Notice to Quit or had been evicted, but one-fifth had been turned out of the parental home or had been physically abused and found it untenable to remain. In fact, of the households who had been formerly living in the family home <16% of the movers) a quarter had been obliged to leave for the reasons outlined (see Appendix A, Tables A. 7. 3 and A. 7. 4). In most cases pregnancy contributed to a family split. Of the households who had previously been privately renting (581 of the movers. Appendix A, Table A. 7. 3), 30X had been served notice or evicted. Harassment from the landlord or other tenants In lettlngs also figured as crisis situations precipitating moves, whilst separation or divorce had obliged one-fifth of single people to seek rehousing. TAQLE 7.5; REASON? FOR nQV^NQ Single Student Couple Fantly Reasons Hoved into sree/from abroad-for vork/lo start or resuie college course/to be near relatives 53 16 24 Vanted-private let/different type of private let/different location 9 17 - - Had poor quality or expensive private let 20 17 16 24 Harassnent from landlord or tenanKs) at private let 9 - 16 - Set up on own/with partner 9 - 12 Separation/divorce 20 7 - - Homeless/facing homelessness 21 7 2) 40 comprising: given notice/evicted from private let 15 7 11 24 -and living tenporarily with friends or relatives 9 - 5 - physical violence in/evicted from - parental hone 3 - - 16 own honte repossessed - - 5 - Total 100 100 100 100 n= 34 30 19 25 ( n= All households moving within the three years prior to the survey. Hoaseholds regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant women with no other children included within the family group (see Appendix A, Table A.7.2). •= households told to leave, le. excludes households reporting they had to nove because of 'friction' or 'rows'.) Poor or expensive hcxislng was another important reason for moving, especially for single people and families. All these 229- families had been living In bedsits and sharing facilities. A prominent reason given by the couples for moving was that they had previously lived apart and wanted to set up as a unit. For students, a need for housing close to place of study was the main reason, although a third had moved within the sector to improve their housing conditions, their location or letting arrangement - here mainly moving from lodgings or bedsits and seeking houses to share with friends. But, apart from students, for most households * push' rather than 'pull' factors had prompted moves and most 'push' factors related to problems associated with their previous private let; poor conditions, high rents, harassment, action to repossess or actual eviction. Over two-fifths of the households (76% of those who had previously been privately renting), had moved In response to these factors. Such findings contrast sharply with other studies of mobility (see Chapter One) which have neglected the very constrained circumstances of private renters and low income households and so have tended to over-emphasize a picture of residential mobility as household-motivated and mainly concerning a desire to seek improvements upon attributes of the dwelling (especially in terms of its size) or the neighbourhood (i). Aspirations Over Ac c ofrrnodat i on In the survey households were asked an open-ended question on the sort of acconmodat Ion they wanted and then were prompted to say how important the type of accorrmodat ion (house, flat, bedsit, for example), furniture, degree of sharing, size and quality were to them (questions 24 and 25). Replies of 'very important' and all responses to the open-ended question are shown In Table 7.6. This shows that the majority of households had some preferences, but most of these were very basic and involved the type of accoamodat ion, the presence of furniture and sharing; little priority was placed on size and quality. It Is noteworthy that families show^ the highest proportion prepared to take anything and the highest proportion for whom the type of accorrmodat i on was not a priority. This, perhaps, was because they anticipated discrimination in the market. Also, families, more than other •230- households, might be expected not to want to share facilities this was a priority for proportionately fewer than in the sing lABLt 7.6: A5KIRATION5 ACCOmODATlON X In Household Group Single Student Couple Fani Any accon. acceptable 7 - - 17 Some aspirations 93 100 100 83 Total lOO 100 100 100 Im House for H/H - - - 4 House to share with friends 32 - - Room In shared house - 18 - - Flat for H/K 41 - 94 70 Flat to share with friend 14 21 - - Bedsit/bedsit with separate cooking facilities 24 11 - - Type not a priority 17 18 6 26 Total 1O0 100 100 100 Furniture Furnished 69 93 18 22 Unfurnished - - 12 4 Not a priority 31 7 70 74 Total lOO 100 100 100 Sf^aring Flat S/C or no sharing facililtes 52 7 70 61 Bedsit/Any type no sharing of kitchen 7 3 - 4 Not a priority 41 90 30 35 Total 100 100 too too Size Two bedrooms - - - 30 Large flat 10 - - 13 Large bedsit/Any type 10 7 - - Not a priority 60 93 100 57 Total 1O0 100 100 100 Quality Good condition/clean/not damp 21 36 18 26 Not a priority 79 64 82 74 Total 100 100 100 100 Qther Grnd or Ist floor/cent, heating/fuel bills incl./ few restrictions/nany sockets/no blacks/garden/ T.V./no resident landlord/separate living room 14 32 12 22 No other priorities 68 88 76 Total too 100 100 too n= 29 26 17 23 ( n= All households moving vithln the three years prior to the survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of oove. Table excludes households with 'no' aspirations because they had been transfered by their landlords, had moved in with a friend or relative, or had not planned to move but had been offered alternative accoounodation). •231 the couples group. However, both families and couples had a narrow range of preferences in terms of the type of accormodat ion wanted, arwd more wanted self-contained units than either single people or students. Most families and couples sought a self-contained flat. This underlines the point made by McDowell (1978) that students - as do other single person households - arguably have the coopetitive edge In the market because they tend towards greater variability (and flexibility, where there is a willingness to group together and share housing) In the type of accorrmodat ion sought. It is interesting that the single people, at whom the bed- sitting room Is aimed, tended to prefer flats, more than half wanting a flat for themself or to share with a friend. Nearly all the students and most of the single people considered the presence of furniture to be very important, probably reflecting an expectation of a short term of residence. As virtually all the lettings that have come on to the market during recent years have been furnished, such an aspiration is not over-ambitious and indeed it was amongst the easiest to fufil (see Table 7.23). Students were the most concerned about quality and more In this group had additional criteria, especially with regard to the provision of central heating and the rental to include a charge for fuel bills. Households were also asked about their aspirations with respect to security of tenure and rent levels. Very few households (10%) said that security of tenure was a 'very important' concern when they were looking for accorrmodat I on (see Appendix A, Table A. 7. 5). However, It appears that the Issue was simply not given much consideration at that time because when attitudes were probed, only IIX of all households said they had not minded how long the letting was available to them and two-fifths said they had really hoped to keep the let for at least a year or for as long as they chose. Contrary to an expectation that couples, and families especially (given their expressed preference for tenure security, shown In Chapter Five), might have been more definite and more demanding in their aspirations, there were no significant differences in responses between the household groups. But as also noted in Chapter Five, security of tenure tended to be seen more as a matter of landlord/tenant relations than legal arrangements and 232 this Is probably why security was given little attention when acconmodation was sought. With respect to rent levels, the majority of households said the issue had been a 'very important' or 'important' consideration (Appendix A, Table A. 7.6>, and most households had fairly clear ideas as to what rents they could afford (Table 7.7). TABLE 7.7: ASPlRATI(a>S OVER RB^T t In Household Group Single Student Couple Fami I y Rent Cheap/the cheapest 7 n 24 9 Dependent on S.B. so vithin H. B. Units 28 - - 30 Hax. rent specified i nornal H.B. Units 34 86 24 ?& Hax. rent specified > nornal H.B. Units 3 - 35 9 Any rent 7 - - - Not thought about 2! 3 17 26 Total 100 100 100 100 n= 29 28 17 23 { n= All households tnovirtg within the three years prior to the survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of laove. Table excludes households with 'no* aspirations because they had been transfered by their landlords, had fnoved in with a friend or relative, or had not planned to novc but had been offered alternative accoiuRodation. 'Normal' H.B. (housing benefit) limits refers to rents acceptable to Plyoouth City Treasury. Information obtained via personal connunicatton. In December 1987 the ceilings for furnished accommodation vere: for single persons, bedsit £30, flat £35; for couples, £45 for a room or a flat, and for fanilies £45 for a room end £55 for a flat. These ceilings were sonewhal variable; sometimes less was paid or on appeal a tenant night obtain full payment of a higher rent.) A number of households pointed exit that because they received Supplementary Benefit they were limited to rentals that were acceptable to the DHSS. All of these were quite specific as to the maximum rents they thought would be paid. A significant proportion of the other households stated the maximum amount they could or would pay, in most of these cases the rent equalled or was below amounts generally paid by the City Treasury at that time. So, Including hcxjseholds who wanted 'cheap' or 'the cheapest' housing, as Table 7.7 shows, the majority had aspirations for acconmodation with relatively low rents <69X of single people, 97% of students, SAX of couples and 65X of families). -233- Comparing the household groups, students were the most keen to pay low rents whilst ccxjples showed a high proportion prepared to pay rents that were above the normal H.B. rate. Two-thirds of these couples had both partners working full time, so this probably accounts for their greater flexibility. Overall, however, households with a working head or heads did not appear to have been more willing to pay higher rents than households with no working head (see Appendix A, Table A. 7.7), indicating either that wages were low or that working households chose to save rather than outlay more on hcxjslng. Influences on Aspirations It can be seen from the previous discussion that aspirations over acconmodat Ion were multi-faceted. Indeed, as a result, it was rare for two or more households to hold Identical aspirations. But perusal of indivdual responses did reveal that scxne households were quite particular; wanting, for example: "a two bed-roomed flat on the ground or first floor with the kitchen separate from the living rcx)m", whilst others held very basic ideas, wanting, for example: "any bedsit". Uhy some households shcxjld be demanding and others not is difficult to Jucige. The factors responsible are probably numerous and some potential Influences are either not amenable to measurement or difficult to assess in post-facto research; prior knowledge of the housing market, perception of opportunities and Individual taste, for Instance (5). However, because Initial aspirations will have some impact on housing outcomes - the holding of. low aspirations implies that less optimum housing will be obtained - It Is an issue which needs, as far as the data allow, to be Investigated. It was hypothesized that hcxjseholds' personal situations would have ar> effect on aspirations, with adverse situations acting as constraints. As suggested earlier, reasons for moving could have an impact; here a situation of homelessness or potential homelessness ccxjld have caused hcxiseholds to decide that finding acconmodation per se rather than any particular type, was their priority. Similarly, economic inactivity (and hence lower bargaining power). 234- lack of time to look ar>d previous residence outside Plymouth and so at a distance from the search area, could have caused households to hold low Initial aspirations. To examine these as factors it was necessary to separate out households who held ' low* aspirations. These were deemed to be single people and stucients who had stated that all they wanted was * any acconrnociat ion' or 'any bedsit or room', and couples and families who had %mnted 'any acconiDodation' or *any flat*. It was found that 14% of single people and students, 24t of couples and 30X of families had such low aspirations. 'Low' aspirations 'Higher' asp 1 of Households: No head working full-tine 53 56 HeadCs) working full-tine 47 44 Total too too n= (excludes students) 15 54 Needed accom. urgently/within ? weeks 42 35 Did not need accon. urgently/within 2 weeks 58 65 Total too too n= 19 78 Previous accooi. outside Plymoulti 32 36 Previous accoa inside Plymouth 68 64 Total too 100 n= 19 78 Homeless/faced honelessness 37 21 Not homeless/feeing honelessness 63 79 Total too 100 n= 19 78 ( n= All households moving within the three years prior to the survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove. fable excludes households with 'no' aspirations because they had been transfered by their landlords, had moved In with a friend or relative, or had not planned to move but had been offered alternative accommodation.) Table 7.8 shows that the hcxiseholds with high aspirations were as likely to have been economically Inactive and live outside Plymouth as those holding low aspirations. Slightly more households with low aspirations did have less time to search, but the only notable difference between the households appears to be In terms of adverse reason for moving; proportionately more with low aspirations 235 had been homeless or facing homelessness (6). This however offers only a partial explanation. Examination of the individual cases where aspirations were low Indicates, as was expected, that It Is a combination of factors relating to the households* beliefs as well as to their situatiorts which would account for the differences In aspiration levels. All but one of the households (who wanted a temporary 'base* prior to house purchase) either considered they were constrained In their ability to undertake an extended search because they were homeless or needed accommodation urgently (37X of the housholds with low aspirations), or said they had anticipated difficulties because they were unemployed or had children (58X). For these households flexibility in aspirations rather than placing stipulations on the type of accomnodat ion sought was seen as the most sensible course of action. Use of Information Sources People can use a number of sources of information to find a vacancy in the private rented sector. Some sources are informal, friends or relatives for example can provide information. Most are formal and these comprise letting and estate agents, advertisements in newspapers or shop windows and 'specialist* agencies or sources, which cater for particular types of client (7). (nforrpal Sources Informal sources of information can be very useful. Indeed, in the Plymouth survey It was found that, for a number of households, the use of 'Inside Information' had obviated the need for a search as such, whilst other households had made 'windfall* moves after vacant accorrmodatIon had been brought to their attention by friends. As a result of personal contacts nearly one-fifth of all movers had not actively searched for housing (Table 7.9). Friends and relatives can be valuable In a number of ways. Some might only be able to 'keep their eyes open' for vacancies, or a^ amongst their friends. But others might themselves be privately renting and so be in a position to know of inminent vacancies in their house. They can also ask their landlord about vacancies In 236 their property, or In other properties the landlord might have. This has the added advantage of providing the applicant with a referral: a landlord might be more willing to let to someone who is a friend of the tenant than to a ccxrplete stranger. As one respondent who was Intrcxluced to her landlord by one of his tenants put it: "The landlord much prefers a personal reconrner^dation, he likes to keep it (the property) in the 'family'. I know when he advertises, he uses a box nuirtoer and gets hundreds asking" TABLE 7,9: TYPES A^P SOURCES OF IKFORMAL irFORWATION PRE-EMPTING SEARCHES WMmbpr in Hotigghgttf grpMp Single Student Couple Family yindfplf Wovps Landlord friend offered accom. Friend/relative asked H/H to share accom. 2 3 t - 1 Friend vacated accom. and informed H/H 1 Vacancy in property so requested transfer - 1 - Facilitated Moves K/H knew landlord personally or through friend/ relation and asked for accotn. ( 2 - 2 K/H asked own landlord if any vacancies in his/ her other properties 1 - 1 - All H/H not searching as result of windfall or facilitated noves 10 5 3 2 -as X of all moving households ?91 17X Ut 8ZZ (nean 19t) All households moving 34 30 19 25 (All households noving = all households ntoving within the three years prior to the survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of ntove, pregnant women vith no other children included within the family group. Windfall moves are as defined by Rossi (1980, p.164), and occurred where a desire (or need) to move was precipitated into action by the appearance of on unanticipated opportunity to improve (or obtain) housing. Facilitated moves are where households had landlord contacts which were successfully employed when the need or desire to tMve arose. An additional four households; 1 single, 1 couple and 2 families, had not wanted to move but had been transfered by their landlords and so had also not engaged in a search for housing.) For lar>dlord5 who let properties which involve a high degree of sharing or who let to a group rather than to Individual households, it is usually important that the tenants are ccxnpatlble. Here personal reccvrmendat ions can be very Influential. 237- Some informal contacts might themselves be friendly with, or related to a landlord and can recorrmend the household. Some might have Influence through their work, one household, for example, fcxjnd housing through a friend who worked in an estate agency. Of course the household itself, or a merrber, might be a frienci, relative or tenant of a landlord and can ask directly after a vacancy or alternative let. Adding to the advantage of improving a household's chances of t>elng accepted for a vacancy, referrals can also enable cheaper housing to be obtained or reduce the likelihcxjd of the landlord asking for a deposit CMcCarthy, 1982). Such financial benefits for the households in the Plymouth survey who obtained their acccxmociat I on through personal contacts will be examined later in this chapter. Fprmal SQurcps Letting agents find (for a fee) 'suitable' tenants for landlords and 'suitable' accommodation for prospective tenants. They are important gatekeepers in the private rented housing market, controlling access to housing in two main ways. First, they will Initially vet the applicant (prior to referral to a landlord), on occasions having sole responsibility over vetting. It Is possible that some households who were told by agents that no accofrmodat ion or none of the type recfjired was available, had, in fact, been deemed 'unsuitable'. Sometimes agents' views on suitability are made c^uite explicit; many stucients, for example, reported that certain agencies had notices on their doors stating 'no students'. Contact with any of the formal sources of Information can teach households rruch about their housing opportunities, with respect to eligibility as well as to the current market situation. Households* reports on their conversations with letting agents prociuced the following examples: "I was told it was a bad time of year for shared houses." •They hadn't any flats, they said they could only do bedsits for unemployed families." "I was told unfurnished places were like gold dust." 238- "He said I had no hope because I have children." "Quite a few said the standard of acconmociat icxi for unemployed people was too low for them (to cieal with) and four exit of five agencies would not deal with unemployed people. I got an awful reaction when 1 said I was unemployed" A second way In which letting agencies control access to housing is that, since the agencies can only let properties that are on their books, some of which might not be so desirable, they can manoeuvre households Into particular accoiiiiiuJatIon. In this process the applicant's wishes can be overlooked: ...one (letting agent) was really unhelpful, he didn't listen to what we wanted and then wondered why we weren't satIsfled . . when he gave us a place In the wrong area he acted as if he were doing us a favcxjr.He said: 'You're fit young students, you should be able to walk!' He had an attitucie of ' don' t-waste-my-t ime-you-should-accept-what-you-are-given'. " They were a pain in the neck, we told them what we wanted but they sent us to grotty places or places in the wrong area or bedsits (a flat was wanted) - and we said no resident landlords - we were sent to those too." Some Just wanted to get rid of their rubbish property and Just wanted the money. " A number of households commented that the order in which the accofimodation they had been sent to or taken to view noticeably started with the worst and then gradually improved. Although some households did feel their wishes were followed - and good treatment could mean they were deemed more acceptable - it Is clear that letting agents can play a significant part In affecting eventual hcMJSlng outcomes. The same can be said of estate agencies which deal in residential lets, because they operate In a very similar way to letting agents. In Plymouth, however, their role as acconmodation agencies has diminished over the years and very few provided this service at the time of the survey. The main newspapers providing information on acconfnodation to let in the Plymouth area are the Western Morning News, the Evening Herald anci, to a lesser extent, the 'free' papers; the Plymouth Star (8) and the Extra. Households can also refer to advertisements -239- placed in some newsagents or general stores. Many advertisements provide information not just on the the type of acomnodation and its price but also on the sort of tenant wanted. The following is typical: 'Flat, furnished, £65 per week, no pets, DHS5 or children' (9). In this way households using these sources learn about the constraints they face in the market. The most important specialist agencies operating in the locality are the student accomnodatIon services at the Polytechnic South West and at the College of St. Mark and St. John, the Probation Service acconmodation agency and the Local Authority agency attached to Plymouth Hospital. For landlords such outlets can ensure that vacancies only come to the attention of certain types of people, but no doubt some use them as additional advertising possibilities. On the demand side, specialist agencies clearly provide certain sections with extra information resources, although the rationale for the agencies is that the groups under their aegis do need additional help. For example, each September approximately 3000 of the students beginning courses at the Polytechnic South West seek accommodation within the private rented sector (10). These students face a high level of competition and generally have little time to search. Therefore the students' accofTTTKDdat Ion service helps by providing each client with a list of between three and ten private rentals, taking into some account the client's preferences. However, there is no guarantee that the units have not been advertised elsewhere, that they represent vacancies or that they have not been withdrawn from the market. The Probation Service acconmodation agency finds homes in the private rented sector for ex-offenders who have nowhere Irnnediate to stay on leaving Institutions. Some, if not all landlords using this service will be attracted by the chance of achieving maximum occupancy of their properties. Any additional Insurance premiums are also covered. In general, specialist agencies undertake some degree of 'vetting* of landlords ^o wish their properties to be included on agency books. 240- TABLE 7.10; SO^CES OF ll^ORHATION ON VACANCIES USED BY THE HOUSEHOLDS I in Household Group Single Student Couple Fanily 1 of all households who used; Friend or relative 73 43 56 70 Ovn landlord or landlord friend 15 10 11 9 letting agent 39 37 44 52 Estate agent 6 17 28 17 Newspaper advertisement 56 40 83 87 Advertisenent in shop 45 17 33 48 Student or other specialist sources 6 83 6 4 n= 33 30 18 23 Sone inultipte responses TABLE 7. 11: SUCCESS MTE IN THE USE OF T>g irFORMATION SOURCES 1 in Household Group Single Student Couple Fanily H/H finding their BCCOB, through source as % of H/H usinp source Friend/relative/own landlord/ landlord friend 66 63 67 50 Letting or estate agent 20 44 31 25 Newspaper advertisement 53 42 40 50 Advertisenent in shop 0 0 0 0 Student or other specialist source 50 0 0 32 33 18 23 30 TABLE 7. 12: IM=ORMATION SOURCE BY WICH ACCOf^ATlON FOUM) % in Household Group Single Student Couple Fertily I of H/K who found their accom. throuqh: Friend/relative/ovn landlord/ landlord friend 53 33 45 39 Letting or estate agent 9 23 22 17 Newspaper advertisenent 30 17 33 44 Advertisenent in shop - - - - Student or other specialist source 3 27 - - Total 100 100 100 100 n= 33 30 18 23 (n= All households who roved within the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at ticte of move, pregnant wonten with no other children included within the fanily group. Tables exclude those not wanting to nove but transfered by their landlords. For conversion of percentages in Table 7.11 to numbers, reference must be eude to fable 7.10.) Apart from these agencies there are other specialist sources 241- of information, for example advertisements placed in special interest journals such as a Church paper or in particular locations such as within the Plymcxjth Dockyard. In the survey, only four hcxjseholds used any specialist source other than stucient accofTfnodation agencies (11). Ltee of all the different sources of informat icxi, the success rate in the use of each source and the source by which the households found their accorrmnodat ton are shown in Tables 7. 10 to 7. 12. The importance of informal sources for finding accoomodation in the private rented sector is clearly demonstrated by the tables. Many householcis turned to friends or relatives to help them find a let, on average, three in every five housholds who used personal ccxitacts obtained acccxmodat ion through them, and, as Table 7.12 shows, a significant proportion of all lettings were found with the aid of such sources. Also, as already noted, scxne 201 of households did not need to undertake any 'search' for hcxjslng because they had 'inside' information on vacancies. Underlining this point about the value of personal contacts are the data on students' experiences. Although the agency catering especially for them was heavily used, it proved less helpful than Informal ccxitacts. From the students' accounts this was mainly because of the problems with the information supplied by the service, which have been mentioned earlier. Amongst the household groups, informal sources v^re particularly significant for single people, as well as being particularly useful; over a half of this group's accorrvnodat ion had been obtained through friends, relatives or landlord acquaintances. Of the formal sources of information, newspaper advertisements, and to a lesser extent letting agencies, were also widely used, the former with a reasonable degree (approximately SOX) of success. Families and couples tended to rely more than the other hcxjseholds on these scxirces. A factor which might significantly constrain search activity is residence at a distance from the Icxrality where acconmodat ion is scxjght. Households moving into an area are likely to have less time to spend on the actual search prcx:ess than locals; potentially having to cram visits to the various acccxTmodation agencies as well as inspections of dwellings into a few days' stay with friends or in -242 lodgings. This appeared to have been the case with the surveyed hcxjseholds, time resources having been especially tight for non- tocals. Nearly a half (471) said that hcxjsing had to be found urgently or within two weeks, as opposed to a quarter of the locals - this difference also being significant statistically (see Appendix B. Table B. 7. 1>. Given the Importance of personal ccx^tacts for finding acccxrmodation, it might be thought that non-locals ccxjld also be disadvantaged in this respect. But of course nor>-locals can have contacts within a search area, indeed, a household might be attracted to a place because of friends or relatives living there. Amongst the Plymouth sample, many of the r>on-locals had used informal contacts within the search area to help them find vacancies, and the proportion was not much lower than that of locals (61X as againgst 74X>. Overall, there was not a great deal between locals and non-locals in the frec|uency with which different types of information source were used (Appendix A, Table A. 7.8). The main constraint on their search activity, therefore, appears to have been I imi ted t ime. As noted, use of formal, non-specialist agencies revealed much to the households about their opportunities; through informal sources they simply found out w4iether help was available. Table 7.13 shows the proportion in each group learning they were ineligible for certain accontnodat Ion and what the barriers were. It also shows the proportion unable to apply for some accocnnodation for financial reasons, because the rent was too expensive or because money required 'up front' (a deposit or rent in advance) was too high; and the proportion finding their aspirations over type of accormiodation were probl&natic because of paucity of supply. Clearly, inelibillty for acccxmodat ion was a significant constraint on choice. One in fcxjr single people, one In three students and couples, arxJ almost every family found this to be a problem. Around cxie half of the unenployed in each group learned they were debarred frcxn certain lets either because they were unemployed or were not 'professionals'. As noted before, a non• professional status did not, however, hinder any of the working hcxjseholds, ' prof ess i or>a I' was taken simply to mean 'respectable' working people. Apart from ur^employment as a constraint, the very 243 TABLE 7. 13: COSTRAINTS ON CHOICE UEM9BD THROUGH FORMAL NON- SPECIALIST 1^F0RMATI0N SOURCES. INELIGIBILITY. PRICE AM) SUPPLY qONSTRAlNTS, Single Student Couple Family Type of canslrainl encountered Eligibility Constraints No DHSS/professionals only 22 N/A 16 32 - as 1 alt H/H DH5S SO N/A 50 56 No students/vorking only N/A 37 N/A N/A No couples N/A N/A 21 6 No children N/A N/A . N/A 94 No pets 4 - - 13 t of H/H learning of at least one eligibility problen 22 37 32 94 Price Constraints Reni/deposit/rent in advance too expensive 43 21 26 38 Supply Constraints Few or no lets of type wanted 74 6B 63 2S n= 23 19 19 16 Sone Multiple Responses {n= All households who had moved within the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at tiioe of nove, pregnant wonen with no other children included within the fantly group and five families purporting to be childless regrouped into appropriate categories. Table considers only the households who had tried one or nore fornal non-specialist agency (i.e. letting or estate agents and advertisements in newspapers or shops). DH5&= households with unenfloyed, pernanently sick or unavailable for work headCs) and dependent on state benefits.) fact of being a student or a couple was found to be a problem by more than a charter In these two groups. But families faced the worst restrictions, all except one learning that their chidren hampered their choice over accomnodation. Given this, it is not surprising five families pretended they were childless or concealed the fact they ^re expecting during their searches. They must certainly have improved their chances of obtaining acconmodation by doing so. Probably because they ccxjid not overcame the first hurdle of being childless, an inadequate supply of suitable lets did not figure as significant a problem for families as it did for the other households, around two-thirds of whom found this restriction. In addition, over or>e-fifth In each group (and nearly a half of single -244- people), learned that the cost of the sort of acconfnodat Ion they wanted debarred them from some otherwise apparently suitable lets. Experiences on Application When a vacancy is located that appears to be accessible, affordable and suitable, the household can make an application. This does not necessarily signify the end of the search, since the household might decide that better acconmodation could be obtained elsewhere, or the landlord might turn them down. This section explores how many, and why, vacancies that appeared to be suitable and so were inquired after (whether by telephone or in person) were either rejected by, or were unavailable to households. Table 7.14 examines the proportion of vacancies that were 'taken' 'unsuitable' and 'unavailable' of all the vacancies applied for within a household group (12). 'Unavailable' accorrmodat ion has been sub-divided into three categories according to the broad reason for the probleoL The first category concerns cost; the periodic rent, rent required in advance or deposit against damages was beyond the means of the household. The second, ineligibility; the household was rejected on the grounds of marital, family or working status, sex, personal habits or domestic pets. The final reason only applied to students. They had to turn dov^ some accorrmodation either because it was not ready for immediate occupation or (more often) the landlord refused to accept a 'retainer'; reduced rent for a number of weeks which would hold the property until the student could move in. On afsplying for some vacancies the household was told that they were already taken. This might have been true, but it should be pointed out that landlords might occasionally find it simpler to tell an 'undesirable' applicant that a vacancy is filled rather than provide reasons for a refusal. As a result there could be an underestimation of the problem of ineligibility. With regard to 'unsuitable' vacancies, initial aspirations, expectations and the acquiring of information on private rented acconmodation would have already channelled households into applying only for certain vacancies. So the proportion of vacancies that the household considered unsuitable can be seen as reflecting the degree 245 of choice that could be exercised at the point of application. TAB^.E 7. ^4: VACAWCjpg THAT VgRE TA^EN, WSVtTAQ^E Pl^ UMAVAmABLg ^Y H0U5EH(X,P GROyp Housfihold firoup Single Student Couple Fasily Eip. Unenp. Eip. Uneap, E^. Unenp, t of all vacancies? Taken 41 24 40 S 53 4 15 Unsuitable 41 20 27 41 35 21 4 Unavailable 18 56 33 •53 12 75 81 of vhich: Too expensive U 6 13 25 - 9 2 H/H ineligible 4 50 8 28 12 66 79 AccoB not readf/no retainer N/A N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total too 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total no, of vacancies 168 150 229 150 34 275 134 Nean no, applications per H/H 2) 13 II 14 9 39 15 Hedian no, 15 10 9 8 11 40 5 Nean no, vacancies unsuitable (excluding students) 9 3 N/A 6 3 8 1 n= 8 12 20 11 4 7 9 (RC All households vho had ooved vithin the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at tine of nove, pregnant voaen vith no other children included in the fanily group and five faiilies purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories. Table excludes households vho had been transfered by their landlords, had not needed to search, had applied for, and accepted one vacancy or had provided inadequate inforiation on their experiences on application, Uneap,= unenployed, perianently sick or unavailable for vork household headCs); EDp,= at least one household head enployed full-tine,) A8 Table 7. 14 6ho%^, all types of household were only able to exercise choice over a minority of the vacancies that they applied for. Non-working fasdlies fared worst; for every vacancy that «#a6 considered unsuitable, twenty-seven t«ere either taken or unavailable whilst students, non-working single people and working families were in a position to turn down less than one In four vacancies. Ineligibility was the main reason acconmodatlon was unavailable. The effect of this was severe for some groups; %rith one half of the vacancies enquired after by non-working single people, and over t%io-thirds of those by families, landlords* personal preferences and prejudices barred access. Table 7. 15 demonstrates that discrimination against DH5S beneficiaries was 246 TABLE 7. 15: LAM)LORDS' REASONS FOR REJECTING HOUSEHOLDS Hutnber of Applications by Household Group Single Student Couple Fanily Enp. Uneflf). Enp. Unenp. Enp. Unemp. Reason H/H ineligible Children N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 176 56 DHSS/professionals N/A 61 N/A N/A 1 N/A 61 Pets - 7 - 15 - 5 2 Mixed sex group/coupte - - 3 9 - 5 - Hale sharing/single itale 6 7 - N/A N/A N/A . N/A Student/not working N/A N/A 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A Not a student - - N/A 5 3 - - Cohabiting couple N/A N/A N/A 7 - - - Snoker - - - 3 - - - Fenale sharing/single female - - 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Reason not given - - - 3 - - 1 Total no. of vacancies for which H/H ineligible 6 75 16 42 181 107 I vacancies for which H/H Ineligible of all vacancies excluding those 'taken' 6 66 13 30 25 69 94 No. in H/H group 8 \2 20 II 4 7 9 Sonte Multiple Responses ln= All households who had moved within the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant women with no other children included in Ihe family group and five families purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories. Table excludes households who had been transfered by their landlords, had not needed to search, had applied for, and accepted one vacancy or had provided inadequate tnfornation on their experiences on application. Unemp. = unemployed, permanently sick or unavailable for work household headCs); Etnp. = at least one household head enployed full-tiote.) particularly significant. This %AS such a problem for the unemployed that although working households tended to have greater difficulties in affording accomnodation (and working couples especially, experienced discrimination on a nurrt>er of other grounds, such as co-habitation and possession of pets), the unemployed overall found that for every vacancy they considered unsuitable, four were unavailable. The ratio for working households was three to five. Perhaps realising their greater bargaining power, %Mrking hcxjseholds turned down significantly more vacancies on average than non-M5rklng households (Table 7.14). The actual extent of discrimination against families is also revealed In Tables 7. U and 7. 15. Working families found that their children debarred them from two-thirds of the vacancies applied for -247- which had not already been taken, and unemployed families, one half of the vacancies - the proportion in this case being smaller possibly because landlords prefered to tell unemployed families that the accorrmodat ion was for working people rather than say children were unwanted. Overall, families found that for every vacancy they considered unsuitable, six were unavailable. Childless households had conparat ively rnjch more choice, the ratio for them was six considered unsuitable to seven unavailable. In previous work the incidence of discrimination has been found to be associated with a greater search effort (Weisbrod and Vidal. 1981; pp. 474-75). Search effort, in Weisbrod and Vidal's study was measured in terms of the number of places looked at, which is similar to the number of vacancies applied for in the present work (13). Examination of this relationship in the Plymouth study produced findings endorsing Weisbrod and Vldal's results. Amongst the unemployed, households who had been refused accoirmodat ion because of their working situation had each applied for 17 vacancies on average as against 5 vacancies by households encountering no such discrimination (14). Although numbers were small and are therefore to some extent unreliable, a similar pattern was found for households with children. In this case, families who had encountered discrimination against children applied on average for 33 vacancies, whilst families who had not, applied for 10 vacancies (15). Weisbrod and Vldal took their findings to indicate that households who encounter discrimination have to search rruch harder for their acconmodat Ion. However, it is quite possible that the greater the search effort, le. the more vacancies are applied for, the more likely It Is that discrimination of one sort or another will be encountered. The association also begs the question 'why was it that certain unemployed and family households did not encounter discrimination?' Qualitative analysis of the reported experiences of these households provides the answer as well as evidence to support Weisbrod and Vidal's Interpretation of the relationship. The unemployed households and the families who did not encounter discrimination when making applications had, in virtually all cases, become aware of the problems they faced through using the various information sources. As a result, the majority -248 had turned to friends, Including landlord contacts, to obtain accorrmodat ion; this fact underlining the Importance of having Informal contacts In the private rented housing market. The ones who didn't have any Informal r>etwork to turn to had Instead attempted to Improve their chances when applying by, for example, only contacting landlords over vacancies that were clearly available to them (pursuing adverts stating 0H5S welcome, for example) or by contacting the landlord face to face arxi showing cash as a persuasive tactic. Qualitative analysis of the experiences of the households in general, illuminated the special problems faced by DHSS recipients and families. Many families became very despondent on realising the restrictions facing them: "I was made to feel that what I wanted was not there at all. So if ycxj* ve got a child - too bad! You won't get a place to L Ive. " "I got so that I would take anything as I was desperate to get anywhere that would accept children." "We were appalled (at the number not wanting children) as there must be hundreds of people who want accormiodatIon. How do they move? How do they find a place?" "hiewspaper ads. didn't always say If they would take children and we'd 'phone up and say: 'Would you take one child?' and they said: 'No'. We were 'phoning all the time." "As soon as I mentlonned kids the landlords didn't want to know. I began to start the 'phone call saying I had children to save time. " It might be argued that restrictions placed by some landlords are compensated for by restrictions placed by others. So one landlord will turn down a single man, for example, whilst another, a single woman. But this is true of only a minority of the Instances of discrimination; few landlorcis liked letting to households with children or pets or to the unemployed. This last Is true despite advertisements In newspapers stating 'DHSS welcome*. Such vacancies are still greatly outnunt>ered by those prohibiting the unemployed, moreover, the benefits for the ur>employed applying appear dubious. Earlier it was noted that a letting agent reportedly wcxjld not deal -249- in acccsnrxKlat ion for the unenployed as the lets were of a low standard. One ur>empioyed household said that they had not wanted to apply for * DH5S welcome' lets as they felt those landlords: are the ones not fussed. They try to rip people off as they know the rent will be paid or they let unsuitable acconmodatlon, a room that's minute, for example." It appears that some of these landlords do exploit the facts that as rent can be paid directly it is guaranteed and that more can be charged for certain accomnodation than if the household were working: °Hy landlord knew I was unemployed. He likes that as he thinks I'm less likely to ccxnplaln over the rent and they "He said that If we were working the rent was £150 a month and If DHSS, it was £170 a month." It was not Just the extent of discrimination experienced, but also its nature which demoralised, whilst scxne landlorcis' views on, or fears over sexual morality, caused other difficulties: "He wouldn't accept us because we weren't married. He said we were disgusting." "I wanted a flat to share with a mate. . . . we kept getting addresses but when we (two men) turned up landlords didn't want to kr>ow. Two girls would have been alright." Such attitudes are not unconmon, and bring to mind landlords' own remarks cited In Chapter One, Section 2.3. There was also limited evidence to show that females were favoured over males. But to some women such discrimination appeared demeaning and in certain instances it could be used to exploit: "I didn't want to use the Hospital notice board as I didn't want the sort of landlord who wanted nurses: 'nice decent working girls'. " "I found that I'd paid twice as much deposit as the men here - 1 think the larxllord thought I wouldn't complain." 250- So far, discussion has concentrated on the problens of gaining access to accoanodation, but in considering housing opportunities it would t>e inappropriate to ignore the potential influence of the households' hcxjsing aspirations and the circumstances of their moves on their propensity to refuse accomnodation. It might be expected that the housholds whose initial aspirations over accomnodation had been very basic less often refused accomncxiation than households whose aspirations had been more demanding. Similarly, households whose moves were made under difficult circumstances TABLE 7. 1A: INFLUENCES ON HOUSING CHOICE n X of H/H refusing one rtean no. of vacs or more vacs refused H/H with low aspirationsf 15 •7 3.1 H/H with higher aspirations 67 67H 3.7 H/H needing accont urgently/within 2 weeks 29 66 4.6 H/H wtlh nore line to find accon 43 62 3.0 H/H honeless/facing honelessness 20 67 3.9 H/H not homeless/facing horoelessness 62 63 3.5 H/H moving into Plytnouth 27 59 4.0 H/H moving within Plymouth 55 64 3.3 (n= Mi households noving within the three years prior to the survey and had needed to search for accornnodation, excluding households providing inadequate infornation on their experiences on application. « = low and higher aspirations as defined earlier. «• = ^2 = 4* li significant at the 0.05 level, see Appendix B, Table B.7.2). As Table 7. 16 shows, households with low aspirations less often rejected available lettings. But there was no evidence to support the hypotheses that households who made moves under difficult circumstances would be less likely to turn down acconmodation. If anything, such households were more, rather than less inclined to refuse vacar>cies. So it appears that homelessness, distance from Plymouth, and limited time did not figure as factors influencing 251 search activity; they did not prevent households from exercising choice over accoinnDdation. Presuming households tended to choose, %/here able, the better quality lets (ar>d Table 7.17 indicates this assumption Is correct), the findings imply that such factors are unlikely to be linked to the incidence of households in poorer quality housing. However, the holding of low aspirations could be Important in this respect Table 7.17 details the households' reasons for rejecting available lettings - their reasons also being relevant considerations with regard to housing opportunities, since they can shed light on the nature of the 'choices' open to the households. TABL£ 7. 17: HOUSEHOLDS' REASONS FOR REJECTING ACCO^t10DATfON X of Vacancies by Household Group Single Student Couple Family tiain reason acconnodation was rejected: Poor qualiiy/dasp/bad repair 41 37 44 3 Vrong lype/bedsit nol flat 29 40 27 17 Vrong area H 16 3 24 Too scial i 12 2 - 51 Resident landlord/restrictive rules 3 3 19 - Other: Overcrovded/wrong floor/short let 4 - 7 5 Total 100 100 100 100 n (alt unsuitable vacancies) = 98 62 74 63 Number of households rejecting any vacancy 14 U 10 11 n= 20 20 15 16 (n= All households who had moved vithin the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant women with no other children included in the family group and five families purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories. Table excludes households who had been transfered by their landlords, had not needed to search, had applied for, and accepted one vacancy or had provided inadequate tnforraation on their experiences on application.) Table 7.17 Indicates that the main reason acconmociatIon was not accepted by the households, with the notable exception of families, was Its poor c^allty. Whilst it is true that 'one person's slum Is ar^other's palace', given the high proportion of objectively unsatisfactory acconmociatIon that was eventually taken, It can be supposed that many of these households were not 252 excessively stringent in judging housing standards. Apart from complaints about damp: "the wallpaper was falling off the walls", disrepair: "It looked like It was about to fall down" "the shower was broken". Inadequate furniture and squalid conditions deterred households: "the bed was a mattress on the floor" "it had nasty dirty brown net curtains" "they were grimy dirty places" "It wasn't clean and it hadn't any bath or shower". Many places were found to be of the w/rong type and here the main problem was that what was thought to be a flat turned out to be a bedsit: "the advert said: 'two bed accom. ' but it was a curtain dividing one roofa " "We learned that when it said: 'all your own facilities' In the paper, it meant a bedsit not a flat." "'flats' were boxrooms with a partitioned kitchen and sharing the bath and loo - sometimes sharing the kitchen too." Another common problem, especially for students seeking a house or flat to share, was an inadequate nurrter of rooms; separate rooms being seen as Important to enable private study: We were looking for a house for five but two places had three bedrooms - two of them double - not five." It wasn't a shared house for four, It was two flats with a double bedroom in each." Unlike the other household groups, families less often declined accomnodat ion on the grounds of quality or type. The main problem for them was acconmodation that was too small. Although a small child could reasonably share a bedroom with the parent or parents, families with more than one child or with older children wanted two bedroomed accorrmodation and this appeared to be scarce. Another reason why vacancies were rejectee!, particularly amongst families and students, was that they were too far from the workplace. This was as much a matter of economics as personal preference; it should be recalled that nearly all in these two -253- groups had low Incomes, so finding a let within walking distance, or at least a short bus ride, of the workplace was very Important. Also, a number of households balked at the rules and regulations attached to a vacancy ar>d some, fearing restrictions, avoided resident landlords altogether: • "...live In landlords set down all sorts of little nicky nacky noo things. " The general impression gained by examining the reasons accormiodation was refused is that although many households clearly had a degree of choice in the market - the majority In each group turned down one or more vaceuicles (on average refusing six), It would be grossly insensitive in the light of their experiences to ignore the reality of the 'choices'. Certainly, the findings support Simon's (1957) view of search behaviour as of a ' satisficing' nature. Rather than rejecting a vacancy through a desire to find the best, households appeared simply to want accommodation that they deemed adequate. At this point It Is worth recalling that one-fifth of all the households who had needed to search, had, after being refused accomodation, taken the first letting that was available, whilst a further 11% of the households had accepted the first vacancy that they had applied for. Such extreme examples of sat Isf Icing behaviour can be viewed as a rational response to a perceived or experienced highly constrained rental market (16). To some extent, the households v/io had accepted the first vacancy that they had applied for were 'lucky', since they had not been refused any accomrodatlon. However, investigation of these cases showed that the main reason the first vacancy was accepted was that the household had learned through using Information sources that a 254- Limited amount of acconmociation was available both in terms of its suitability for them, and the household's suitability for the landlord. The following c^ote is typical: "There wasn't much accorrniodation on offer, most wanted v^rking people or professionals and most was outside Plymouth.... this seemed the sort of thing we wiere looking for, %i;e didn't feel we had rruch choice, we felt very limited because we were excluded from a lot of places." Feelings of choice over hcxjsing At this juncture it is appropriate to explore the households' ovi*i views on their search experiences and in particular their feelings with regard to their degree of choice over housing. As Table 7.18 shows, the majority of households felt their ability to 'pick and choose' in the search was very limited. Only 11% of the households overall said they had felt completely able to choose. The restrictions experienced by the less fortunate were various; households citing the speed at at which vacancies became filled, constraints of price and eligibility as well as problems associated with the accorrmodation that was available, when explaining their views (see Appendix A, Table A. 7.9). Amongst students, fierce competition was seen as a major limitation, and in that situation 'picking and choosing' had distInct disadvantages: •It was the peak time and very few places were available, I felt lucky to get anything." "You have to take places c^ickly, we were gazumped twice." "You have to let the landlord know there and then if you want a place or they'd let to scxneone else." But those students attempting to 'beat the rush' could face a different problem: "Landlords weren't letting much at the time I looked. They tell students to wait until September, but I wanted to be sure in May. " 255- "Places were going very quickly and I was told I was looking too early.** TABLE 7. 18: PERCEPTION OF ABILITY TO 'PICK A^P CHOOSE' IN THE SEARCH 1 in Household Group Singl e Student Coupl e Fanil y Enip. Unernp. Unenp. Ectp. Unenp. Felt able to choose 25 8 10 SO - - - Fell restricted but could choose within limits 3B ?3 16 - - - - Felt had no choice 38 69 74 70 100 100 100 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 n= 5 13 19 10 6 7 9 (n= All households who had moved within the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant women with no other children included in the family group and five families purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories. Table excludes households who had been transfered by their landlords, had not needed to search, had applied for, and accepted one vacancy, and one student responding 'don't know'.. Unemp. = unemployed, permanently sick or unavailable for work household head(s); Enp. = at least one household head employed full-time.) A lack of certain types of acconmodation, flats in particular, was considered to be a problem by households in all the groups. This was exacerbated by being unemployed: "1 felt very limited as flats were for working people." "1 wouldn't go anywhere I didn't want to go but the choice is restricted over flats. They are too expensive and there are few decent or>es and working people preclude you from many places.lt bolls ciown to the landlord wanting money right away; the Treasury can take some time." "I wasn't obliged to take the first place but there was lots of substandard acconmodation, and flats were too expensive and frequently for working people only. Most were out of my range. " Having paid sriork removed one barrier to access but this did not necessarily mean greater ability to pay: •I had choice to an extent as I was working, but many places were too expensive." 256- 'Rent's a problem when you are working, you can pay more If you're unemployed I pay £30 and it's a struggle." As might have been expected, non-working households (excluding students) felt more restricted than working households; 3X of the former, compared with 20% of the latter, having felt completely able to exercise choice. Because of the additional barrier on children, non-working families felt highly constrained: "I had no choice. Nowhere takes children and few take unemployed - and the rents were too high, so were the deposits. " •You can't afford to be fussy with two children. There's not a lot for children and DHSS. " •There's no choice if you are DHSS and have children; If you are working It's easier. Expensive accorrmodat ion, of £70 or more (a week> will accept children." •No, for the simple reason that If you have children there's very few places. I would have taken anything." Overall, poor c^ality accorrmodat Ion did not figure as important a reason as competition, a lack of the right type of let, price and ineligibility for feelings that the choices were limited. This endorses the view that the households were r>ot being overly particular ^en they rejected acconinodat Ion. Earlier It was noted that households tended towarcis generosity in their attitudes towards their housing conditions (Chapter Four, Section 5.4), so it cioes appear that the households mostly had low expectations of the private rented sector and adopted a pragmatic attitude. One household expressed as much: •I think you have to take what's available and be prepared to lower your personal stanciards and accept a few things you woulcii't have to If you were looking at a mortgage or had a higher income - things like no fridge and a poor standard of repair. If you don't you' II be looking for a long long time for a place and pay a lot of rent and lower your standard of living by looking at reasonable accoomodatton." '257- qh^ngipg Aspirgj:ions In view of the level of perceived and experienced restrictions on choice it is not surprising that in the course of searching rany households decided to change their initial aspirations. The proportions in each group were: single people; 36X, students; 44-X, T^LE 7.19; MQUSEHOI-DS REAg X of All Reasons Reasons: Ineligible for such accon. 27.5 Accoa too expensive 22.5 Few lets of type wanted 22.5 Competition 12.5 Low quality of accotmodalion 7.5 Ran out of lime 7.5 Total 100 All Reasons 40 All Households changing aspirations 35 (All Households changing their aspirations amongst those who had moved within the three years prior to the survey and had needed to search for accoimiodation. Reasons by household group are shown in the Appendix A, Table A. 7.10). TABLE 7. 20: TYPES OF CHANGE I pf All qhangps Types of Change Vould accept any type of accom. 26 of which: Flat for H/H to bedsit or any 19 House/flat for sharing/room in shared house to any 7 Vould accept lower quality 31 of which: Lower quality flat 10 Lower quality shared house/flat 7 Lower quality bedsit U Vould accept shared or not S/C accoa U Vould accept snaller accon./fewer rooms 10 Vould pay higher rent 10 Other: vould accept furnished/not central 10 Total 100 All Changes 42 All Households changing aspirations 35 (All Households changing their aspirations amongst those who had roved within the three years prior to the survey and had needed to search for acconiaodalton. Types of change by household group are shown in the Appendix A, Table A. 7. It). 256- couples; 32X and families, who, as has been shown, had the greatest difficulties in the market, 56% C17). fheir reasons, shown in Fable 7.19, reflect opinions expressed on ability to pick and choose accoiTTnodation discussed above. Single people had mainly found the sort of acconmodat ion they wanted was too expensive, students changed their ideas mostly because of competition, couples had trouble finding flats and families cited ineligibility as the principal reason (see Appendix A, Table A. 7. 10). Table 7. 20 demonstrates that the types of change rrade were various. The most coomon was a decision to seek lower quality accodtnodation. mainly made by families and students, families often deciding they had to be willing to accept lower quality bedsits (see Appendix A, Table A. 7. II). Many households decided that they should seek a bedsit or any type of housing; again families figured significantly here, and this was the principal change made by single people. Although It is clear that some households did change their aspirations as a strategy to circumvent perceived constraints, it does not follow that they were necessarily pushed Into doing so as a result of finding a highly restrictive, competitive and discriminatory market. This view needs further supportive evidence. It might be argued for example, that some households started with quite unrealistic ideas and were too demanding. Another argument might say that the private rented market is varied and can accorTTTx>date all types of household; that any problems, even of IneligibiIity, are just a matter of a mis-match between the landlord and prospective tenant and that persistence in searching would reward efforts. In other words, those who changed their aspirations w«re less persistent In seeking what they wanted. Some evidence has already been provided to counter this argument; the idea of a simple mis-matching is problematic because collectively landlords tended to discriminate against the unerrployed and families, for example, but it is possible that those modifying their aspirations were less persistent. A further, related argument is that such households simply had little time to look and so had to change their original ideas. To examine these arguments it is necessary to assess whether the households who changed their aspirations did have less time to -259- look for housinq, were less persistent, were initially more demanding and then %«re more discerning during their searches and found no more acconmodation to be 'unavailable' than the households who retained their original aspirations. Simple variables will be used. As before, with 'time to look', responses of 'urgently' and periods of up to two weeks will denote 'little' time; 'persistence' will be measured by the mean number of applications per household. ' Uhreal istic' or 'too' demanding aspirations can not be objectively assessed but it is possible to separate out households who, within their particular group, were the most particular about the accomnodation wanted (16>. Accocrmodation found to be unsuitable, indicating the exercise of choice in the search, and acconmodation found to be unavailable, have been discussed earlier. TABLE Z.21: C0N>ARISON OF HOUSEHOLDS hNO CHANGED HCIR ASPIRATIOt^ DICING THE SEARCH WITH HOUSEHOLDS WHO DID NOT t in Household Group Single Student Couple Fanily Aspirations: Changed Sane Changed Sane Changed Sane Changed SaiDE S of Households vho: Required accoio. urgently/ within 2 weeks U ?9 36 29 50 6 56 57 Had conparatively high initial aspirations 56 36 45 }\ 50 25 44 - 1 of accon. found to be: laken 32 34 3B 50 16 11 It 5 Unsuitable 22 46 23 33 33 51 11 19 Unavailable <6 ?0 38 i; 50 38 76 76 because: H/H ineligible 31 16 7 10 23 27 74 66 loo expensive 15 4 15 7 27 11 4 10 Not reedy/not retainable N/A N/A 16 - N/A N/A N/A H/A Hean no. of applications per m 22 9 16 4 19 6 24 30 n= 9 14 11 14 6 12 9 7 (n= All households who had moved vithin the three years prior to survey and had needed to search for accomodation. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant Hoaen with no other children included in the raaily group and live lanilies purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories, lable excludes households who gave inadequate infornuttion on their experiences on application.) 260- Table 7.21 indicates that the households who changed their aspirations did, in the main, show higher proportions having less time to search. However, a causal association is questionable since a time constraint could be offset by a more intensive search and these households did show a far greater persistence in their searches, applying in all cases excepting families, for more than twice as many vacancies. Again, greater proportions did have comparatively high starting aspirations, apart from in the student group, but in their searches smaller proportions rejected vacancies as unsuitable. Finally, it is clear that those urho did change their aspirations had found proportionately more vacancies were unavailable to them. So it does appear that households who decided to alter their aspirations were pushed and constrained into doing so by the nature of the market and their limited opportunities within it; theirs was a rational, practical response and not indicative of any tack of effort. Changing initial aspirations wjas Just one of the strategies households used to obtain accorrmodat ion. When recounting what had been said when they applied for their present let some households ac^itted they had used persuasion or subterfuge to make their case tnore deserving. This was especially true of families. As has been noted, five families had decided to conceal the fact they had, or were expecting, a child; they reasoned that landlords were unlikely to go to the trouble of evicting them if unhappy. Two families took on short term lets, promisinq the landlords that they wanted private rented accofrmodat ion purely as an interim measure. One cohabiting couple with children had persuaded their landlord to let to them by allowing the shorthold agreement to concern only the male partner; the woman and children were ostensibly living with her parents. Finding that some landlords would let a bedsit to a single woman with one baby, another couple with an infant took on two adjoining bedsits, making separate agreements for each. Amongst the other household groups, three unenployed people had tried to overcome any prejudice as to their character by saying that they were aiming to become self-employed and three households decided not to confess they owned pets. Four households made disadvantageous agreements in order to obtain a let; formally promising they would not complain about the state of repair. But -261- mostly strategies were very simple, such as producing a marriage certificate or: "waving a wad of notes" when meeting the landlord. Acceptance of Vacancies As final questions about their searches, households Mtare asked why they had decided to rent their acconmodation as opposed to other lets, and v^ther they had obtained what was originally wanted. Excluding some households vrfio said they had simply wanted a place and so were not * fussy' about %^at they obtained C19>, households' reasons for accepting a vacancy can be categorised according to the TABLE 7.22: HOUSEHOLDS' REASO^g FOR ACCEPTING VACANCIES X in Household Group Single Sludenl Couple Fanily RefisonsL Positive (no conpromise over aspirations) ?9 36 36 13 lo some degree negative (compromise ntade) 50 &0 53 75 Not concerned ?l 4 II 13 Total 100 100 100 too 24 ?5 19 16 (n= All households who had inoved within the three years prior to survey and had needed to search for accoivtodatton. Households regrouped according to type at time o1 nove, preqnant wooen with no other children included in the family group and live tanities purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories.) import of positive and negative factors. fhe former concern aspects of the accommodation that attracted, the latter indicate the hcxjsehold made some ccxnpromise over the location, type, quality or price ot the let etc., because of difficulties encountered in the search. In Table 7.22 the reasons are grouped to show the proportions ot households v^o gave only positive reasons and the proportions whose reasons were, to a greater or lesser degree, negat ive. It was a minority of all households, then, who had only positive reasons for taking vacancies. The preceding sections have 262 revealed the extent of constralntB on households' choices, so it Is not unexpected that a larger proportion of households decided to accept less than was originally wanted, nor that of all the groups, families had most often made compromises - even allowing for variations in aspirations bet%*een the households. Table 7.23 examines the proportion of households who had been able to obtain what was originally wanted or expected %rith respect to selected attributes of the dwelling (20). TABLE 7. 23; HOUSEHOLDS WHO WERE SUCCESSFUL IN MEETING THEtR ORIGINAL ASPIRATIONS 1 of all Households with % of all Households with specified aspiration specified aspiration who were successful Aspiration House or flat to share/rooD in house 30 91 Flat for household 50 86 Furnished accoa, 54 100 Unfurnished accoa. 4 66 S/C or no sharing 53 59 Large BCCOD./TVO bedrooBS 34 36 6ood condition 53 38 Certain rent 88 77 Certain security 55 87 Certain location 82 80 I of H/H «ho were successful in neeting all aspirationst 34 n« 74 (n= All households «ho had itoved within the three years prior to survey and had needed to search for accomodation. Table excludes households vith no aspirations, ie, those unconcerned about the acconnodation they obtained, t ~ excluding aspiritions not listed in table. Details on 'successful' households by household group are provided in Appendix A, Table A,7.12) Table 7. 23 shows that the main compromises were made over sharing or self-containment, the condition of the property and its size. Within the household groups, single people were the least successful in obtaining flats, self-contained accotoaodation or acconnodation which involved no sharing; students, accommodation with an adequate number of bedrooms; couples, the quality they had wanted and families In obtaining large or two bedroomed lets, the -263 level of rent, the degree of security and the equality oriqinally wanted. Sotne degree of ' sat isf icing' might be expected in any housing search process, whatever the sector or the resources of the household. What must be borne in mind here is the generally low standard of accomnodat ion that the households did obtain; 70% were living in unsatisfactory or somewhat unsatisfactory ciwellings, and 951 were unsatisfactorily or somewhat unsatisfactorily housed (21). Also, it should be noted that households' expectations were mainly low and their aspirations tended to relate to basic attributes of the acconmodation; the provision of furniture, the degree of sharing and the type of housing rec^ired. Beyond these aspects, ail that was generally required was that the accormodat ion should be clean and affordable. In this context, the proportion of households who were able to achieve their aspirations lcx>ks very poor. Compromises were made partly because of 'personal' constraints on choice, such as lack of time to search, but principally because of structural constraints associated with inadequate supply; low quality and limited range of accotrmodat ion, high rents and deposits, discriminatory practices of landlords and agencies controlling access, and fierce competition. The extracts below, teU This was the only flat I could afford...! wanted bigger and better quality and I didn't want a place where I had to lock all the doors, but self-contained accorrtnodat ion is too expensive. " (Single person) The rent made me take it. It wasn't the cleanest or the nicest." (Single person) Dire circumstances. I was desperate to move...It wasn't self- contained but it was more than one room and most flats were too expensive or grotty." (Single person) It was central ar^J was the first place that allowed pets." (Single person) This place had the largest rcxm and was closest to the Poly. I would have liked somewhere cleaner and in better condition." (Student) It was gcx}d in ccynparison with my friends and its only five minutes from the Poly, and the shops... I don't like the licence 264 agreement and the rent's too high, ond I would have liked a cotnnunal room " (Student) "This was the only house we ccxjld get, so desperation. We didn't like it when we saw it but so many places had been taken." (Student) "The last places we saw v«re horrible and it didn't look too bad in comparison." CStudent) "It was the only unfurnished we ccxjtd get." (Couple) "It was the cleanest of the or>es we saw and we needed somewhere quickly... it was more expensive and smaller than we wanted and there are lots of cio's and cksnt's here." (Couple) "It was the only one. . . I saw it once and felt 'no way!' Then I looked at it again. ..and then 1 sat down one night and drank a bottle of wLr>e artd I thought, oh well, I could do it, I could buy some pots of paint..." (Family) "We*d had enough of looking around and being disappointed. We found it too difficult to get self-contained acccxrmociat i on. You've got to be working and not have any children." (Family) "This was the only one available for children so that was it." (FamL ly) "Necessity. CXjt of choice we'd never have moved in here." (Fami ly) "The room seemed cfiite decent quality-wise at the time, though the kitchen was shared. After six months of finding places were gone or wouldn't have children we were tired of looking." (Family) Hpuslpg Sear^hQs gnd Housing (Xjtgprpes In examining the search experiences of the surveyed households, the aim was to illuminate the various ccxistraints that they faced and to do so both from a qualitative viewpoint, by investigation of the households' own views and irrpressions, and in objective terms, by analysis and cfiantification of the effect of particular restricting factors. The overall picture that has emerged shows the households to be people for whom the choices and freedom to manoeuvre within the private rented housing market w^re very limited. But perhaps most striking is the evidence from the quantitative ciata demonstrating the severity and extent of the constraints that impinged on the householcis and especially the -265 degree of discrimination that was encountered. Two factors underpinned the households' difficulties. Firstly the market was one In which demand greatly outstripped supply, so that landlords could pick and choose between prospective tenants, set the conditions of lettings and had little incentive to compete by Improving the accornnodatIon on offer. Secondly, the low incomes of the vast majority of the households meant that they had little bargaining po^tter h^ilst landlords had further cause to provide no more than the roost basic accorrmodation. Overlaying these general problems were particular constraints affecting certain households. Many had moved under difficult or limiting circumstances. Over a third (nearly two-thirds In the case of students) had moved from outside the local area, two-fifths had needed to find acconrnodat i on urgently or within two weeks, whilst a similar proportion had been made homeless, suffered a relationship break-up or had moved after experiencing harassment from the landlord or tenant at a previous letting. Nevertheless, these problems did not appear to inhibit search activity; households whose conditions of moving were adverse were no less likely to pick and choose between available lettings than the households who were better placed. A few did decide that their priority should be to find accoirmodat ion per se rather than any specific type, and in general households who had initially been prepared to accept practically any letting C^or the most part because they considered their family or working status to inhibit access) were somewhat less inclined to reject available vacancies. In fact, most households were not especially demanding with respect to the type of acconvnodatIon sought. Even so, a sizeable proportion (42%) had, in the course of searching, decided to change their original Ideas; preparing in the main to accept either poorer quality accorrfnodatIon than first required or simply any available letting. From the evidence It appeared that these households had not been inltally too * choosy* nor had they lacked persistence in the search. Rather their decision to lower their aspirations had been a matter of a rational response to problems to do with eligibility for lettings, the nature of the private rental stock or its cost, experienced during their searches. Variable eligibility for acconmodatIon was found to be highly 266' significant in its effect on search activity and experiences. All types of household were liable to experience discrimination different landlords rejected single people or couples, students or non-students, moles or females - but collectively landlords were especially adverse to letting to the unemployed or households with children. Ihe effect of this was that, as a group, the unemployed were refused access to one half of the vacancies that they applied for, solely because they were unemployed. Families were turned away from three in five vacancies because they had children (22). As a result, the ur>employed and family households* ability to exercise choice over accommodation was severely limited. The unenployed fcMjnd themselves in a position to ccxisider Just one in five of the vacancies that were applied for and not found to be already taken (the other four being ur>available to them), ^'itst working households could consider three in eight vacancies. Families could consider one in six vacancies as opposed to an average of six in thirteen vacancies amongst childless households. Unemployed or family households encountering discrimination when applying for acconnodat ion also appeared to have had to search much harder, applying for many more vacancies on average than households who had not encountered discrimination. Just as discrimination restricted access to housing, 'inside information' was irrportant in facilitating access. Households who had informal contacts within the private rented housing market were found to have a significant competitive advantage over those who had to rely purely on the formal sources of nev/spapers, letting agents, and so on. One-fifth of the movers had not even needed to 'search' for housing because friends had notified them of suitable vacant lettings or landlord contacts had been able to provide accofrmodation. Of the various types of information source used by the households, persor^l contacts prociuced the highest rate of success; three in five households who had used informal sources obtained their accorinodation through them. Overall, two-fifths of the households (over one half in the case of single people) found their acconmodation through a friend, relative or landlord contact. Access to private rented housing, then, was considerably eased by having personal contacts artd hirKJered by being unemployed or having children. But did these lactors make any difference to the -267- sort of housing that was obtained? Did the use of ' inside information' enable households to obtain the better lettings and did discrimination, in restricting access, 'push' the unemployed or family households into the worst housing? In Chapter Six it was fcxjnd that the unemployed, as compared with working households, were only weakly associated with poor quality housing. Notwithstanding, as the preceding examination of search experiences had shown families were particularly liable to discrimination, household status may have acted as a distorter variable. So the relationship between unemployment and housing situation clearly begs further invest igat Ion. At this point it is therefore important to explore the lirf}l i cat Ions of the factors found to influence search activities and access for housinq outcomes. Housing 'outcomes' can encapsulate many aspects of the acconmodat ion, from the physical to the legal and financial. As regards the physical aspects, the larger, more self-contained units arguably constitute the 'better' housing. However, individual households as well as the different groups varied in their aspirations and requirements so that the larger dwellings are Likely to be associated with the larger households. Also, as was shown in the previous chapter there was a tendency for the higher income households within each group to have obtained the larger, sel t-contained lettings - these corrrnanding the higher rents. Thus it would be erroneous in the context of the present analysis, which is concerned with making cross-group comparisons (comparing the situations of families with non-family households, for example) to investigate housing outcomes along these lines. Instead, the two composite measures of housing quality developed in Chapter Four will be used. The first measure, it will be recalled, concerned the 'satisfactoriness' of dwellings with respect to state of repair, damp and eunentty provision. The second, which was concerned with identifying households who were 'satisfactorily housed', extended the first measure by including density of occupation and the environmental health standards laid down for frtiOs. In that housing quality in these terms was found to be unrelated to cost (Chapter Five, Section 5.3) no account need be taken of income differentials for the investigation. Turning to financial outcomes, it would be interesting to see 268- whether the households most disfavoured by landlords found they had to pay a premium for the accommodation they eventually obtained, or, as McCarthy has shown in his study of private renting in two American states (1982), whether households with 'Inside information' tended to get cheaper housing. Unfortur^tely, so many controls wcxjld be required for the analysis that it appears impracticable given the small size of the sample population Interviewed In the present study. That said, financial cxitcomes in terms of the payment ot deposits can be examined. Hcxjseholds who had used personal contacts to obtain acconmodation were, or their contacts were, known to the landlords. So they might have been considered 'safer' propositions than complete strangers. Since deposits give landlords some security in the event of untoward tenant behaviour. It can be hypothesized that these were less often required when lettings were made to an acquaintance or to a household recomnended by an acquaintance. As noted earlier, McCarthy (1982) found this to be the case in his study of American landlorcis. In Chapter Five it was demonstrated that deposits were more often required from the unemployed (see Section 5.3). Perhaps landlords wanted to have some security whilst waiting for housing benefit claims to be processed. However, the relationship could be a spurious one, if, for example, there was a negative association between the use of personal contacts for obtaining accocnnodation and the payment of deposits, and the unemployed had more frequently obtained their tettlngs through formal channels. So this relationship needs further analysis. t/lth respect to differential legal outcomes, the use of personal contacts might also have meant lettings were made on more favourable terms; landlorcis being more prepared to grant periodic tenancies (rather than the more restrictive fixed term or licence arrangements) to households who were directly or indirectly known to them. It would also be interesting to see if landlords' apparently unfavcMjrable attitudes towards the unemployed were reflected in the types of letting agreements made with these households. Firstly, housing outcomes in terms of the quality of the accofrmodation will be explored. To provide an overview, tables 7.24 and 7.25, which show the satistoctoriness of dwellings and 269- TABLE 7.24: SAT ISFACTORI hESS OF POLLINGS: RECENT MOVERS X in Household Group Single Student Couple Fanily Dwellings Satisfactory 17 ?6 11 19 Sooewhat Unsatisfactory &7 36 74 3) Unsatisfactory 17 36 16 S6 Total 100 100 100 100 n= ?4 25 19 16 tn= All households who had aoved within the three years prior to survey and had needed to search for accoBffljodation. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant voDcn with no other children included in the faoily group and five faoilies purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories.) households satisfactorily housed by household group, rework the analyses undertaken in Chapter Four, this time considering only the recent movers and grouping households according to their type (or the type they purported to be) when acconmodat I on was sought. TABLE 7.25: HOUSEHOLDS SATISFACTORILY HOUSED: RECEhH MOVERS t in Household tiroup Single Student Couple Faoily Satisfactorily Housed - - 5 6 SoRiewhat Satisfactorily Housed 42 48 42 19 Unsatisfactorily Housed 58 5? 53 7i; Total 100 100 too 100 n= ?4 ?!) 19 16 (n= All households who had noved within the three years prior to survey and had needed lo se.irch for accoraodation. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant wooen with no other children included in the fanily group and five fanlUes purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories.) The pattern found earlier is not significantly altered by the re-analysls. Amongst recent movers, the Incidence of poor quality housing remains substantial, and families still stand out as the group most often experiencing the wrst housing ccxidltlons. Families experienced severe discrimination In the course of their search for accormodatIon, and they were the group feeling least able to choose, and most often finding they had to modify their original aspirations. So It Is possible to argue that families more often 270- ended up in poor housing because of the special difficulties they faced in obtaining suitable, or any acconmodation within the private rented sector. . Tables 7.26 and 7.27 examine the role of factors likely to effect differences in housing outcomes, firstly with respect to households in unsatisfactory dwellings and secondly in relation to the incidence of hcxiseholds unsatisfactorily housed. Dichotomous household groupings are used, ar>d 'unsatisfactory' housing conditions considered for the purposes of clarity and to maximize cell sizes. Apart from working situation, family status and the use of friends to obtain housing, the households initial aspirations over accofrmodat ion are included as a potential influence on housing outcomes. The households who had low aspirations w«re found to have been less likely to 'pick and choose' in their searches than the more demanding households, and so they might have been more prepared to accept the poorer quality lets. The effect of aspiration level on other relationships is also considered. Other factors examined are time resources for the search, homelessness and location of previous residence. None of these were found to be related to search activity. However, since households can only apply for vacancies that ccyne onto the market during their search, those with limited time or who faced hometessness (and so also had a pressing need to find accommodation) would have been more restricted than the other households and so may have obtained less optimum ciwel lings. Households moving into the area tencied to have had limited time resources, and, additionally, they were likely to have had poorer knowledge of Plymouth's housing market than locals. So they, too, might more often have obtained the lower quality accorrmodat i on. Highlighted by both tables are the strong correlations between poor housing conditions and households who were either unemployed or had children. Such households who reported experiencing discrimination againgst them during their searches were especially liable to end up in accormodat i on v^iich was damp, in disrepair, or lacking in the basic amenities, the association in this case achieving a significance level of 0.01. Problems to do with crowding or the environmental health standards, however, appear to be more widespread; the correlations being somewhat weaker when 271 these are taken Into account (Table 7.27). Aspiration level appears to have played a part in housing outcomes; households who had low initial aspirations over accocTTTDdation tending to predominate in the worst housing. But controlling for aspiration level does not greatly affect the TABLE 7. 26: HOUSING OOTCOMES: UNSATISFACTORY DWELLINGS n X in Unsatisfactory Kendall's Q Dwellings H/N unemployed 31 32 0.41 0.80 N/A H/K working (a) ?8 21 K/H wilh children U 56 1 1 1 H/H wilh no chitdren 68 24 H/H unemployed/with children 38 37 3.81 0. 10 . 7 H/H working and childless (a) ?! 10 H/H unemployed/with children experiencing discrinlnation 48 7.08 0.01 . 7 H/H not experiencing discrimination (b)(c) 32 13 H/H with low housing aspirations 15 47 1 • 1 H/K with higher housing aspirations 69 ?6 H/H unemptoyed/vilh children (exdu. low aspirations) 30 30 1 1 i H/H working and childless (exdu. low aspirations) (a) 16 13 H/H obtaining accom via formal sources 56 31 N/A N/A N/A H/H obtaining accom vie personal contacts (d) 46 24 H/H needing accon urgently/within ? weeks 30 37 0.61 0.50 N/A H/H having more time to find accon 54 ?6 H/H facing homelessness 21 33 N/A N/A N/A H/H not facing honelessness 63 29 H/H moving into Plymouth 26 42 2.03 0.20 .4 H/H moving within Plystouth 58 ?4 (n= All households noving within three years prior to the survey and needing to search for accommodation. Total households = 84. (a) Conparison excludes students, (b) Comparison excludes students and households providing inadequate information on experiences on application, (c) Discrirination agalngsL the unemployed or children encountered via the information sources or on application for vacancies, (d) Includes households who did not need to search (20 cases). • Total observations or expected celt si7es too small to calculate x?- X? calculations see Appendix 8. Tables B.6.7, and B. 7.3 to B.7.7.) 272- n X Unsatisfactorily X2 P Kendal Housed H/K unemployed 31 66 0. 72 0. 50 N/A H/H working (a) ?e 54 K/H with children 16 75 1.5 0.50 N/A H/H with no chiIdren 68 54 H/H uneoployed/vith children 3a ;i 3.41 0. 10 .5 H/H working and childless (a) 21 43 H/H unenployed/wilh children experiencing discrinination 25 76 2.24 0. 20 .5 H/H not experiencing discrimination (b)(c) 32 53 H/H with tow housing aspirations 15 87 1 1 f H/H with higher housing aspirations 69 51 H/H unemployed/with children (exclu. low aspirations) 30 67 1 1 1 H/H working and childless (excli). low aspirations) (a) 16 31 H/H obtaining accorii via formal sources 58 50 N/A N/A N/A H/H obtaining accon via personal contacts 46 67 H/H needing accotn urgently/within ? weeks 30 57 N/A N/A N/A H/H having more time to find accoit 54 57 H/H facing homelessness 21 71 1.32 0.50 N/A H/H not facing honelessness 63 54 H/H moving into Plymouth 26 58 N/A N/.^ N/A H/H moving within Plymouth 56 57 (n= All households noving within three years prior to the survey and needing to search for flccomnodation. Total households = 84. (a) Conparison excludes students, (b) Comparison excludes students and households providing inadequate information on experiences on application, (c) Discrimination againgst the unemployed or children encountered via the information sources or on application for vacancies, (d) Includes households who did not need to search (20 cases), i lotat observations or expected cell sizes too small to calculate x?* For calculations see Appendix B, Tables B.6.B, and B. 7.8 to B. 7.11.) relationships, in percentage terms at least, with regard to working situation and children. Also, it should be recalled that a prime reason why many of the households had held low aspirations was that they anticipated difficulties in obtaining accorrmodation on account of their children or unemployed situation. 273 An interesting finding Is that, although the households who had used personal contacts to obtain accomnodation found access rruch easier than the households who had used formal sources, they did not fare any better, and in fact fared slightly worse, in terms of the quality of the housing they obtained. Perhaps then, accessibility led some households to forgo the chance of obtaining better quality hcxjsing - certainly proportionately more using personal contacts had held low housing aspirations (23> Time resources and homelessness were not significantly associated with housing cfjallty. Also, taking aspiration level into account diminishes the slight associations (apparent in the percentage differences) between time resources and the satisfactoriness of the dw/ellings, and homelessness and households satisfactorily housed <24>. Households who moved into Plymouth were weakly correlated with unsatisfactory dwellings and although the relationship did not achieve the accepted significance level of 0.05, and was slightly diminished when aspiration Level was controlled for (25), lack of local knowledge may have played some part In housing outcomes. Even so, the weakness of these relationships provides further evidence for the contention that discrimination against families and the unemployed played an independent and major role in effecting differential housing outcomes (26). Having the greatest difficulties obtaining access to acconmodation, the unemployed and family households were consequently pushed and constrained into accepting the worst lettings; housing that was in disrepair, or damp or lacked basic amenities. Families, as has been shown throughout this study, were especially liable to t>e suffering bad housing conditions. At various times privately renting households with children have been accused of 'deliberately' placing themselves in bad and overcrowded housing in order to 'jump the queue' for council accorrniodat i on. Given the extent of the discrimination encountered and the reported aspirations and experiences of the surveyed families, the present work provides no support for this view. But to give the argument full, if not due, consideration (since the author does not concur with its underlying premise that affordable rental housing should be regarded as scxne sort of reward), a little more needs to be said 274- about families who lived in crowded conditions. Plymouth housing authority, in conmon with many others, places much stress on space in its points system by which housing is allocated. A minimum of 20 points are granted for a shortfall in respect of each room and additional points are added for bedrooms tacked. By contrast, substandard acconmodation, ie. housing in a poor state of repair, receives a maximum of 15 points, awarded at the discretion of the housing visitor. Crowded families, then, have high priority. Amongst the Plymouth families, only four of the twenty-three who had moved within the three years prior to the survey (and had not been transfered by their landlords) had, In fact, adequate rooms according to the local authority's definitions. To contend that the other families - 83% - had intentionally placed themselves in crowded conditions in order to obtain council housing appears to push crectulity too far. Examination of these cases shows that nine (47%) had moved after being macie homeless (and may well have been entitled at that time to local authority acconrnodat ion) whilst all said that, because of perceived or (mainly) experienced difficulties of access, they had taken what they could get. For some, this meant whatever flat was available, as the families who had previously been privately renting (and had not been evicted) had lived in even more crovrfded conditions and had moved to obtain more space (see 'Reasons for Moving'). Many of the families corrmented on the difficulties of obtaining suitably sized accommodation (see 'Experiences on Application' and 'Acceptance of Vacancies') and, paradoxically, two of the crowded families remarked they had been Lucky over the amount of room their accormtodat ion provided, noting that most vacancies were bedsits and that few of the flats on the market fell within their (or the DHSS) price range. In this light it seems anomalous that any family managed to obtain adequate space. The evidence from the Plymouth study, therefore, shows the argument regarding ' c^eue Jumping' to be no more than a classic example of 'blaming the victim'; the problem in reality lies on the one hand in discrimination by private landlords and in the scarcity of affordable, large private rented accommodation, and on the other, in the shortage of alternative forms of accorrmodat ion to rent. 275 Table 7.28 exanlnee the relationships between the households' use of different Inforaiatlon channels to obtain accommodation, their (•rorklng situation and the payment of deposits. As expected, households %fho had obtained their accommodation through personal contacts «^re significantly more likely not to have paid a deposit. Also, the association between unemployed households and the requirement to pay a deposit ms found to be a fairly strong one. TABILE 7- 39; HOySEHCTiPg PATINQ PEPPgHTS n 1 paying deposit p Kendall's Q H/H obtaining accoo via forial sources 58 83 6,59 0,01 ,6 H/H obtaining accoo via friends 46 57 H/H uneitployed 40 60 3.0 0.10 ,5 H/K vorking (a) 34 59 (n^ All households loving vithin three years prior to the survey, excluding households transfered by their landlords. Total households = tOi. (a) Coitparison excludes students and percentages differ slightly fron those shovn in Chapter Five vhere landlord transfers »ere included and unfurnished lettings vere excluded fron the conputation. For ^2 calculations see Appendix 6, Tables B.7.12 and B.7.13.) This was Independent of the relationship between the use of formal channels and deposit requirements; the unemployed more often obtaining their accomDodatlon through personal contacts (53X as opposed to AlZ of the working households) and more often paying a deposit even when these sources were used C73X of the unemployed who had used personal contacts, yet only 33X of the working households, had been required to provide a deposit). Thus It appears that landlords who were prepared to let to the unemployed tended to require the payment of a deposit as a matter of course - landlords letting to working households less often having this policy. Table 7. 29 shows that households who had obtained their accomodation through personal contacts, apart from benefiting over deposits, more often obtained regulated periodic tenancies. Unemployed households were found to have obtained regulated periodic tenancies at least as often as working households. Disadvantaged in this respect were students. They are preferred by some landlords because they are 'known' to be short-term residents. Amongst the surveyed students this preference was underlined by the type of 276- letting agreement made; students were much more likely to have obtained the more restricted fixed term or licence arrangements <62X with such agreements as opposed to A\% amongst the other households) TABLE 7.29: HOUSEHOLDS OBTAINING REGULATED PERIODIC AGREEMEhfTS n 1 with regulated P Kendall's 0 periodic tenancy H/H obtaining accom via formal sources S6 45 ?. 96 0.10 .4 H/H obtaining accom via friends 4? 64 H/H unemployed 37 65 1. 53 0.50 N/A H/H working (a) 3? 53 (n= All households (noving within three years prior to the survey, excluding households transfered by their landlords, households with resident landlords and households unsure of the agreement nade. Total households = 98. (a) Coriparison excludes students, for x? calculations see .Appendix fl, Tables B. 7. 14 and B. 15.) 7.4. HOUSEHOLDS' FUTURE PLANS AISP PERCEIVED PROSPECTS It has been established that for the majority of the hcxjseholds, renting privately had seemed to be the only option, and that amongst the newer residents choice over actual acconmodat1 on had been highly constrained. The acconmodat ion obtained rarely met objective stanciards of adequacy yet in relation to incomes was frequently expensive. Nonetheless, there are some who would contend that a restricted and unsatisfactory situation is an unfortunate but ternporary hardship that might be expected in the course of any hcxjsing career. This view is flawed since It ignores the many long term residents in the sector (27), and it does not address bad housing conditions Cand certainly bad hcxjsing, if not its occupancy, is deemed socially unacceptable, as is evident from the Legislation and controls that exist to deal with it). However, the point that an adverse situation need only be temporary is still pertinent. Exactly how 'temporary' did the households perceive their occonmodat ion to be? Did they wish to remain in their accorrfnodat ion - even when objectively it was unsatisfactory - and, if not, did they want to continue renting privately.-* It hoptnq to move into 277 owner-occupation or public renting, how did they see their chances of success? Did the households' tenure expectations match their tenure preferences? Addressing these issues is the aim of this sect ion. Households' Future Plans As a starting point, the households' responses to an open- ended question (number 34> on their future housing plans can be examined (Table 7.30). Of course households saw the time scale of 'future' differently, so where appropriate these differences will be clarified in the text. TABLE 7.30: HOUSEHOLDS' FUTURE PLANS I In Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Plan to: Slay pernanenlly 5* 8 - 3 3 Slay indefinitely/no plans to tnove 32 23 21 17 6 Hove within a year to - other private let/ parental home then other private let 7 26 66 ?4 10 Buy - 8 - 31 10 Rent from council 7 8 - li 52 Rent fron housing association - 2 - 3 - Hove attroad/move but unsure where - 26 U 7 19 1otat 100 too 100 lOO 100 n= 26 39 29 29 31 For the most part then, the responses do indicate an intention to move house. Nevertheless, a sizeable minority (one-third) wanted to stay in their accontnodation permanently or had no plans to move, so clearly private rented acconmodat ion was not seen as temporary by everyone. Pensioners accounted for nearly a half of these households <28). Many pensioners were very determined to keep their acconmodation and feared any prospect of moving: "They' II have to take me out in a box". •I hope permanently, I don't want to up sticks and go again at my age, I hope I'm anchored for what's left of my life". -278- •When ! leave it'll be feet first". It should be recalled that many pensioners had lived in their accofrmodat Lon for several years. This meant - as a numt>er in this group pointed out - that^ apart from making a 'home' of their let (sometimes undertaking major repairs or irrproventents themselves), they had made friends locally and had become accustomed to the area. Even amongst pensioners who said their stay was * indefinite'• many transmitted a wish for their accommodation to be permanent: 'Ho plans to move, I'll stay as long as I can". •Indefinitely, the landlord can't get me out now". Households expressing a wish to stay 'permanently' were disproportionately represented in unsatisfactory c^^llings (36X of all dwellings were unsatisfactory yet 55X of households responding 'permanently' were in such dwellings C29)). This peculiarity might be explained by the fact that all but one of these households had lived in their accommodation for more than seven years and so had formed attachments of the type described above. Also, all but two were pensioners who indicated they disliked the idea of upheaval even more than their poor conditions. The majority of households in the non-pensioner groups did have plans to move on. But there were differences in intentions between the household types. Single people gave very varied responses and were the least sure about their future housing. Only a few expressed a clear intention to move at some time to other tenures, and, in contrast to pensioners, those saying they had 'no plans' to move did not indicate a desire to rent their accotrmodat ion permanently. A quarter, however, did plan to move within the private rented sector, the main reason being to find better accorrmodat ion, although a need to move because of impending eviction was also important (30). Most students intended either moving into another let or first returning to the parental home before renting again. Students with 'no plans' all expressed a desire to retain their accommodation for the duration of the college course; in these cases this meant for -279- between two ar>d tcxjr years. Like single people, couples gave varied responses but they were much more ciefinite about their future housing. As might be anticipated from the higher inccxnes in this group, a significant proportion of couples intended to buy; although ur>der a half felt buying was feasible within one year (31>. A quarter of the couples planned to move to other private rented accotmtodation, mainly in order to obtain better housing (32). Since families were especially liable to experience poor hcxjsing conditions in the private rented sector and most had low Incomes, it is not surprising to find that over a half of the families looked to the ccxincil sector for their future housing. Yet three-quarters of these, (391 of all families) did not expect rehousing to cx:cur within the year. I he waiting and the uncertainty were often frustrating: I've been on the list three years. ..I've given a doctor's note and a note from the health visitor to the council but I don't know when I'll get a place. I've heard nothing, I get the feeling they don't want to kr>ow. " I'm waiting on the ccxjncil, I could be here forever". In fact, whilst nearly all of the families planned to move, less than one-third anticipated moving within twelve months, and just six of the thirty-one considered that they would have left the sector within that time. To take an overview of the householcis' plans, then, it can be seen that although the majority did intend to move, a sizeable minority expected to stay in their accorrmcxiation either permanently or indefinitely. Moreover, many of the anticipated moves were to be within the private rented sector; only one-fifth of all the households saw themselves leaving the sector within one year. So private renting was not always seen as temporary, and the end point was unclear for many of those t^o hoped it would be a short-term matter. Uncertainty about future housing possibilities characterized the views of nearly all in the single, couple and fami ly groups. 280- Applications for Local Authority Housing Before turning to an overall examination of household tenure preferences and expectations, in view of the importance of the issue of private versus public renting In current policy debates and the fact that some of the households in the survey clearly indicated a preference for public. rather than private renting, having registered their names on the local authority '%i/alting' list, the households who had registered and their reasons for doing so merits attention. TABLE 7.31: HOUSEHOLDS toHO HAD REGISTERED FOR LOCAL AUTHOR I nr ACCOWMODAriON t in HousphoM erpup Pensioner Single Student Couple Family I Registered In H/H Group 25 29 45 74 tjeason for rpgigtering as I of all reasons Security of tenure/insurance against eviction s; 45 3! 22 Better housing 29 45 B3 Cheaper rents 14 9 31 17 lotal nunber registered 7 II 13 23 28 39 29 29 31 (Soro Multiple Responses) Table 7.31 shows that a quarter of single people and pensioners, nearly a half of the couples and three-quarters of the families were registered as wanting local authority acconrnodation. These figures appear to represent the level of demand but are actually more indicative of perceived opportunity. Public sector policies on priority, which are conmonly known to favcxjr families, households with inadequate space and to a certain extent the elderly, were found to have cieterred many of the single people and the couples from registering. 'Real' demand, therefore, was higher than the figures suggest. The principal reason households wanted council housing was for -281 improved housing conditions. Ihis was especially true of families, who, as has been shown, were particularly disadvantaged within the private rented sector. Families often referred to the crowding or poor standard of repair in their homes and also indicated that they did not consider private rented accocrmodation to be suitable for children. As one family said, echoing many others: °I wanted to get a proper home for my kids". The households also considered public renting to be better because the accorrmodat ion was self-contained and repairs w«re 'guaranteed*. Security of tenure was another important reason for registration, particularly amongst pensior>ers. Many households, even where 'protected' and knowing their rights felt highly insecure privately renting: ...because some landlords are out of order. I had a lot of trouble in or>e place, the landlord had black heavies w/ho would come and remind us about the rent". ...to get a flat somewhere and to settle, ycxj can't renting from private landlords, you can get kicked out at any time." It's more secure with the council. I know 1 have rights but it doesn't work like that; the landlord can make a lot of rules and regulaticxis and can come and throw you out. In theory they're not meant to, but they can and do". It's risky in private rented accorrmodat i on, my landlord is old and could die and if the house is sold a new landlord might throw me out. " The possibility of paying less rent in the public sector was the least important reason tor having registered, only figuring as significant amongst couples. Households were also asked if they had applied for housing association accotrmodation. Only seven households had done so, 4X of all households compared with 351 who had registered as wanting local authority housing. In tt>e main this sector was sinnply not considered as an alternative. 282 Tenure Choice. Expectations and Preferences Whatever their plans, most households were obliged to continue renting privately, at least for the short term. Examination of responses to the question: "do ycxj feel you have to rent privately at the present time?" revealed that very few households CI 7%) considered other options were open to them (Table 7.32). TABLE 7.32: PERCEIVED DEGREE OF ChPICE OVER HOUSIMG TENURE 1 in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple F ami 1y Have Lo renl pr ivaiely 89 66 &9 90 Can buy 4 15 14 10 Can obtain counciI house 7 - - - - Total 100 too 100 100 too n= 2S 39 ?9 ?9 31 As with those households who had had a choice over tenure at the time of moving into their accormiodat ion, the main alternative was owner-occupation, and, as before, students' and single peoples* main reasons for not buying was a preference for terrporary accomnodat ion or concern over the conmitment involved. Students in this position were equally divided between those who had been offered financial help by their parents and those (older students) who had sold their homes before moving into the area to begin a course. Couples and families with the option of buying were waiting until they felt more secure financially, %^re about to buy or were already in the process of buying. Reasons for not renting from the council, again only an alternative within the pensioner group, had changed, those with the option did not want to move. The overall proportions able to select an alternative tenure at the time of the survey and at the time of first moving into their let differed very little from each other i\7% compared with I6t). But changes had occured; fewer pensioners and single people, and more couples and families considered they had other housing options (see Appendix A, labia A. /. 13). 1 he reduction in the number of pensioners was mainly because buying was no longer considered viable 2«3 for age reasons. Fewer single people too. considered they could buy, but for a mixture of reasons; ur>employment, illness, old age or low income. The reduction in numbers in this group able to buy was partly offset by an increase in those who had become financially stronger since moving into their acconnodation. A better financial position and so an improved perception of ability to buy, accounted for the growth in numbers of both couples and (ami lies who felt they did not need to rent privately. The proportions considering they had no other option but to rent privately and the changes over time have important implications for the private rented housing market in general. Even allowing for the uneven representation of the different household groups within the sector, the findings clearly suggest that at any point in time, the vast majority of tenants have to rent privately rather than choose to do so. The fir>dings also show that whereas enhanced ability to buy might occur over time with some, this could be offset by decreasing ability amongst others. Especially liable to experiencing a reduction in their opportunities to buy are those wfw> rely on a sole, low income; the single (non-student) househotcte. Over time, illness, unemployment or simply increasing age can make house purchase appear an ever more remote possibility. Since in normal circumstances single households have low priority for local authority housing, they are the most at risk of becoming 'trapped' within the private sector. Indeed, a number of the single people in the Plymouth survey said that they considered their chances of gaining access to alternative tenures to be largely dependent on their forming a relationship; two incomes might enable them to buy, tailing that, children could enhance their ability to obtain a council tenancy. In addition to the general question on future housing plans, households were asked to specify their tenure expectations for the short and mid term future (two years and six years hence), and to indicate their tenure prefererK:es. The answers on expected tenure throw further light on the ' temperariness' of the households' stay within the private rented sector (Table 7.33). 284- TABLE 7.33; EXPECTED THNURE AFTHR T>0 AM) SIX VgARS I in Household Uroop Pensioner Single Student Couple Faai ly 2yrs 6yrs 2yrs 6yrs ?yrs 6yrs ?yrs 6yrs ?yrs 6yrs lenure PrivaU rented ;9 68 6? ?l 69 3 36 10 ?3 10 Counci[ / II b 10 - - 7 10 4b 3? Owner-occupier 7 7 16 54 7 66 41 69 16 39 Unsure 1 14 13 lb ?4 31 14 10 16 19 Total 100 100 lOO 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 n= ?fl 39 29 29 31 Table 7.33 indicates that the majority ot pensioners, single people ar>d students, but a minority ot couples and families, expected to be privately renting in two years time. "The proportions thinking they would be in the sector after six years were smaller in every group, though most pensioners still expected to be in the sector. in sum, though movement out of the sector was generally expected, over a halt ot the households C52X) thought they would be privately renting in two years time and Just under a quarter <22X) in six years. Also of note is the marked difference in tenure expectations between the families and the childless, non-pensioner households. The majority ot the childless, yet a minority ot the tamilies expected to be buying a house within six years, whereas one in three families expected to have council tenancies within six years as opposed to no nxsre than one in ten in the childless groups. Previous work investigating the link between fertility and tenure has shown that child bearing constitutes a major obstacle to owner- occupation, especially for low income households, wfhilst It is highly irrportant for access to the local autt>ority sector (Payne and Payne, 1977; Ineichen, 1981; Madge and Brown, 1981). The Plymcxjth findings indicate that the actors Involved in the process probably conceptualize hcxjsing opportunities in much the same way. As an addendum to the model of diverging housing pathways, it should be noted that scxne of the surveyed tamilies saw their route to owner- occupation in tt>e 'Right to Buy' policy for the council sector. This is why proportionately few^r families expected to have council tenancies after six years than did after two years. -285- TABLE 7.34: OCCXJP AT IONAL STATUS AND EXPECTATIO^e OF BUYING Single Couple Famly All H/K All Eop All Unetip 1 Non-unual H/H heads expecting to buy in b yrs. S9 75 /5 66 79 53 All Non-oanual (n) 17 4 6 29 M 15 1 KanuBl H/H heads expecting to buy in 6 yrs. 31 60 29 40 53 19 All Hanual (n) 16 20 ?1 S7 30 27 (n= All households excluding those in Arned Forces afid never enployed. Enp. = at least one household head in lull-time paid work. Unenp. = Uhenployed, peroanenlly sick or econoaicatly inactive household head(s).) Apart from the division between households with children and those without, there was also a significant divide in tenure expectations with respect to occupational status; more non-manual households expected to be buying within six years than manual households. This relationship is consistent with other work (Payne and Payne. 1977; Hamnett, 19tt4> and, as Table 7.34 shows, the association was independent of household structure or working situation. The association between expectation of buying and occupational status was both strong and statistically significant (for all households, Kendall's Q was .5, and was significant at the 0.05 level, see Appendix B, Table B. 7. 16). One interesting finding concerning the households* tenure expectations was that sut>stantially fewer households expected to have a council tenancy in two, or even in six years, than had registered as wanting such accomnodat Ion. In fact 43X of those registered did not expect to obtain a council tenancy; all but one because they felt, or had been officially told, that their chances of being rehoused were low. Families had the highest expectations of success, again underlining the point made above that children are seen as the key to the council sector. The proportion of families registered who expected to be council tenants within six years was 74X, amongst pensioners, single people and couples the proportions were 43%, 45X and 46X respectively. 286 A little under a half of those registered but not expecting a council tenancy anticipated buying within six years (33). For some, owner-occupation was in any event prefered (though they would also have prefered to have a council tenancy until in a position to buy - even if debarred from buying their council house). Others felt they were being 'forced' to buy; private lets offered poor accormiodat ion. council lets appeared inaccessible. So it was necessary to buy in order to achieve adequate housing, though it could put household finances into a precarious position: "We've been on the council list for eight years (and) one month ago we were told it could still take four to five years so we bought a house. )de felt forced to buy. we're worried about the cost of the mortgage and we're conmitted now for twenty- five years." (Family) Just over a quarter of the households registered, but having little faith in obtaining council accorrmodat ion, felt they would still be privately renting after six years (34). The remaining households y^re equally divided between those expecting to be in other sectors (35) and those who were unsure about their future tenure. Quite often this caused some concern: 'I feel the council won't rehouse us because we have two bedrooms, they* re not interested in the state of the buiIding. . . We've tried three housing associations, (one) said it could take years and we found out it was expensive and we'd only get a flat... the others had closed their waiting Iists. . . we*ve investigated buying but my husband's work isn't secure, he's self-employed and it would mean putting all our finances into a house and there would be nothing left. We can't get a mortgage from a mortgage company, we tried, but they wanted three years of books from my husband and he hasn't got that yet. Anyway I feel very pessimistic that we'd be able to afford to buy even in six years." After six years, more households expected to be in the owner- occupier sector than in any other. But significantly fewer expected to be in this sector than had said owner-occupation was their 'ideal' tenure (Tables 7.35 and 7. 3A). 287 TABUE 7.35; HOUSEHOLDS' TBvftJRE PREFERHMCFS 1 in Household 6rou9. Pensioner Single Student Couple Family 'Ideal' 1 enure Owner-occupation 50 6? 100 90 68 Private rented 25 6 - - - Council/K/A 11 3 - - 16 Oiffier-occupation or Council/H/A - 5 - 7 10 Owner-occupation or Private Rented i - - - - Any 11 3 - 3 6 Total 100 100 100 100 too n= 28 39 ?9 29 31 TABLE 7.36: TENURE PREFERENCES AM> E)(PECTAT!OrsB Pensioner Single Student Couple Family 1 of H/H expecting to be in ideal tenure in 6 yrs where ideal was: Owner-occupation 7 56 66 // ii2 n= 14 32 29 20 21 Council/K/A 67 0 - - 60 n= 3 1 - - 5 Owner-occupation/Council/H/A - 100 - SO 100 n= - ? - 2 3 As Table 7.35 demonstrates, owner-occupation was preferred by the vast majority, not unexpectedly, given the social merit, financial and other advantages attached to the sector. The shortfall in the nuir^ers expecting to be in the sector within six years is also hardly surprising, buying Is a different matter from owning. In general, pensioners, many of %rfhom said they would have 'loved to have been able to buy' were certain buying was no longer a possibility due to age. Old age %tfas also seen as preventing hcxjse purchase by some in the single group. However the majority of single people, couples and families who did not anticipate buying even though owner-occupation was their ideal, said that they felt it was unlikely that they'd ever have the inccxne to buy because they were permanently ill or expected future work to be insecure, unremunerative or provide unstable earnings. Most couples and families in this position looked to the public sector for future housing, single people had more mixed views, though the larger part 288- thought they would stilt be privately renting (see Appendix A, Table A.7.14). By contrast, students w^o did not anticipate buying within six years saw their eventual opportunities as good; they thought that they might still feel too young to buy or their income might still be insufficient in six years* time. The above discussion on anticipated movement into the public and owner-occupier sectors has indicated that a number of households felt pessimistic about their opportunities. The question thus arises: how many households v*io either expected still to be privately renting in six years, or vjere uncertain about their future situations, were effectively 'trapped' within the private rented sector? One way of ciefining 'trapped' households is to consider all households who saw no prospect of moving into other housing sectors in the torseeable future. However, as this would also mean including households who prefered to rent privately, a more appropriate approach would be to consicier only those households for whom renting privately was not their ideal. Households who prefered not to rent privately but who felt pessimistic about ever leaving the sector were, as might be expected - given the importance of family status tor access to the council sector and income for the owner-occupier - mainly middle-aged or elderly and single. 46X of the pensioners and 2IX of the single people were apparently trapped in the sector, 83X of all the households Identified as 'trapped'. In addition, three families and one couple considered it highly unlikely they would t>e able to leave the sector. Pessimism about the possibility about achieving a housing 'ideal' has been shown in previous work to be negatively related to household satisfaction with acconrnociat i on (Michelson, 1980; see Chapter One, Section 1.3). In the Plymouth survey, however, no such relationship was found, and households displayed a general tendency to make the best of their situations, whether they were optimistic about obtaining their ideal tenure or not Csee Appendix A, tables A. 7. 15 and A. 7. 16). Even those ^o appeared to be trapped in the sector showed no lesser satisfaction with their accommociat i on than the other households (36). Certainly, household satisfaction was related to the quality of it\e accofrrrodation (Appendix B, Table B. 7. 17), but the households 269- frequently displayed more satisfaction than their objective circumstances warranted. Nearly a third of those in unsatisfactory dwellings, for instance, expressed satisfaction with their accommodation (37). These findings suggest that surveys of housing satisfaction, which tend to show high proportions satisfied (38), should be treated with some caution. They cannot be used to obtain an objective assessment of the acceptability of the stock, nor can they be taken to indicate that aspirations have been met. The temptation to see the findings of satisfaction surveys in this way can produce complacency about housing conditions and accessibility (see, for example. Coles, 198?), in the face of evidence, such as that provided In the present work, showing the extent of bad housing and the difficulties many households have in obtaining access to accomnodation. Satisfaction should rather be taken as indicative ot a ordinary coping response. This would explain the apparent paradox noted by some writers (for example, Michelson, I9B0), that despite expressions ot housing satisfaction. many households seek alternative accommodation. Sunwnary In this section the households' future housing plans and perceived prospects have been examined. Several questions were posed concerning the length of time the housef>olds expected to stay in their acconmodat i on and within the private rented sector, and the households' views on their opportunities to gain access to alternative tenures and to obtain their housing ideal. It was found that most households saw their accorrmodat ion as temporary, although a third, mainly pensioners, had no plans to move, even though their acconmodat ion was often of poor quality. A certain amount of movement within the private rented sector was anticipated, especially amongst students, single people and couples. Only a fifth ot the households, mainly families and couples, expected to move out of the sector within a year. The vast majority of the households (84X) considered they had no other option but to rent privately, yet few households (6X) said they prefered this form of tenure. Although council renting was 290- rarely mentioned, as the households' 'ideal' tenure, it was greatly prefered to privately renting; some 35X of the households having applied for a council tenancy. For the most part, these households saw the council sector as providing better c^ality housing, but security of tenure was also an irrportant attraction, especially for pensioners who tended to feet highly vulnerable to the whims of their Landlorcis. However, only a little over a half of the households who had registered expected to obtain a council tenancy within six years. After six years, three-quarters of the households expected to have moved out of the private rented sector. Tenure expectations were found to differ significantly according to family and occupational status. Families contrasted with the childless, non- pensicxier households, in that proportionately more expected to have obtained council tenancies within six years, and tew/er expected to be buying. Households with a head who was or had been erqployed In a non-manual occupation had greater expectations of entering the ov^er-occupier sector than householcis w^ere the head was in, or had been in a manual cx:cupat icxi. These divisions In expectations reflect the actual divisions in social conposition between the twwD main tenures, noted by a nurrtier of writers (see for exanple llarmett, 1984; Payne and Payne, 1977). Such differences, it has been argued (Madge and Brown, 1981; Payne and Payne, 1977), are created by the differential selection criteria governing access, and certainly the Plymouth households based their expectations on their understanding of their eligibility for these two housing sectors. The principal expected destination tenure was owner- occupation, 47X of all t>ouseholcis (two-thirds of the couples and students) anticipated buying within six years. Ihese, however, constituted only 55X of all the households who said the owner- occupier sector was their ideal. With the exception of students, the majority who did not see themselves buying within six years even though it was tfieir preference, thcxight it unlikely they would ever be able to buy because of age, illness or low income. The single group contained a nunt>er of househols who were especially pessimistic about their future housing oppx>rtun i t ies, seeing their chances ot ever gaining access to either the local authority or owner-occupier sector as very poor. Thus, even though most 291 households did view privately renting as more or less a temporar/ measure, there were some households who appeared to be trapped in the sector. Whilst many of these were pensioners, who, it should be said, had generally become settled and no longer wanted to move, nearly a quarter were single people %tfho wished to Leave the sector. Since single households represent a significant proportion of all those privately renting, this finding suggests there are large numbers of private tenants who feel unable to Leave a tenure, which, as has been shown, provides very poor value for money. 292 FOOTNOTES FQR CHAPTER SEVEN 1. Although it is inportant to recognise households had moved into their present ecconmodation at different times in the past, it is difficult to assess what, if any, effect different times of movement had on reasons given. 2. Percentages Include one respondent who had rented irom the local authority and had also been a mortgagee. 3. Four families had been council tenants inmediately before moving to their present let. All had been ineligible for a transfer, one had failed to obtain a mutual exchange after 18 months and the other three considered their chances of an exchange poor as their accorrmodat ion was in a remote location (two had moved from the north of Scotland). All considered moving necessary. Thus although entitled to alternative council housing, none of these families had felt able to obtain it. 4. A partial exception is Rossi's (1980) study. In this Rossi points out that income has a strong effect on the incidence of forced moves; low income households can lack the financial resources to sustain them when unemployment strikes and so can be forced into seeking cheaper housing. Rossi, however, was referring to 3 households only (1980; p.164). 5. A household's prior knowledge of the market and perception of their opportunities could potentially be measured using various concept indicators, but assessment is Likely to prove unreliable in pK}st-facto research. 6. An obvious antecedent variable accounting for the slight relationship between low aspirations and a need for accormiodation urgently, is a situation of impending homelessness. However, only 20% of those who said they needed accorrfnodat ion urgently were homeless or facing homelessness. 293 7. Other sources of information used were the Citizens' Advice Bureau and Plymouth City Council, both of which did not provide addresses of landlords or private rented accorrmodation but did provide information on local letting agencies. 8. This paper has since closed down. 9. Advertisement in the Evening Herald, 1988. to. 1988 Information from Mr. Tony Flynn, Student Acconmodat ion Officer. Students intake has considerably increased during the past two years (1989 and 1990> so it is probable the number of students seeking private lets has also increased. M. These were the hospital accorrtTKidation service, the Probation accorrmodat ion service, a church magazine and the dockyard notice board. 12. Households were asked to specify the number of vacancies applied for and why they were not taken. Where households gave vague answers they were not included in the analysis. Sometimes the response was of the type '30-40' or '10-12'. Probing and discussion ot the households' experiences often increased precision, households tending to remeirtjer their search experiences very well - but where an estimate of this type was given, the midpoint or lower midpoint was recorded. ft is assumed that, although there is a degree of error in the final figures presented, inaccuracies will be distributed between the groups and so comparisons can be made with reasonable confidence. 13. This measure provides a reasonable indicator of search effort, although the extent to trfhich different sources of information are used, the duration of the search and the availability of particular types of lets could distort a straightforward relat ionship. •294- 14. N = 27; 13 encountering no discrimination when applying for vacancies, 14 encountering discrimination. 15. N =16; 5 encountering no discrimination when applying tor vacancies, 11 encountering discrimination. 16. As noted earlier, such behaviour did not appear to be related to moves made under difficult circumstances 17. The total number of households for these calculations refers to the households who had moved within three years prior to the survey and had needed to search for accontnodation. Households are regrouped according to type at time of move, pregnant women with r>o other children are included in the family group and five families purporting to be childless are regrouped into the appropriate categories. single, 24; students, 25; couples, 19; families, 16. Id. In all groups these were households wanting unfurnished acconmodation or 'extras* such as a T. V. , garden, central heating etc. Csee Table 7.6). Households wanting a flat in the single group and a house for a specific number in the student group, were also deemed to have had 'comparatively high' Initial aspirations. 19. These, in fact, all were households who had originally had 'low' aspirations and were single people and students wanting 'any acconmodation' or *any' bedsit or room, and couples and families wanting 'any accorrmodation* or 'any' flat. 20. 'Aspirations' for this analysis refers to aspects of the accoomodation that were mentionned in response to the questions on the subject (questions 24 and 25). Additionally, comnents in -295- response to the questions eliciting whether the household had obtained what was originally wanted, such as 'it wasn't the quality I had wanted' are taken to indicate attributes that the accorrmodatlon was expected to have and are included as aspirations, even if they were not articulated as such in response to the earlier questions. 21. Percentages of households who had moved within three years prior to the surveyt had needed to search for accoamodat ion and had had aspirations over the accorrmodat ion sought (n=74>. 22. Figures exclude vacancies found to have been already taken. 23. 26% of the households who had obtained accorrmodat ion via personal contacts had had low Initial aspirations, as conpared with 16% of the households who had used formal sources. 24. Excluding households with low aspirations, 29% of those needing acconmodation urgently or within two weeks were in unsatisfactory dwellings Cn=24>, as against 24% of those having longer to search (n=45>; 60% of those homeless were unsatisfactorily housed 25. Excluding households with low aspirations, 351 of the households moving into Plymouth were in unsatisfactory dwellings 26. It would be useful to control for discrimination to see whether time resources, homelessness and movement into Plymouth had an additional Influence on what was obtained. In the present study however, numbers are too small to permit such analyses. 27. A significant proportion of households not only stay in the sector for a long period, but also in the same accooYnodation. In the Plymouth survey, 29% of the households had lived in their accorrmodat ion for three years or more, and 641 of the pensioners 296 had been resident over ten years. National statistics confirm this picture (see Chpter Two, Section 2. 3>. 28. 51 households planned to stay in their accomnodation permanently or had no plans to move, 24 of these were pensioners. 29. W= 155 and 20 respectively. 30. N= 10; 5 wanted better acconvnodation, 3 faced eviction and 2 were leaving the area. 31. 9; 4 expected to buy within twelve months. 32. N= /; 5 wanted better accoomodation, 1 faced eviction and 1 was leaving the area. 33. N= 23; 11 expected to buy within 6 years. 34. N= 23; 6 expected to be still privately renting in 6 years. 35. These households expected to be either in housing association tenancies or in Navy married quarters. 36. Such a comparison needs to take the quality of the accormodation into account. Ot the 24 households who were apparently trapped within the private rented sector, 13 were in unsatisfactory dwellings. Of these, SIX were satisfied with their acconinodation, 23% dissatisfied and 46X were r^utral. Satisfaction amongst all households in unsatisfactory dwellinqs was of the order: 29t satisfied, 25% dissatisfied, and 46X neutral. 37. 56. of which 16 (29%) were satisfied. 38. See, for example, the British Market Research Bureau survey (1976). -297- CHAPTER EIGHT: SUTtiARY AND COr^LUSlQj^ At the height of the flurry of academic research into housing market 'gatekeepers', when the individualist approach for understanding housing situations had been largely abandoned in favour of the new, constraint-oriented institutional, Haimett protested that the baby was being thro%m out with the bathwater; to focus only on the production side of the housing market, he argued, produces an equally one-sided analysis (1977). Haimett's remarks yt/eni unheeded - probably because he was more concerned with resuscitating notions of choice and preference than with the strengths of the individualist methodology. But It is a great pity that proponents of a constraint perspective Jettisoned the individualist approach along with choice explanations, and that, as far as the Individualists w*ere concerned (Judging by the content of their work), the criticisms appear to have fallen almost without exception on deaf ears. As a result, and despite calls for such work (1), issues concerning the way In which Individuals respond to, and are affected by, the constraints of the housing market have been given scant attention. By fusing a constraint perspective with an individualist methodology, and taking as Its starting point the Idea of differential access, this study represents an attempt to bridge the gap between the two approaches. In so doing it has been possible to shed some light on a number of hitherto unresearched areas in the context of the private rented housing market. These include the relative positions of different households in the conpetltlon for housing, and the irrportance of different types of constraint - Individual as well as structural - in restricting choice, the strategies adopted by households to negotiate the market and the Impact and meaning of constraints In terms of housing outcomes. Housing studies concerned with Issues of access and differential opportunity are a rarity nowadays. To a great extent this Is a result of the too-close association of these subjects with the Institutional approach. By the early 'eighties, the gatekeeping role of most housing agencies and Institutions had been 298- Investigated, whilst the input and criticisms of neo-Marxists caused attention to be shifted to other matters. The decline In interest is regrettable, not only because other lines of inquiry and alternative approaches to the Institutional were not pursued, but also because issues of access appear all the more Important at the present time. The council sector is contracting, house purchase remains beyond the reach of a sizeable proportion of the population, and homelessness, the barometer of housing market stress, has risen to an unprecedented level (2>. Especially pertinent now Is a focus on access to private lettlngs. One consequence of the shrinking council sector and the current policy emphasis on private provision of rented housing Is that the private rented sector's function as a tenure of last resort has become more Important. In this situation, and (whether or not recent policy initiatives help boost supply) if the concern is with housing - and with decent housing - for all, it Is vital to gain an understanding of 'who wins and who loses' in the competition for private rented accorrmodat ion. To Inquire Into this, then, has been the purpose of this thesis. In this concluding chapter the intention is to bring together the survey's findings and assess its achievements, to suggest a nunt>er of useful directions for future work, and finally, to appraise. in the light of the findings, recent policy developments affecting the situations and opportunities of private tenants. 8. 2. ACCESS AND OUTCOhES The Initial concern In the research was to obtain detailed Information on the housing situations of the private tenants so that analyses could be undertaken relating differential access and opportunities to housing outcomes. This work focused firstly on the households' physical situations; the type of accorTffx>dation occupied and its condition, then on legal and financial aspects of the lettings. The study of housing conditions, though necessary for later analyses, was also Important in Its own right. We have no clear understanding of w*tat conditions prevail In the private rented sector nor who is liable to occupy the worst housing. The main 299- source of Information, the English House Condition Survey (Department of the Environment, 1986), provides few tenure specific analyses. The Census considers only amenity provision, self- containment, sharing and crowding, whilst Todd's survey (1990) similarly confines Itself to these aspects of housing quality (3). As much more Is involved In determining housing adequacy, and certainly damp and disrepair are significant concerns, the Plymouth survey, therefore, provides more comprehensive Information on conditions In the sector. Standards constituting a dwelling's 'fitness' for human habitation are set down In the 1985 Housing Act, and this provided the main reference for the %^rk. The 1985 Act has now been superceded In Important respects by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, but the criteria for assessing standards used In the Plymouth survey are, In fact, more In line with the new Act than the old. For example, the new Act adds an Inside WC to the criteria affecting fitness, and includes, for the first time, means of escape In case of fire in the required standards for WOs. The definition of dampness has also been altered to allow consideration of the effects of condensation, as well as those of rising or penetrating damp. All these matters were considered Irrportant, and so were Investigated In the Plymouth survey. Care was taken in the selection of dw#el lings, and a broadly representative sample of units occupied by the different types of household was surveyed in Plymouth's Inner city. In this light, the standards found are quite appalling. A quarter or more of single people, students and couples, and the majority of pensioners and families were in 'unsatisfactory' dwellings; acconfnodat ion that was in substantial disrepair, severely damp In habitable rooms or lacking In amenities. In fact, employing the new definition of fitness C4) brought In by the 1989 Act (which also made It easier to determine fitness). It can be said that these dwellings - 36X of all those surveyed - would now certainly be regarded as unfit for human habitation. The other dwellings were hardly more acceptable. Only 7X on average met all nine of the key standards for KtlOs, and only 111 had any precautionary device or means of escape In case of fire. Overall, the examination of the physical condition of the dwellings revealed there were marked variations In the circumstances 300- of the different household groups. What stood out in particular was the very poor situations of the families. This group was the most often crowded, was the most likely to have homes that were severely damp or in substantial disrepair, and showed the highest proportion (811) unsatisfactorily housed. As previous work (eg. Short, 1979) and Inspection of letting advertisements indicate families are less acceptable to landlords, these findings strongly suggested a competitive disadvantage produces less optimum outcomes. In broad terms, there was not much difference between the household groups in respect of their legal situations. Around three-quarters in each group occupied the more secure regulated or fixed term lettlngs, and a quarter the less secure shorthold, resident landlord or licence lettlngs. It was argued though, that of all the household groups, pensioners and families might be expected to have sought tenure security and so show a greater representation in the more secure accorrfnodat ion. Investigation revealed that tenure security was Indeed more important for them. In contrast to the other households, who said they had not given the matter much attention when searching, the pensioners and families reported that lack of choice or difficulties of access, led to their acceptance of, less secure accontnodation. In corrmon with Todd's survey (1990), rent levels In the sampled units were found to relate to the presence of furniture, the size of the accormodat Ion, and to length of residence. But comparison of equivalent accormodat ion showed that as rnich was paid for poor quality housing as for good, and that couples and families paid more than the other households. Thus it appeared that landlords charged not just for the acconmodation but also per head. Deposits against damage to property were most often required from the unemployed (probably because the payment gave their landlords some security until housing benefit claims were processed) and by landlords granting limited or no tenure security. The general Impression gained of the households' situations was that first, the family group came off especially badly; obtaining the worst housing but paying the most, and second, the sector as a whole gave very poor value for money; conditions and tenure security ^re Inferior to that provided in the larger part of the council sector, yet the accoomodat Ion %^s much more -301- expensive (5). These findings suggested that very few of the households were privately renting out of choice. This was indeed the case. No more than a quarter in each group (and none of the families) considered that an alternative tenure had been an option when they moved into their acconmodat ion. Private renting has often been seen as particularly appropriate for the single, but only a quarter of the students and one-fifth of the single people said that the sector had any advantages for them or was prefered. For most of the households, an inability to exercise choice over tenure was because local authority housing required a long wait or (amongst the childless) was seen as virtually inaccessible, and because incomes were too low for house purchase. In comparison with average incomes, the incomes of the surveyed households were certainly very low. Even amongst households with a head in full-time employment, only 7X had incomes that equalled or were above national average levels. As housing costs were high, a large proportion of Income was spent on rent. In fact, over 70% of the households In each group spent one-fifth or more of their income on rent, and nearly a half (mainly single people, students and families) spent twwj-flfths or more. As Income is a highly important factor influencing housing opportunities (particularly tenure opportunities), before seeking explanations for the households' different situations within the private rented sector through an examination of their search experiences, the work focused on the role of income. It was hypothesized that, if the households' different situations were simply a matter of Income differentials, than it would be expected that the higher income households would pay more rent and would obtain the better housing. Clearly, income differentials were not the whole story because rent levels appeared to bear no relation to housing quality. However, large accoamodat ion and exclusive use of amenities might be bought, and it was found that, overall, those with above median level incomes in each group (apart from the pensioner) outlayed more for their housing and tended to occupy the larger, more self-contained units. Because too many controls would have been needed to perform analyses It was not possible to examine whether income differentials 302- explained the differences In situation between the household groups. But It did appear that couples fared rather better than the rest, more having two or three roomed lettings and not sharing amenities. This group also showed the lowest proportion in unsatisfactory dwellings. Since rent levels were as high for families but their housing was very poor, it seems that Income The role of working situation and socio-economic status were also Investigated as factors influencing housing outcomes. Households where the head was In fulL-tlme work were, in percentage terms, associated with the better quality housing (family status reducing the strength of the association) but there was no apparent relationship between socio-economic status and housing situation. It was suggested that, despite letting adverts seeking 'professionals', for most landlords the fact that a household was in employment was probably much more Important than their occupational status. A household's search for accorrmodatIon can be conceptualised as having a number of stages, beginning with the decision or need to move and ending with the acceptance of a vacancy. Models of the residential movement process have been developed in previous work (eg. Clapham and Klntrea, 1984; Robson, 1975; Bourne, 1980; Clark, 1986). But none, as far as the author is aware, has considered movement within or Into the private rented sector, and none has given much attention to search constraints; apart from some acknowledgement that finances and the avalllbillty of property limit action, residential movement has been generally conceived as a matter of decision-making, choice and preference. Such give an unrealistic portrayal of the process as clearly, people can only make choices within a framework of constraints. The model of residential movement developed to structure Inquiry in the Plymouth survey Csee p. 26) was specifically designed to enable investigation of the various factors that serve to limit choice over housing, both 303- individual (such as time to look, and distance from search area) and structural (such as discrimination and the supply and price of housing). This Investigation made it possible to evaluate the Importance of 'constraint* - and the different types of constraints - in explaining housing outcomes. Only recent movers were Included In the study of the households' searches (this effectively removed the pensioner group from consideration) and households were regrouped according to their composition at the time of moving. This preliminary regrouping brought Into sharp relief one consequence of the widely kno^ landlord prejudice against children; five households who had children or were expecting (one-fifth of all the families), decided to conceal their family status In order to better negotiate the private rental market. In fact, discrimination, both perceived and encountered, emerged as the most significant factor influencing both search behaviour and the eventual situation of the unemployed and the family households. It was an important reason why some households had low aspirations; three In five households seeking only basic accommodation considered that flexibility was their best strategy because they had children or were unemployed. It was also an Important reason w^y some households, In the course of searching, decided to Lower their sights about what sort of accorrmodation they would accept. If the unemployed and family households were not aware of the problem of discrimination before their searches, they soon became enlightened when Investigating vacancies. One in two households dependent on benefits, and all but one of the families, discovered, when enquiring at letting or estate agencies, or referIng to newspaper or shop advertisements, that they were Less (or not at all) acceptable to landlords. Despite the fact that a use of such sources of Information would help filter out lettings for which a household was ineligible, the extent of discrimination at the point of application was severe. The unemployed were turned away from one half of the vacancies solely because they were unemployed, and the families were excluded from three In five vacancies because of their children - four in five if they also were unemployed. flany landlords prefer to tell undesirable applicants that 304- vacancies have already been filled. Being widely 'undesirable', unemployed households, and families in particular, found applying for acconmodation a gruelling and disheartening process. As Weisbrod and Vldal found in their study (1981), households who experienced discrimination had to search much harder and apply for more vacancies than those who did not. Worst placed of all were unemployed family households. These were able to exercise choice over just one in every twenty-seven vacancies applied for. In arguing for a constraint perspective (and. Incidentally, dismissing as useless a focus on the Individual) Gray said in 1975 that 'many groups are constricted and constrained from choice and pushed Into particular housing situations because of their position in the market'. In the Plymouth survey, discrimination certainly appears to have pushed the unemployed and families Into the worst housing. The association between unemployed and family households experiencing discrimination and unsatisfactory dwellings was statistically both significant and strong (x2 significant at 0.01, Kendal I's Q = . 7). Of course, other households, apart from those with an unemployed head or with children, were liable to encounter discrimination. Indeed, discrimination of all sorts was found; some landlords did not accept males, others females, some students, others non-students, whilst mixed sex groups, single sex groups, couples, cohabitees, smokers and households with pets were all excluded from certain lettings. But discrimination was less intense for these households. On average, the students, employed single and couples were Ineligible for 12X of the vacancies applied for - the equivalent figure for the unenployed and families was 62X. More Important In restricting choice amongst students and households with a head In full-time work were constraints to do with the cost and avalllbillty of property. Students had particular problems because of the timing of their searches. At different times of the year there were either many student lettlngs - but severe competition - or hardly any student lettlngs available at all. Most of the households had low expectations of the private rented sector, but the very low standard of most lettings restricted choice and forced many households to modify their original Ideas. Exaggerated claims were often made about accomnodat ion; many flats 305- turned out to be bedsits with a partitioned kitchen, acconmodat ion with two bedrooms actually had one divided by a curtain. Also, many lettlngs were found to be dirty and delapldated. Given the very poor accomnodat ion that was obtained by most of the households, it seems that they were not excessively stringent in their demands. In all, nearly 60X of the reasons given by households who decided they had to lo%i«r their sights, concerned the cost of housing, the types available (especially the paucity of 'genuine' flats) and competIt Ion. The Mllner Holland report (1965) and McCarthy's study on the American Housing Allowance Demand Experiment (1982) have demonstrated the Importance of 'Inside information' In the private rental market, and the Plymouth study provides additional evidence that access is considerably eased by the use of personal contacts. Of the various sources of Information used by the households, personal contacts produced the highest rate of success. One-fifth of the movers did not need to conduct a search because friends or relatives Informed them of vacancies or a landlord contact provided accommodation. McCarthy found that deposits were less frequently required from households who obtained their accornnodation through friends and this was also the case for the Plymouth households. The Plymouth survey also found that such households were slightly more likely to have obtained the more favourable letting agreements which granted greater tenure security. This was probably more a matter of default than an active policy; landlords preferlng to let to kno^»^ or recorrmended households perhaps more often making casual verbal agreements where trust played an important role. A number of factors that originate at the level of the Individual and v^lch might Influence access or outcomes were Investigated In the Plymouth survey. But, apart from income level, the type of information source used was the only one that appeared to make any difference. It might be expected that households who had limited time to search, who 'needed' accoomodat Ion because they were homeless or facing homelessness, or who were moving Into the area rather than within, would search less and so obtain less optimum housing. However, they were no less active In their searches than households more favourably placed, and though, In percentage terms they were slightly more likely to occupy 306- unsatisfactory dwellings, the relationships were not significant. It appears from the Plymouth data that constraints associated with the character and organisation of the market were more Irrportant than Individual factors In deciding housing outcome. Discrimination, as noted, played a major and Independent role. But as the private rental market is one In %^lch demand greatly exceeds supply and the majority of the 'consumers' have low Incomes and thus little bargaining power, - and Plymouth's market was no exception - the reality for most of the households was that their freedom to manoeuvre and their range of choices were very limited. Many had to take what they could get. In fact, because the market was so highly constrained, many households had to be quite resourceful and creative to obtain accommodation. This was particularly true of families, for whom strategies included subterfuge (concealing their family status), splitting the household and taking on bedsits (some landlords who were keen to extract the maximum possible rent from a bedsit, accepted single parents with infant children) and making legal agreements that gave tenure only to the male partner. Such families were 'survivors'; they were enterprising In these ways to avoid homelessness. This study, then, has provided some Information on the importance of the various factors that serve to limit choice over housing. It has also been able to demonstrate, in the context of Plymouth's private rented sector, the Importance of differential market capacity to distributional outcomes. Because, in the absence of 'Inside Information', landlords' selection policies were so crucial In defining market capacity, discrimination thus created a hierarchy of opportunities within the sector, and unemployed families were clearly on the bottom rung. The Plymouth study has been exploratory; It Is the first, as far as the author Is aware, to employ the Individualist approach specifically to Illuminate, at the Interface, the significance and impact of constraints in the private rented housing market. As such, it has only been able to touch the surface of a nurTt>er of Issues and there Is wide scope for further work. For exarrple, there were indications of gender differences In opportunities within the private rented sector; females appeared to be more subject to 307- manipulation and exploitation, whilst males (and particularly male groups) appeared to be treated with some caution. Structured income Inequalities between the sexes creates a greater dependency on the sector amongst single women (Glnsburg, 1989). In the Plymouth survey, Incomes, though generally low, were a little higher amongst single men than single women, and a few men, but none of the women, planned to buy In the near future. Single women were nuch more likely to have registered for local authority accofrmodatIon. The focus of the research precluded further Investigation of these interesting findings, but differences between the sexes In how they fare In the private rented sector, and in their views on, and plans for, housing, seems a promising line of Inquiry for future study. Other work might explore whether there is discrimination on the basis of age - Short's 1979 study suggested that landlords prefer young households. Also, a concern at the present time which begs attention Is how the position of students In the private rental market has changed now that the vast majority are no longer entitled to housing benefit. in general. It is clear that larger samples which Include only recent movers could give more attention to the differences between households In access and outcomes, whilst in- depth qualitative investigations could explore In greater detail the way in which households Interact with, and respond to, market constraints. Of course, it would be helpful to know whether Investigations along the same lines as the Plymouth work, but focusing on other locations, produce similar findings. The extent to which generalisations can be made about access and outcomes on the basis of the Plymouth findings Is a valid question. In the absence of similar studies, it is not possible to give any definite answer, but work exists which can provide some pointers. Since it is widely known that families and unemployed households are less favoured by private landlords, the considerations here are, firstly, would these groups' difficulties be greater or less In other areas, and secondly, would a relationship between discrimination and housing outcome be found elsewhere. Welsbrod and Vidal's study, discussed in Chapter One, suggests that discrimination is less Intense In cities where there Is a more plentiful housing supply, although the form it takes will 308 be the same. In comparison with other non-metropolitan cities, Plymouth has a large private rental sector. However, because of (amongst other factors) high house prices, low wage levels, a relatively small council sector and a large service population In the city, the level of demand Is very high. It Is therefore possible that discrimination Is more Intense In Plymouth than In some other cities. t/ork on the housing experiences of racial minorities (Rex and Moore, 1967. Smith, 1989; Daniels 1968; Fenton and Col lard, 1977) suggests that the relationship between discrimination and housing outcome would be found in other areas; families and unemployed households, like minority households, being pushed Into the worst housing. What constitutes the 'worst* housing will obviously vary according to the character of the local market; Plymouth appears to have less of a problem of old, unimproved rentals which are lacking in amenities, than some other cities, but a greater problem of mult I-occupancy. SQnE PQI-ICY CQNSIDERATKy^ The policy context Is ever fluid, and since the Plymouth survey was completed there have been a number of developments which together have had a dramatic effect on the character of private tenants' housing opportunities. The 1988 Housing Act has been the most Irrportant; It affected all the rented sectors, and has been described as a 'milestone for housing policy and the welfare state In Britain* (Ginsburg. 1989, p. 56). With this Act, the Conservatives considerably strengthened their policy of privatisation. Other developments Include the changes made In March 1988 to the business expansion scheme (BES), the implementation In April 1988 of the 1986 Social Security Act and the Introduction of the Poll Tax. This section will briefly examine the main effects of these policies on the situations and opportunities of private tenants, and will then consider, drawing on the Plymouth findings, whether the stress on private landlordism Is a desirable policy. The section will conclude with a number of recomnendatlons for future housing policy. The claim made of the 1988 Housing Act was that it would -309- create a more favourable environment for landlordism and so 'make a major contribution to ending the shortage of places to rent. ... and to solving the problem of homelessness' (Nicholas Ridley, cited in The Independent, 1987). Landlordism was to be encouraged by the removal of rent regulation from new lettings; from the 15th of January, 1989 'market' rents could be charged, and by the reduction of tenure security. Probably because the government realised that the deregulation of tenancies would be insufficient to reverse the decline of the private rented sector (Kearns, 1989) changes were also made to the rules governing the BES to favour would-be landlords. The BES, first set up in 1983, offers relief on income tax for Individuals investing up to £40,000 a year in a new company and exemption from capital gains tax if the capital is left In the company for five years or more. In the 1988 budget an investment ceiling of £500,000 pa. was Imposed on most businesses but the ceiling for property letting companies was raised to £5 million. The measures for the private rented sector contained in the 1988 Housing Act and the changes to the BES have been much criticised (see, in particular, the journals 'Roof and 'Housing') and it Is not proposed to reiterate these various criticisms. Here, the concern is with the effects of these policies on tenants' situations and especially on their opportunities of access. Since a boost In the supply of private lettings could ease access, at least for some groups, It Is first important to examine whether this has occurred. In the early days there were signs that the policies had encouraged new lettings. The Guardian, for example, reported in April 1990 that 'business is brisk in private renting, far more buoyant in fact than the depressed home-ownership market*. A great deal of interest was also shown in the BES. However, what the Guardian report failed to assess was whether business was brisk because the home-ownership market was depressed. Pawson has noted that instances of actual new Investment are few, many of the 'extra' lettings were in fact rented properties for which sale was Intended but delayed until the owner-occupier market picked up, and temporary lets by owner occupiers who were unable to sell their homes. The developments gave no firm indication that the market had received a boost that would endure in the long term. It is equally unclear whether the new lettings made under the BES, will 310- remain In the sector because capital can be withdrawn after five years without penalty. Withdrawals of investment can therefore be timed to coincide with house price booms, and re-investments made when the market is depressed. There is ample historical evidence to suggest that the supply of rentals is tied to a great extent to developments in the owner-occupier market, and the supply Is likely to be lowest when it is most needed, le. when house prices soar (see Chapter Two, also Holmans, 1987). The reduction In tenure security, In particular, the Introduction of assured shortholds, has now made it easier for landlords to sell when the time is right (Pawson, 1991). In fact, despite evidence of new lettings, the net supply of private rentals has continued to decline. Around 112,000 v/ere lost between January 1989, %^en the sector was deregulated, and December 1990 (Department of Environment, Quarterly). Also, despite the claims, the 1966 Act failed to make any impression on the total number of privately ovMied empty properties; in April 1988 the number was 579,000, by April 1990 it had increased to 586,000 (Foster with Burrows, 1991) At the same time pressure on the private rented sector has grown considerably because of the contraction of the local authority sector - between 1986 and 1990 the net supply of council dwellings had declined by 14,000. New housing association lettings have failed to compensate for the losses from the other sectors (Foster with Burrows, 1991). Overall, opportunities to rent have significantly worsened. A net loss of private rentals and a growth In demand has ted to a general increase In competition for lettings, but low income households have been affected disproportionately by these adverse developments. A central theme in this thesis is that It is Inadequate to consider supply on Its own, the availability of letttngs Is meaningless if access Is impossible. Low income households appear to be precluded from the new BBS lettings because they are too expensive. Early attempts to provide housing at affordable rent levels via this scheme ran into difficulties. Quality Street, the pioneer, found by 1990 that costs were such no new social provision could be envisaged (Dobson, 1990). Companies taking advantage of the BES now concentrate on the middle market (Dobson, 1990, Dibblln and Dunlop, 1988). For example, Norclty -311 Homes lets to the 'mobile and upwardly mobile' (Dlbblin and Dunlop, 1988) whilst Woolwich Assured Homes, lets to households with an average income of between £10,000 and £15,000, and is very reluctant to take on households with a low income, particularly If they are dependent on housing benefit (Dobson, 1990). Dobson points out that there is no corrmerciai need for companies to Involve themselves with social housing because the demand for renting is buoyant amongst households earning £10,000 or more. It Is a matter of simple economics that private Interests will direct their efforts at areas of maximum profit. The experience of companies with a philanthropic concern, such as (Xjallty Street, echoes the problems encountered by social providers In the nineteenth century (see Chapter Two). Today, of course, unlike in the nineteenth century, tow income households can receive help with their housing costs. However, the fact that companies v^o showed an interest in social provision found In practice that it was not financially viable, indicates housing benefit levels are Inadequate. In proposing market rents for new lettings the government argued that housing benefit could meet the costs for low income households. But to stop landlords taking advantage of housing benefit, the subsidy was restricted to covering only 'reasonable' market rents. These are assessed by rent officers for each letting referred to them when an application for housing benefit Is made. Local treasuries can choose to make up any shortfall between the assessed market rent and the required rent, but are obliged to subsidise the rent from local government funds. This disincentive means few, if any, tenants required to pay more than an assessed rent get any extra help. It appears that rent officers' assessments of reasonable market rent levels are frequently below rents required In the market. In 1990, 37X of all privately renting claimants had to find rent payments from their o%i^, already very low, incomes - and the average shortfall was a staggering £15.93 (Foster with Burrows, 1991). Thus many low Income private tenants have been made considerably poorer. Because shortfalls are so frequent, landlords, fearing rent arrears, have become even more reluctant to let to the unemployed and others dependent on benefits (Foster with Burrows, 1991). There have been several cut-backs In housing benefit in the past decade (see Chapter Two) and further cuts accompanied the -312 irrf)tementat ion of the 1986 Social Security Act In 1988. A raising of the tapers has meant that households now have to be very poor before they receive any help (Andrews and Jacobs, 1990). Research coninissloned by the Department of the Environment found that a couple with twro children Just above the qualifying level for housing benefit could only afford the average rent for a two-bedroom house in either Leicester or Newcastle C6). Many households have been forced into accepting unsuitably small units, whilst others have been forced out of the market altogether. Though market rents were actually widespread before the 1988 Act, the presence of regulation appears to have tempered levels to some extent, as Increases in rents have occurred, especially in the provinces (Foster with Burrows, 1991). In the Plymouth survey a nunt>er of 16 and 17 year olds were found to be privately renting because they had been forced out of their parental home. Today, most in this age group can no longer access private rentals because their entitlement to housing benefit has been withdrawn. The position of students has also deteriorated since the Plymouth survey because in September 1990 they lost their entitlement to housing benefit. Students now probably find Landlords are less willing to acconmodate them unless they are able to furnish large deposits and advance rent payments. Poor tenants have not only become poorer because of the cuts and shortfalls In housing benefit. Social security benefits have declined in real terms over the years, and a particular problem has been the drastic cuts made in benefits for under 25 year olds in the Social Security Act, 1986. This has led to an increase In debts and rent arrears, and to evictions resulting from rent arrears (Oldman, 1990). The introduction of the poll tax in 1990 has also increased poverty, and hence the risk of rent arrears, amongst private tenants. This is not only because of the extra burden placed on those with low incomes. Landlords did not, on the whole, reduce rents to allow for the fact rates no longer existed. In Plymouth, there were no falls In bedsit rent levels, and though rents of flats lowered, reductions did not cover the total rate element (Sanchez, 1990). Perhaps the single most damaging policy development has been the removal of social security payments for deposits and rent in 313- advance. In the Plymouth survey, benefit claimants (termed 'unemployed') were found to have severe problems of access even before this px>l Icy change. Landlords who were prepared to accocrmodate them (and many were not) were especially likely to require deposits, this providing some safeguard until housing benefit claims were processed. Consequently, the stopping of deposit payments has had a devastating effect on the ability of benefit claimants to access private lettings. In sum, access to private lettings has become truch more constrained over the past three years. The main effect of governmental encouragement of landlordism has been a viorsenlng of tenants' situations; rents have increased and security has been reduced. The Intended growth of the sector has not occurred. At the same time pressure has grown because the overall supply of rented housing has declined. Market rents, shortfalls in housing benefit and cut-backs in housing and other social security benefits have made access especially difficult for the young, for benefit claimants and for households with incomes Just above the qualifying benefit levels, and have made it nuch harder for low Income tenants to pay for their housing. More severe competition at the lower end of the market means a deterioration in housing outcomes, with more forced into unsatisfactory accorrmodat ion, and more finding themselves homeless. Certainly, rather than going some way towards solving homelessness, the 1988 Act has contributed to the problem, as is evident from the statistics. Apart from the general increase, there was a 241 increase between 1988 and 1990 in the nurTt>er of local authority acceptances of households made homeless after the loss of a private rented Letting (Foster with Burrows, 1991). An adequate supply of private rented acornnodation, and access to that supply, should not be the only policy concerns. Also irrportant is whether households are able to obtain suitable housing. It is widely agreed that an adequate home is one which is secure, affordable, and of decent quality. Whitehead et al. (1986) have suggested that for households who have no option but to rent privately all these attributes, along with accessibility, are likely to be stressed. The problems households now have in affording private rentals have already been discussed. With respect to security, in the 314- Plymouth survey it was found that, whatever the households' legal status, the private rented sector as a whole was seen as providing insecure accorrmodat i on. This was because of the normally personal, one-to-one nature of the landlord/tenant relationship. Disputes could arise, a landlord could change his or her mind at>out letting, a landlord could die and be replaced by another who no longer wished to accormodate the household - personal factors, and not legal status or rights in taw were seen as defining tenure security. All this suggests that, if the views of the Plymouth households are representative, the reduction of tenure security effected by the 1988 Act has had little relevance for private tenants. This is to overlook the fact that the Rent Acts provided (and In the remaining regulated lettings, still provide) bottom-line protection. A small number of the surveyed households who occupied the most secure lettings intended to Invoke their rights to stay if the need arose, or had already done so. Most were pensioners who had been tenants for a number of years and who felt they could not cope with the upheaval and upset of moving. Such households represent the last of the • traditionaI' renters; people who entered the sector when It functioned as a long term housing option. This role declined after the War as increasingly private renting became a stepping stone to the other sectors. But the present policy emphasis on private provision suggests that, in the future, private renting will again be very Important in providing long term acconfnodat i on - especially for households who are unable to buy. Tenure security has become more significant at the same time as it has been eroded. The Introduction of assured shortholds means that many households, trapped in the sector, may have to move time and time again. The absence of rent regulation has made it much easier for landlords to force tenants out if they wish, even in the more secure assured tenancies, simply by imposing a large rent increase. Security was certainly seen as an essential attribute by the Plymouth households, private renting could not provide a 'proper' home because It was seen as insecure. 16X of the households had moved Into their present acconmodation after being evicted from a previous letting. A further 61 had moved after experiencing harassment. Nicholas Ridley defended the reduction of tenure -315- security on the grounds that it was necessary to encourage supply, and argued that the strengthening of the law on harassment and illegal eviction was a 'very powerful deterrent' to landlords and so would be effective in protecting tenants (cited in The Independent, 1987). Evidence indicates that the legislation provides little protection; instances of harassment and illegal eviction have increased since deregulation, and only a tiny fraction led to prosecution. Moreover, the penalties imposed are generally very light. (Charlton et al., 1991, Burrows and Hunter. 1990). Since the law does not oblige reinstatement of an illegally evicted tenant it might well be seen by tenants as of little use. Most illegally evicted tenants are probably rrvich too preoccupied with finding themselves a roof and then with making a new home to concern themselves with legal action. The point of view of the Plymouth households was that unwilling landlords created an untenable situation; it was better to move out if the landlord wanted repossession than stay and face arguments. The few households who planned to Invoke their tenure rights were fearful of their landlords and some had already had to contend with harassment. The reality is that legal remedies are no substitute for having to face the possibility of harassment and illegal eviction in the first place. Preferences amongst the surveyed households were for the social, rather than the private rented sector and greater security was a main reason many had applied for council accorrmodat Ion. Better quality accornnodation obtainable in the council sector also figured as an important reason for registration. Not suprisingly. since many households lived in highly unsatisfactory conditions. Poor housing conditions are widespread in the sector and a perennial governmental problem has been how to devise policies that would succeed in persuading landlords to improve their holdings and retain them for rental (see Chapter Two). One of the government's arguments for market rents was that they would help landlords finance repair and Improvement work and so lead to better standards within the private rented sector. Market rents, together with the BES, have attracted some new investors prepared to let good quality accorrmodat I on at high rents, but there Is no indication as yet that tenants in general have 316 witnessed an improvement in their conditions. In fact, it is unlikely that low income households, who comprise the majority in the sector, will see much improvement. Rents are constrained by ability to pay, and despite rent rises, levels might remain insufficient to encourage landlords to repair. Moreover, there is little incentive for landlords to improve conditions, since demand is such that many households have no choice but to accept poor quality acconmodation. Further encouragements for landlords, at least for those on low incomes, were introduced in the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act. This Act changed the whole system of grant aid. Grants were redirected to give more emphasis to fitness and state of repair, a grant was made available for HMOs and all grant applicants were made subject to means-testing. Means-testing for grant aid seems to be a positive development; it might attract landlords with low incomes as they can now potentially obtain 100!l grants, and it might deter those 'speculator' Landlords who in the past have taken advantage of grants in order to improve property for sale into owner-occupation (although the BES encourages a different form of speculation). However, grants are discretionary, not mandatory (except where repairs are enforced via a statutory notice), and the problem of incentive, given low effective demand, remains. The 1989 Local Government and Housing Act also placed a requirement on local authorities to inspect their districts annually to determine appropriate action. But both inspection and action are limited by resources. In Plymouth, the city council has decided to conduct a sample survey of the post-war private stock and to target its resources on small areas (Plymouth City Counci I, 1990). Most attention in the city is, in fact, being directed at owner- occupiers, because they have been found to be more responsive to improvement strategies and because the private rented sector places such a heavy burden on resources it can only be dealt with piecemeal. (Davis, 1990). To a great extent, the city is continuing to rely on a complaint-based system to address bad conditions in the sector. This approach is a particularly unsatisfactory one for private tenants, who depend on their landlords for their housing quality. In the Plymouth survey it was found that nine in ten dwellings uvere -317- substandard. Over a third of the households considered their landlords' responses to disrepair to be poor, . but only 13X had sought official help to oblige their landlords to repair, and only dX had approached the city's environmental health department. Fear of retribution from the landlord, fear of officialdorr^ and lack of knowledge meant that many households were not prepared or In a position to make complaints. These findings endorse Crook's view that a more proactive approach and an extension of local authorities' mandatory duties are required to deal with poor housing in the sector (1989). However, this would require a massive increase in resources and there is the risk that a greater emphasis on enforcement strategies will further disinvestment or encourage landlords to go upmarket to compensate for their expenditure on repair work. The private rented sector provides poor quality, expensive and insecure acconntodat ion, and there is no Indication that recent policy developments have Improved matters. Rather they have worsened the situation: rents have risen in the sector, and tenure security has been reduced, whilst the policies have brought about an overall reduction In the supply of rented housing. The governmental emphasis on a free market in rented housing provision is unlikely to have been applauded by many private tenants. The various policies that have been directed at the rented sectors over recent years amount in reality to a backdoor promotion of owner-occupation. Certainly owner-occupation Is the preferred tenure In Britain, and it was most favoured by the Plymouth tenants. But many households cannot afford to buy. A recent report concluded that: •as many as 38X of new younger households have little option but to rent.... half or more of new households require some form of social housing provision" (Association of District Councils and the House Builders Federation, 1991) Under twrt>-thirds of the surveyed tenants In Plymouth preferring owner-occupation expected to be able to buy. The rising levels of mortgage arrears, and of homelessness resulting from mortgage arrears, provide clear indication that housing policies which have 318- as the central aim the 'encouragement of self-sufficiency through owner-occupation' (Department of the Environment, 1991), are unsound. There is, therefore, a need for a much greater investment in rented housing. Private rented provision wilt probably never be adequate. The sector has seen very little governmental investment, but expenditure to promote private landlordism is likely to achieve poorer results in terms of stock supplied, accessibility, rent levels, conditions and security, than If equvalent sums were spent on promoting social landlords. The fundamental problem with private provision Is that landlords are not philanthropists, they will let to whom they choose, and exclude many In need. Where prepared to accomnodate the 'less desirable*, those turned away by the majority of landlords, they have a wide degree of freedom to set the letting terms. There are, nevertheless, some measures v^ich would be of irmediate help in Irrprovlng tenants' situations and access to the sector without causing disinvestment. These involve addressing ability to pay whilst leaving market rents Intact. First there is a need to reinstate social security payments for deposits and rent in advance. Housing benefit should be made available further up the Income scale and the tapers graduated to prevent the problem of the 'poverty trap'. Housing benefit should also be made available for all types of household, without exception, who seek rented accommodation. To reduce the likelihood of rent arrears arising from the use of housing benefit for living costs, under 25 year olds should be paid Income support at the adult rate. Another important tneasure would be to review the system of 'reasonable' market rent assessment. To inform their decision-making rent officers need to compile adequate data on rents of recent lettings in their area and to disregard present rents of lettings made prior to 15th January 1989 in their calculations. In Plymouth, rent officers Inform themselves of rent levels partly by refering to landlords with whom they 'have had long contact', these having applied to the office for rent registration (Sanchez, 1990). The information gained by the use of this type of approach Is Likely to lead to under-estImations of market levels and should be discontinued. Rent officers should also continually monitor rent levels. -319- It is appreciated that most of these measures which concern benefit provision would do little more than restore the situation to that prevailing at the time of the Plymouth survey - and as that illustrated, access was highly constrained then. Addressing problems of ability to pay also does not take into account groups who are disfavoured for reasons other than their low incomes, such as racial minorities and families. Antl-discrimination legislation is Ineffective because Landlords can always turn away households on the simple pretext that accorrmodat Ion is taken, or, now key money is legal again, demand a payment intended to either deter or exploit • undesirable' appl1cants. It is also difficult to see how tenants' security might practicably be improved. On this Pawson (1991) has suggested incentives to encourage landlords to grant assured tenancies rather than assured shortholds, and cites the BES, which requires tenancies to be assured, as an example. However, landlords can respond by selecting tenants likely to be mobile; this for example is the policy of Norcity Homes, mentioned earlier. Pawson also suggests rent control might be reintroduced for assured shortholds of less than three years. But landlords have proved themselves very adept at getting around rent regulation and at granting limited security, as the proliferation of bed and breakfast and other licence Lettings testify. Moreover, as the Plymouth survey showed, the personal nature of the landlord/tenant relationship undermines security legistat ion. Another problematic area is that of conditions in the sector. As noted earlier. Crook (1989) has called for local authorities to adopt a more proactive approach, and suggests that multi-occupied properties should be registered and regularly Inspected. These policies would be effective. and perhaps not lead to much disinvestment (7), but. as Crook acknowledges, would require more resources. To bring the majority of private rented acconmodation up to an acceptable standard implies a massive Input to cover expenditure on grants and the costs of policing the sector. The problems of granting tenants adequate security, ensuring access and improving conditions, even if ability to pay can be addressed, argue for more investment in social provision. Increasing supply is of the utmost importance: Shelter predicts, on 320- current trends, a shortfall of between 308,000 and 928,000 socially rented homes by 1995 (Foster with Burrows, 1991>. Policies to promote supply should go hand in hand with policies to ensure access. Social providers, who, as Raynsford (1989)argues, need not be monopolised by local authorities If there is active encouragement of housing associations, co-operatives and other social agencies, should prioritise the provision of housing for those most disfavoured and most vulnerable In the private sector; low income households, racial and ethnic minorities, families and the single young. O^ly if this approach were pursued, would it be possible to refer, in any realistic way, to 'opportunities* In housing. 321 FOQTKOTES FOR CHAPTHR EIGHT 1. For example, from Kirby, 1983; Elliot and McCrone, 1982; Clapham and Klntrea. 1984-. 2. 145,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in 1990, see Foster with Burrows, 1991. 3. The 1985 Physical and Social Survey of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Thomas and Hedges, 1986) provides a wide-ranging account of conditions in shared houses, but not all the dwellings included In this survey were privately rented and no examination was undertaken of the circumstances of different types of household. 4. Section 604. 5. See Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (1990b). 6. Cited in Oldman (1990). 7. Thomas in 1986, considered enforcement action on HMOs would lead to a loss of 7%. Cited In Crook, (1989) p. 56. -322 APPEM)|CES 323- APPENDIX A: SUPPLE^ghfTARY TABLES 324- TABLE A. 2. 1 HOUSING TETtiRE IN PLVMOtHH: COMPARISONS WITH QTHFR SIMILARLY SIZED NON-KgTROPOLlTAN CITIES AM> WITH GREATER I.0MX3N. 1 of Household? Owner-occupier Council Private rented Other Rented Furn. and Unfurn. Plymouth 54. B ?7.1 12.6 5.3 Soulhhfifflpion 54.3 30.1 12.3 3.3 Kingston upon Hull 38.1 47.2 12.5 2.2 Derby 58.7 30.4 7.4 3.5 tetcester 49.9 35.9 9.9 4.3 Notttngban 37.5 49,8 9 3.7 Cardiff 61 ?5 10.7 3.3 Grealer London 48.6 30.7 15.1 5.5 England and Vales 58 26.9 8.9 4.? Source: OPCS (1984) Table 17. TABLE A. 2. 2: POPULATIOV) CHARACTERISTICS IN PLYMOUTTH: COMPARlRmviq WITH OTHER SIMILARLY SIZED N0N-»gTROPOLI TAN CITIFS ANH WITH GREATER LOM)ON. Popn 1981 Popn Change New Comn. / Armed Forces/ 1 Workforce Unemp. (000) 1971/81 Pakistan Other Feb. 1988 Feb. 1991 Plymouth 7U +2.5 1.3 8.5 12.3 9.4 Southhampton 205 -4.6 4.3 1.3 6.4 6.2 Kingston upon Hull 269 -5.8 0.8 2.1 13.5 9.9 Derby 217 -1.2 8.5 1.3 9.8 6 Leicester 280 -1.4 21.7 4 7.7 5.9 Nottingham 272 -9.5 8 2.6 11 7.8 Cardiff 261 -4. 9 3.5 2.6 11.9 7.7 Greater London 6713 -9.9 14.6 2.6 6.71 6.41 England and Vales 53557 to. 6 4.5 2.4 10.811 7.211 Sources: OPCS (1984) Tables 1, 4 and S; Department of Enploynent 1988, (April) Table 2-4; and 1991 (April) Table 2-4 4 Figures for London. H Figures for UK. -325- TABLE A. 3. 1: PENSlOfsERS: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AM) SEX BY MARITAI STATUS Household Marital Stfltus Composition Single Married Cohab- Divorced Separ- Widowed All iting ated Lone male ft - - - - 2 t feaale 3 - - 4 I B 16 Couples - 3 1 - - - 4 (n=28) TABLE A. 3, 2: SINGLE: SEX BY MARITAL STATUS Harital Status Sex Single Divorced Separated Widowed All Single Hale U 5 2 23 Female 12 16 (n=39) TABLE A. 3. 3: SINGLE: SEX BY AGE Sex No. of households aged: Age 16-25 26-35 36-45 46+ nean median min max Hale 10 5 4 4 33 31 17 58 Female t] 1 1 3 28 23.5 18 54 tn=39) TABLE A. 3. 4: yrUPEI^g; SEX BY AGF Sex Wo. of households aged: Age 18-22 23+ mean median nin Dax Kale 15 3 21 20 18 30 Female tl 20 20 18 22 (n=29) -326 TABLE A. 3. 5: COUPUES: AGE OF RESPOM)EMT AM) PARTfER No. of households aqed: Age Bolh li-25 Both 26-35 Both over 35 nean itedian min inax or one 26-35 or one over a one li-25 35 A one under 36 17 5 7 29 24 17 67 (n=29) TABLE A. 3. 6: FAMILIES: AGE OF PARETfTS No. of households aged: Age 16-25 Parent(s) Parent(s) nean nedian oiin nax 26-35 or one over 35 or one Parents 26-35 ft one over 35 & one 16-25 younger Single Parent 4 1 22 21 IB 28 Couple 9 11 6 2B 27 17 60 All Parents 13 12 6 27 26 17 60 (n=3I) TABLE A. 3. 7: FAMILIES: AGE OF CHILDREN Ho. of Children aged: Afle 3 or less 4-9 10 or rwre mean median tnin inax 35 3y In 15n In 26y TABL^ A. 4. 1: h^rCER OF STCT^YS TO TH^ PROPERTY I in Hoysehold Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family Storeys: Two 46 10 21 10 13 Three 43 54 45 62 68 Four 7 33 24 14 13 Five - 3 to 10 3 Six 4 - - 3 3 Total too too 100 100 too n= 2a 39 29 29 31 327 TABLE A.*. 2: ^tJ^BER OF PEOPLE IN THE PROPERTY t in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Feci Properties Conlaining: 7 or 3 S4 ?8 10 14 - 4 or 5 39 ?I 41 14 29 6 or 7 4 31 ?e 41 29 8 or 9 4 15 10 17 16 10 or nore - 5 10 14 23 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Kean 3.6 5.6 5.9 6.6 7.7 n= 28 39 ?9 29 31 TABLE A. 4.3: SPACE X in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family 13 34 17 32 1 of Households with Inadequate gpace 4 Sp^ge inadpquqtp ip: 17 Kitchen 4 Living/kitchen 5 14 Bedroor(s) Bedroon and kitchen 3 7 Alt rooms in acconncdation N/A 7 One room unsuitable for H/H N/A n= 27 39 29 29 (n=Alt households, excluding one refusal) -328- TABLE A.4. 4: ARTIFICIAL LIGHT X in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family I of Households Deficient 4 26 31 24 23 Deficiencies: Bad positioning/inadequate fixtures on passages, stairs, entrance Stair/passage lights not working Tloe switches too quick Other: Tine switches in B ft B/ bedrooa light works fron landing/ no lighting in kitchen ft bathroom, inadequate on stairs I of Households who improved lighting to required standard 4 3 27 39 29 29 31 tn=All households, excluding one refusal) TABLE A. 4. 5: VENTILATION Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanil 1 of Households Deficient 41 44 41 59 77 Deficiencies No ventilation provided for room 4 10 7 7 13 Stuck windows 19 B 14 14 19 Sash cords broken 11 10 7 17 13 Vindows in disrepair-afraid to open 7 5 7 - 13 Inadequate-windows open only a crack/vent in shower is a pipe to hall or kitchen - 18 10 28 2f> Other: Ceiling too low/windows taped or nailed - - - 10 6 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n=All households, excluding one refusal) Nultiple Deficiencies were possible 329 t in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Fami I 1 of Households Deficient 37 62 38 26 39 Deficiencies No bath/shower 22 8 - - 6 No washbasin or sink 22 5 7 3 6 No Mrking hot vater to bath/shover 4 5 3 - 10 No hot vater to vashbasin or sink 26 21 17 14 13 Bath/shover not in a proper room 4 8 3 7 - No exclusive vashbasin - 21 - 7 13 Overcrovded facilities - 10 10 7 6 Other: no working cold vater to bath/bathroon two floors distant - 5 7 - 3 S of Households vho improved washing facilities to required standard - - - 3 3 n= 27 39 29 29 . 31 [n=All households, excluding one refusal) Multiple Oeficiences were possible TABLE A.i.7: SANITARY C X in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanil 1 of Households Deficient 33 62 72 45 46 Deficiencies No inside WC 7 3 - - _ No washbasin 30 13 10 14 13 No hot vdter to vashbesin 19 18 10 17 10 No washbasin in VC compartment - 38 45 7 16 VC in bathroom - - 10 14 23 No exclusive facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 Overcrovded facilities - 10 10 14 10 Other: VC two floors distant - 3 - - - 1 of Households vho improved sanitary facilities to required standard - - - 3 3 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n=All households, excluding one refusal) Multiple Deficiencies were possible -330- TABLE A.4.8: KITC^gN FACILITIPg t in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family 1 of Households Deficient 44 67 79 4B 48 Ppf^fjif-pctes No hot water to sink 37 26 7 21 19 Inadequate work surface 29 31 41 31 38 No Mork surface 15 5 - - 10 Sharing food storage facility - 41 55 10 10 No food storage facility 7 13 7 t4 16 Cooker broken/inadequate 3 B 24 24 16 No exclusive kitchen facittlies - N/A N/A 7 13 Overcrowded facilities 5 17 7 - Other: Iritchen not on sane floor/ nore than one floor distant/no fecit ities/no sink - 13 10 - - 1 of Hougeholds who imprgved kitchen facilities to required standard 11 5 - 17 23 n= 27 39 29 29 31 (n=All households, excluding one refusal) Hulttple Deficiencies were possible TABLE A. 4. 9: HEATING I in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family 1 of Households Deficient 19 2B 17 28 23 Deficiences Inadequate in unfurnished lets H/A Inadequate/none furnished lets 23 14 26 Appliance part broken/dangerous to use 5 3 1 of Households in furnished lets who improved heating to required standard 17 14 to 21 n= 27 39 29 29 (n=All households, excluding one refusal) -331- TABLE A-4- 10: REFtJSE gTQRAGE I in Household Srpup Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily ? pf Households Defif;ient 52 62 52 66 74 Defipiencips No refuse container 48 46 52 63 45 Inadequate number 4 16 3 29 I of Hougehptds In tmiidiggs with 10 pr pore people and with no refuse container 10 10 27 39 29 31 (n=All households, excluding one refusal) TABLE A, 5. 1: HOUSEHOLDS WITH WRITTEN AGREEMEr/TS Household Grpup Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily 7 \r\ p^ib-sectpr with q written agreement Regulated Tenancies Periodic 33 40 9 38 17 Fixed Tern - 100 60 100 100 Shorthold 100 100 100 100 100 Resident Landlord 0 50 0 too 50 Licences Let with Board - 100 - - - Other licerKes - too 100 too - n= 28 39 29 28 30 -332- TABLE A-5. 2: SERVICES Number in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family Hinor Services Cleaning of common parts of the property Lighting of common parts of the property 12 Car Parking I Vashing Machine 2 Television 1 Telephone 1 HaJor Services Breakfast Bedding Heating of Dwelling Lighting of Dwelling Licensed television Hot Water All receiving Hinor Services 11 14 All receiving Halor Services 3 (Some households received more than one service) TABLE A. 5. 3: RENTS AM) LENGTH OF RESIDENCE Hean Veekty Rent £s H/H resident three years or less H/H resident more than three years Type of Accommodation Unfurnished, two rooms 24.98 23.17 n= 5 11 Unfurnished, three rooms 31.74 19. S6 n= 4 18 (Selected accommodation as cell sizes pertsit) -333- TABLE A. 5.*; WORKING AND tm-WDRKING HOUSEHOLDS: ADVANCE RRJT Household Group Single Couple Family K/H with head in full-tine entploynent Mean Advarvce Rent £s 1281 124 197 H/H with no head in full-time employnent Hean Advance Rent £s 96 115 lt7 n= 8 16 10 (n= All households paying more than one week advance rent, In furnished acconmodation and resident less than three years, i Cell containing one case only.) TABLE A, 6. 1: DIFFERENCES IN THE RElsfTS AM) CHARACTERISTICS GF TM= ACC<»t100ATI0N (X:CUP1ED BY 'HIGHER' AND 'LOWER' INCOME HOU^HOLDS Household Group and Income Levell Pensioner Single Student Coupte Parol Iy Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lover H/H in Furnished or Unfurnished Lets onlyli 1 two or nore roonsiM 50 25 64 23 36 18 90 67 100 67 1 exclusive use of all amenities 88 88 57 0 9 0 60 76 67 50 Nean Rent 'Better' Lets 19.24 31.50 26. 07 42.56 44.22 Hean Rent 'Worse' Lets 20.02 26. 02 25.09 36.00 34.64 n= 16 27 22 19 12 (n= All households excluding Lhose providing inadequate information on income or rent, those in lets with rents that included an unknovn charge for major services, pensioner couples, three adults in couples group, single parents and parents with two or nore children. I Higher = Income at orf above median level for household group, lower = income below median leveL H Pensioners, unfurnished lets; Other households, furnished lets. 334- TABLE A. 6. 2: tOIAN RBXT BY PROPORTION OF INCOME SPENT ON RFMT- FURNlggP ACCOWMOOATION Hedian Veekiy Rent £s Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Rent as 1 of Incone < Two-Fifths 30.9?i 25.00 22.25 40.00 30.00 ) Two-Fifths 53.011 27.50 25.62 42.50 47.50 n= 3 27 22 20 21 (n= All households excluding those providing inadequate inforration on rents or income and those in lets with rents that included an unknown charge for najor services) TAgLE A. A. 3: ^gD|AN INCOME BY PROPORTION OF INCO^€ SPE^^^ ON RFfJT Hedian Wpekly Incone £s Pensioner Single Student Couple Fanily Rent as X of Incone < Two-Fifths 81.73 90. 39 60.88 154.00 114.61 ) Two-Fifths 64. IS 60.13 60.38 93.18 107.75 n= 24 31 22 25 30 (n= All households excluding those providing inadequate information on rents or income and those in lets with rents that included an unknown charge for major services) TABLE A. 6. 4; DEPEMJENCY ON BE^gFITS BY PROPORTION OF INCOf^ SPENT ON BENI 1 of Households Totally Dependent on Benefits for their Incone Pensioner Single Student Couple FBDily Rent as 1 of Incone < Two-Fifths 47 27 50 21 29 ) Two-Fifths 43' 85 63 56 77 n= 24 31 22 25 30 ln= All households excluding those providing inadequate information on rents or income and those in lets with rents that included an unknown charge for major services) 335- TABLE A. 6, 5; OCClf ATIONAL STATUS AM) HOUSING QUALITY H/H head employed full-time tn: Non-Hanual Work Manual Work No. 1 No. 1 Dwelling Satisfactory 2 25 4 20 Sonewhat Satisfactory 5 63 It 55 Unsatisfactory 1 13 5 25 Total 8 100 20 100 (n= All households with head enployed full-time when searching, resident three years or less and actively seeking acconmodation. test not feasible as no combination of cells can produce necessary expected cell size of 5 or more.) TABLE A. 7. 1; REASONS FOR hPyiNG FRQM THE 0)^-OCCUP|^R. C0UNC;L AND HOUSING ASSOCIATION SECTORS BY HOUSEHOLD GROUP Kumber in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family c 0 cm 0 0 CO CO Reasons Personal Divorced/separated - 2 4 4 - - - 1 - To live with relative 1 1 ------I To live near relative 2-..- Needed to raise capital - 2 - - - -? Moved for work/college _ - . _ I I . 3 1 Hoved abroad . - . I - . . _ I Housing/Environment Accoro. was too expensive - 1 HI 2 - I - - Disliked location 2 ------1 - Total (n) 5 6 5 6 3 13 5 3 tn= designated respondent In household. C= Council, HA= Housing Association, 0= Owner-occupier. 1= Sole housing association tenant.) 336- TABLE A. 7. 2: HOUSEHOLD REGROUPINGS FOR EXAMINATION OF SFARCHPg "-r Single Student Couple Family All H/H resident less than three years 31 29 26 22 Number in group of different type when Doved fron previous accon. (-) 2 - 7 - regrouped from singlet (-f) N/A 1 - 1 fron couple! (4) 5 - N/A 2 Number in group at tine of roving 34 30 19 25 Landlord transfers (-) 1 _ t 2 Vindfall/fecilitated moves (-) to 5 3 2 All households searching for accon. 23 25 15 21 Families purporting to be childless (-) N/A N/A N/A 5 regrouped (4) 1 - 4 N/A All households searching for accon. (apparent household types) 24 25 19 16 (1 Includes pregnant wonen with no other children regrou ped into family category if pregnant when noved.) TABLE A. 7. 3: PREVIOUS ACCOMMODATIC3N OF MOVING HOUSEHOUS X in Household Group Single Student Couple Family All H/H Previous Accomrodation Private Rented 68 60 52 46 58 of which: perinanent 59 37 47 28 43 temporary! or tied to Job 9 23 5 20 15 Parental Home 12 30 11 16 18 Otherii 20 10 37 36 24 Total too 100 100 too 100 n= 34 30 19 25 108 (n= All households moving within the three years prior to the survey. Households regrouped according to type at tine of nove. pregnant wonen with no other children included in the family group. 1= lodgings, halls of residence and BiB. «= other tenures, households moving from abroad, households forcerly divided and living in separate accomodation, households formerly cohabiting and having no tenure rights.) 337- TABLE A. 7. 4: PREVIOUS ACCOTflODATION OF HOUSEHOLDS MADE HOf^LESS Nutiber in Household Group Single Student Couple Family All H/H Previous Accommodation Private rented pernanent all H/H 20 47 nade honeless 6 It (231) Private rented tenp«/with job all H/H 3 16 nade honeless 2 8 (50t) Parental Home all H/H 19 nade honeIess 5 (2&1) OtherH all H/H 26 nade honeless 1 (4t) All Households (n) 34 30 25 108 All Honeless to 2 10 24 (221) (n= All households moving within the three years prior to the survey. Households regrouped according to type at time of move, pregnant women with no other children included in the family group. 1= lodgings, halls of residence and BftB. »«= other tenures, households moving from abroad, households formerly divided and living in separate accomnodation, households formerly cohabiting and having no tenure rights.) TABLE A. 7. 5: ASPIRATIONS OVER SECURITY OF TENURE I in Household Group Single Student Couple Fanily All H/H Security of tenure: very inportant 14 7 18 4 10 important 31 29 29 25 29 not considered/not important 55 64 53 71 61 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Aspirat ion: Tenure for as long as wanted 31 4 29 3t 23 Tenure for at least one year 10 36 24 13 21 Expected some tenure rights 4 10 - 4 5 Security of tenure not considered 41 41 41 39 40 Unconcerned if no security 14 9 6 13 11 Total 100 100 too 100 n= 29 28 17 23 97 (n= All households moving within the three years prior to the survey, excluding households with 'no' aspirations because they had been transfered by their landlords, had moved in with a friend or relative or had not planned to move but had been offered alternative accommodation. Households regrouped according to type at time of move, pregnant women with no other children included within the family group.) -33B TABLE A, 7. A; ASPIRATIONS OVER RENT I in Household Group Single Student Couple Fanily All H/H Level of rent: very inportant 10 25 6 22 16 inporlant 55 64 71 39 57 not considered/not important 35 11 23 39 27 Total 100 100 100 100 too n= 29 28 17 23 97 (n= All households moving within the three years prior to the survey, excluding households with 'no' aspirations because they had been transfered by their landlords, had moved in with a friend or relative or had not planned to move but had been offered alternative accooBodation. Households regrouped according to type at time of nove, pregnant wonen with no other children included within the fanily group.) TABLE A, 7. 7: ASPIRATIONS OVER RENT BY MDRICING SITUATION Number of Households Household Head(s) No Household Head All Households Vorklng FT Vorking FT Rent Cheap/the cheapest 2 6 8 Max. rent specified ( nornal H.B limits 10 10 2 Nax. rent specified > nornal H.B limits 3 6 9 Any rent 1 1 2 Not thought about 7 7 14 n= 23 30 53 ln= All households moving within the three years prior to the survey, excluding households with *no' aspirations because they had been Iransfered by their landlords, had luved in with a friend or relative or had not planned to (oove but had been offered alternative accoonodation. Table also excludes students and households vho said they were dependent on supplementary benefit so the rent had to be within H.B. (housing benefit) limits.) 339- TABLE A. 7. 8: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED BY HOUSEHOLDS MOVING WITHIN 1 of H/H noving within t of H/H roving into PlyiiDuth using source Plynouth using source Sftygg 9f infprMtion Friend or relative 65 S3 Own landlord or landlord friend 13 t Letting agent 43 42 Estate agent IS 17 Newspaper advertlsencnt 71 SO Advertlseaent In shop 41 2S Specialist source 6 Student accoomodatlon service 91 71 (students only) n= 6a 36 n (students only)= II 19 oean nusberi of different types used: 2.7 2.3 Some Multiple Responses (n= All households who had moved within the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at tiote of nove, pregnant wonen with no other children included In the family group. Table excludes households not wanting to move but transfered by their landlords. • student and other Epeciellst sources counted as one type of source.) 340- Tffll^ A, 7, 9; FEELINGS ON ABILITY TO 'PICK AhP CHOOSE' IN T>g SEARCH Nunter In Household Group Single Student Couple Family Estp. Unemp Enp. Unea Enp. Unenp. Fel^ coBptptely fttilg tp f;hPft?P 5 4 3 Felt- fflttfictBd ypytd chop^g WtMn limits Competltton Few of type Poor quality Price ? Few In area I Unenployed N/A N/A N/A N/A (Sone Multiple Responses) F^lt np pholce 9 Reasons; Conpetltion I TiDe Few of type 1 Poor quBlity I 3 2 Price 2 I 2 I I 3 Few In area I 1 t Unemployed N/A i N/A N/A 4 N/A 5 No nen sharing I N/A N/A N/A N/A No students N/A I N/A N/A H/A N/A No pets N/A I I No children N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Sone Hultiple responses) 13 10 6 19 (n= Ail households who had moved within the three years prior to survey. Households regrouped according to type at tine of nove, pregnant wonen with no other children Included in the family group and five fanilies purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories. Table excludes households who had been transfered by their landlords, had not needed to search, had applied for, and accepted.one vacancy, and on student responding 'don't know'. lineBip.= unenployed, pernanently sick and unavailable for work household heads; Enp.= at least one household head enployed full-tine.) -341- rmiE A. 7. 10; REASCTC FOR CHANGING ASPIRATIONS BY HOUSEHOLD GROUP f*imber of Reasons Single Student Couple Faal Reasons: Ineligible for nuch accoii. 2 - - 9 AccoRi too expensive 5 3 - 1 Few lets of type wanted 2 3 4 - Coapetltion - 4 1 - Low quality of scconi - 3 - - Ran out of tiee 1 - 2 - All reasons 10 13 7 10 All households changing aspirations 9 11 9 All households 24 25 19 16 (All households changing their initial aspirations amongst those who had noved within three years prior to the survey and had needed to search for accomtdailon. Households regrouped according to type at time of move, pregnant women with no other children included in the fanlly group and five families purporting to be childless regrouped Into the appropriate categories.) TABLE A. 7. 11: TYPES OF CHANGE IN ASPIRATIOsS BY HOUSEHOLD GROUP Nuirber of changes Single Student Couple Fanl Change to: Flat for H/H to bedsit or any 4 - 1 3 House/fiat for sharing/room in shared house to any 1 2 - - Lower quality flat 1 - 2 1 shared house/flat 1 2 - - bedsit 1 2 - 3 Shared or not S/C accon. 3 - 1 2 Pay more rent - 2 1 1 Not central 1 2 - - Furnished - - I - All changes 12 12 7 11 All households changing aspirations 9 11 6 9 All households 24 25 19 16 (All households changing their initial aspirations amongst those who had noved within three years prior to the survey and had needed to search for acconnodatlon. Households regrouped according to type at time of move, pregnant women with no other children Included In the faoily group and five fanilies purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories.) 342- TABLE A. 7. 12; HOUSEHOLDS WHO >iERE SUCCESSFUL IN MEETING TICIR ORIGINAL ASPlRATIOt>S Single Student Couple Fanlly All 1 1 1 1 1 t X 1 1 t Vanted Got Vanted Got Vanted Got Vanted Got Vanted Sot House or flat to share/room in shared house 26 100 71 88 - - - 30 91 Flat for household 53 70 - - 94 94 79 91 50 86 Furnished accon. 68 100 92 too 16 100 14 100 54 100 Unfurnished accoa. - - - - 12 50 7 100 4 66 S/C or no sharing 74 50 13 33 71 75 71 60 53 59 Large accoiL/tvo bedroons 42 63 25 17 18 0 57 38 34 36 Good condition 63 SO 50 42 29 20 71 30 53 38 Certain rent 64 88 100 75 71 83 93 62 88 77 Certain security 53 90 50 92 47 too 79 55 55 87 Certain location 89 71 88 71 76 100 71 90 82 80 19 24 17 14 74 (n= households vho had noved within three years prior to the survey and had needed to search for acconnodation. Households regrouped according to type at time of oiove, pregnant woinen with no other children included in the fanily group and five fanllies purporting to be childless regrouped into the appropriate categories. Table excludes households with no aspirations, ie. those unconcerned about the accomodBtlon they obtained. 'Vanted' = X of households with specified aspiration; 'Got' = X of households with specified aspiration who were successful.) TABLE A. 7. 13: PERCEIVED DEC^E OF CHOICE OVER TENURE: CHANGES. Wuiiber in Household Group Pensioner Single Student Couple Family Total Could buy when Bnved Into accoD. 23 Can no longer buy (-) (-) 10 Could not buy when tnoved Into accon., but can nowt (4) (i) 10 Can buy nowl 23 Could obtain council tenancy when Boved into accon. 3 3 Can no longer obtain council tenancy (-) 3 (-) 3 Could not obtain council tenancy when Mved Into accon., can novl I*) 2 (+) 2 Can obtain council tenancy nowl 2 2 U 'now' refers to views at the tine of the survey) 343- TABLE A. 7. U; TENURE EXPECTATIONS WHERE Ofc»gR-OCCUPATION WAS PREFERED BIH NOT THOUGHT POSSIBLE WITHIN SIX YEARS Number in Household Sroup Pensioner Single Student Couple Femlly Total All m fpr whffB ovnpr-p<;PMpatlpn ¥as the 'ideal ' but was not expectpfl Kithin fix ygar? 13 14 10 10 53 Private rented 20 Council/H/A 17 Don't Know 16 TABLE A, 7. 15: SATISFACTION WITH PRESENT HOUSING AM) EXPECTATIONS OF ACHIEVING IDEAL TENURE WITHIN TWO YEARS. Mnsatlsfactpry Dwetlfngg Sonewhat Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Pye^tipg^ X H/H expecting X H/H not 1 H/H expecting X H/H not ideal expecting Ideal ideal expecting ideal Households: Satisfied 22 22 67 77 Neutral 67 37 29 17 Dissatisfied 11 41 4 6 Total 100 100 100 100 n= 18 27 24 52 (n= All households excluding those with no definite Ideal tenure and households who about their future prospects) -344- TABLE A. 7. ^6: SATISFACTION WITH PRESEKfT HOUSIMG AM> EXPECTATIONS OF ACHIEVING IDEAL TENURE WITHIN SIX YEARS. Unsatisfactory Dwellings Sonewhat Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Oweilings 1 H/H expecting % H/H not 1 H/H expecting t H/H not ideal expecting Ideal ideal expecting ideal Households: Satisfied 32 24 75 73 Neutral 48 47 19 23 Dissatisfied 20 29 5 5 Total 100 100 100 100 n= 2S 17 57 22 (n= All households excluding those with no definite ideal tenure end households who were unsure about their future prospects) 345- APPEPPIX B: CHI-SQUARE TEST RESULTS 346- TABLE B,6, 1: HQUSEHOUPS SPENDING TW-FITH5 OR MORE OF TICIR INC:QW= ON Rp^T; P>^t-ING sy?E MumbBF of Habitable Rooms Total 1 2 3 or more Observed FrequerKry 25 29 8 62 Expected FrecfuerKry 19.7 26.3 16 62 X2 = 5i_feZ Significant at the 0.10 level TABLE B.6.2; HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING TW-FIFTHS OR MORE OF THEIR INCO>g ON RENT: FARING ghftring Ha^ RftPfp/ Shftrlog AronKipg Total Kitchen a Amenities Only or No Sharing Observed Frequer>cy 26 36 62 Expected Frequency 18.8 43.2 62 X2 with Yates correction = Significant at the 0.10 level TABLE B.6.3; HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING TWO-FIFTHS OR MORE OF TfglR INCOrg ON RENT: HOUSING QUALITY Somewhat Oisatlsfactory/ Satisfactory Total Mnsflt^ipffictpry Pweiiings PwUling? Observed Frec^ency 51 11 62 Expected Frequency 50.3 11.7 62 (Observation sho%^ no significant difference) TABLE B.6.4; HOUSEHOLDS SPE^DING TlrfO-FIFTHS OR MORE OF TfglR INCO^C ON RENT: DULLING SIZE (FURNlS^gD) Number of Habitable Rooms Total 1 2 3 or more Observed Frequer>cy 25 23 7 55 Expected Frec]uer>cy 23. 7 23. 7 7.5 55 X2 = ulZZ Significant at the 0.95 level -347- TABLE B.A.5: HOUSEHOLDS SF^ING TW-F1FTH5 OR MORE OF TfrCIR INCOrC ON RENT: SHARING (FURNISHED) Sharing Hab. Room/ Sharing Amer^lties Total Kitchen h Amenitlc Oily or No Sharing Observed FrequerK:y 25 30 55 Expected Frequency 22.6 32.4 55 X2 with Votes correction Significant at the 0.80 level TABL£ B, 6. 6. Ijlg^^^^*^*^^ ^ (FURNISHED) t>isatlsfactory Dwal tings PtfflM ings Observed Frec^uency 45 10 55 Expected Frec^ency 44.2 10.8 55 (Observation shows no significant difference) TABLf B. A. 7, ^jg'^yg^^^^. ^EWEhCY^^B^n^ 100% Dependent } IQQX P^ppndPOt Jotal Observed Frec^uency 45 17 62 Expected Frequency 32 30 62 X2 with Yates correction = 10, py Significant at the 0.01 level TABLE B,6.a: WRKING SITUATION AM) HOUSING QUALITY H/H Mnemp^QY^ H/H emptpypc^ TQIQI In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 10 6 16 Expected 8.41 7.59 16 Not In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 21 22 43 Expected 22.59 20.41 43 X2 with Yates correction = SLli Significant at the 0.80 level 348- TABLE B.A.9: MDRKING SITUATION AND HOUSING QUALITY (HOUSEHOLDS H/H unetnpioyed H/H enployed Total Unsatisfactorily housed Observed 21 15 36 Expected 17.08 36 Not unsatisfactorily housed 18. 92 Observed 13 23 Expected 10 10.92 23 12.08 X2 with Yates correction the 0. 50 level TABLE B,7n Is HQMSEH0M?5 I^INQ APgQfflPOATyoN URgE^fTUY OP WITHIN TW ^KS AM) PROXIMITY TO SEARCH AREA Movers within Plymouth Movers into Plymouth TfttflU Observed 17 17 34 Expected 22.2 11.8 34 X2 with Yates correction Significant at the 0.05 level TABLE B,7.2: ASPIRATIONS ATP REFUSALS OF ACCCTtODAT I ON H/H with H/H wUh low aspirations high flgpirfltlonP Total H/H turning down aCCOTTL Observed 5 44 49 Expected 8. 96 40. 04 49 H/H not turning down any accom. Observed 10 23 33 Expected 6.04 26. 96 33 X2 with Yates correction Significant at the 0.05 level 349- TABLE B.7.3: WORKING SITUATION, FAMILY STATUS A^D HOUSING QUALITY CUNSATISFACTC3RY POLLINGS) H/H unefnployed/ H/H enployed Total with children ft phUy^^efiS In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed U 2 16 Expected 10.31 5.69 16 Not in unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 2i 19 43 Expected 27.69 15.31 43 X2 with Yates correction = 3^ Significant at the 0. 10 level TABLE B.7.4: DISCRIMINATION AM) HOUSING QUALITY (UtSATISFACTORY pWELL|Ng?> Mnemp/fyplUes H/H HPt Tot^^t Qa^ppr longing ^^cp^r tinging dlsgrlmtnaMoQ dtscrimlr>ptipn In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 12 4 16 Expected 7.02 8.98 16 Not in unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 13 28 43 Expected 17.98 23.02 43 X2 with Yates correction = 2^ Significant at the 0.01 level TAQLE TIM^ TP SEARCH A^P HPM^INQ WALjTY ^UNSATIgFAPTORY PMELLINGg H/H needing accom H/H with more Total MrgQn1;ty/^n 2 MkP time In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed M 14 25 Expected 8.93 16.07 25 Not In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 19 40 59 Expected 21.07 37.93 59 X2 with Yates correction = Significant at the 0.50 level -350- TABLE B.7.6: TirC TO SEARCH (HOUSEHOLDS WITH HIGH ASPIRATIONS) AFP HOUSING QUALITY (^SATISFACTORY DWELLINGS) H/H ne^^'mg PWr^Pm H/H with more Jq%^\ nrgeritiy/in 2 v^s iim In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 7 12 19 Expected 6.33 12.66 19 Not In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 16 34 50 Expected 16.66 33.33 50 (Observation shows no slgnlflc:ant difference) TABLE P. 7, 7: PRO>;gniTY TP S^ARgH AREA HQUgiNQ QUAI^yiY (UNSATISFACTORY DWELLINGS) H/H moving H/H moving Total HUhlin ptyrroMl^h ^ptp ptymouth In unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 14 11 25 Expected 17.26 7.74 25 Not in unsatisfactory dwellings Observed 44 15 59 Expected 40.74 18.26 59 X2 with Yates correction Significant at the 0.20 level TABLE B.7.8: FAMILY STATUS AM) HOUSING QUALITY (HOUSEHOLDS UNSATISFACTORILY HOUSED) H/H with children H/H with no TfttoL chlldren Unsatisfactorily housed Observed 12 37 49 Expected 9.33 39.66 49 Not unsatisfactorily housed Observed 4 31 35 Expected 6.67 28.33 35 X2 with Yates correction = Significant at the 0.50 level -351 TABLE B.7.9: WORKING SITUATION. FAMILY STATUS AND HOUSING QUALITY (HOUSEHOLDS UNSATISFACTORILY HOUSED) H/H ^^CTP^oy^/ H/H etrp^oypM Tftfrgi with children & childless Unsatisfactorily housed Observed 27 9 36 Expected 23.19 12.81 36 Not unsatisfactorily housed Observed 11 12 23 Expected 14.81 8.19 23 X2 with Yates correction Significant at the 0.10 level TABLE B. 7. 10: DISCRIMINATION AMP HOUSING QUALITY CHOUSEHOLDS WgAT»SFACTffll^Y HOiSEp) ^e^/famlUes H/H not Total p>^pgriencing ftyp^r lieng^ng yiip^ri>n^natipn t^jjsqrminftt^^ftn Unsatisfactorily housed Observed 19 17 36 Expected 15.79 20.21 36 Not unsatisfactorily housed Observed 6 15 21 Expected 9.21 11.79 21 X2 with Yates correction = Significant at the 0.20 level TAQLE B,7, ti; HOrgLESg HQMSEHPLPg A^P HQMSfNg W^lVf H/H homeless H/H not horoless Total Unsatisfactorily housed Observed 15 34 49 Expected 12.25 36.75 49 Not unsatisfactorily housed Observed 6 29 35 Expected 8.75 26.25 35 X2 with Yates correction = Significant at the 0.50 level -352 TABLE B. 7. 12: irFPfflATiqN SQURgE ftM) PEPQSITS Qb^q^pe^ ^cpoiTi ylft Obtained accom via Total Pfr^Oftt f;Pnt;ftCts formal sources Paying deposit Observed 25 48 73 Expected 32.29 40.71 73 Not paying deposit Observed 2t 10 31 Expected 13.71 17.29 31 X2 with Yates correction = Significant at the 0.01 Level TABLE B. 7. 13: WORKING SITUATION AM) DEPOSITS H/H ^nftffiptftyed H/H mplftyfid Tfttfll Paying deposit Observed 32 20 52 Expected 28. 11 23.89 52 Not paying deposit Observed 8 14 22 Expected 11.89 10.11 22 X2 with Yates correction = 3^ Significant at the 0.10 level Br 7, INFPRMATIQN SOMRPE /^^p |-ETnNQ ^CTE^rfE^fr QHfttoed q^ppm Ot>tained ftccoyn v|ff Ifi&ai personal cont^g^g formal sources H/H with regulated periodic tenancies Observed 27 25 52 Expected 22.29 29. 71 52 H/H with fixed term lets/ iIcences Observed 15 31 46 Expected 19.71 26.29 46 X2 with Yates correction = Significant at the 0.01 level 353- TABLES. 7. 15: WORKING SITUATION AM) LETTING A< H/H unernployed H/H errployed Total H/H with regulated periodic tenancies Observed 24 17 41 Expected 20.99 19.01 41 H/H with fixed term lets/ IIcences Observed 13 15 28 Expected 15.01 12.99 28 X2 with Yates correction = 1^ Significant at the 0.50 level TABLE B. 7. 16: OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND PLANS TO BUY H/H With fnaoMfli H/H with non- Total hsads manual heads H/H expecting to buy Observed 23 19 42 Expected 27.84 14.16 42 H/H not expecting to buy Observed 34 10 44 Expected 29. 16 14.84 44 X2 with Yates correction = 2^ Significant at the 0.05 level TABLE B,7. 17: DtCLLING QUALITY AND SATISFACTION D%^lling Quality: Sattpf. Somewhat Unsatisf. Unsatlsf. Total Househo I ds: Satisfied Observed 27 47 16 90 Expected 18.58 38. 9 32.52 90 Neutral . Observed 5 15 26 46 Expected 9.5 19. 88 16. 62 46 Dissatisfied Observed 5 14 19 Expected 3.92 8. 22 6.86 19 X2 = 35ai Significant at the 0.001 level 354- A^P HHP 5TA^PARPS• 355- STATE OF REPAIR EXAHPLES OF PIFFEREhfT POLLINGS CExtracts from field r>otes) IN GOOD REPAIR - D%^lting5 with no apparent defects) MINOR REPAIRS I^DED: a) new plaster crumbling off Living room and kitchen walls b) repointlng of steps and repair to stucco needed c) back door rotten needs replacing, front door wood splitting ft gaps d> broken sash cord one window, another window lll-flttlng A sticking, bulge In celling IN SOME DISREPAIR: a) crumbling plaster around one window, some rotten floor boards In kitchen, crumbling external wall front, living room window frame rotten b> kitchen & bathroom windows not close, back door not close (Insecure), loose slates on roof, bulge In celling from rain leaking through roof c) large crack in external wall apparently from subsidence, large crack In bedroom celling, broken sash cord bedroom window, kitchen loose floor boards, broken hardboard walling to shower, outside door part broken & off hinges (Insecure), balusters missing on stairs IN SUBSTAKTIAL DISREPAIR: a) windows all rooms rotten frames, three also with broken sash cords, floor boards - gaps - very uneven - tip up In parts, large gap around front door, back door broken - wood rotted - not close. Internal door frame split, loose tiles on roof - rain penetrates, guttering cracked - rusted - section missing, rain water pours over back door and seeps through window edges, under floor air vents blocked b) back slate hung wall - some slates missing - some dislodged, yard broken slates on ground - paving very uneven, guttering dripping - not straight, moss on window sills, hopper head rusted away by -356- Mil, rotten window frames, putty missing, missing pane one window, rattling windows, broken sash cords two windows, large gap top front door, broken stair treads, missing balusters, crumbling plaster back bedroom c) external wall bathroom & passage cruinbling badly, whole wall bulging over bath so bath unusable, crack In celling passage & kitchen, water seeping through kitchen celling from unsealed shower above, rising damp severe, guttering ill-flttlng - moss on window sills, broken waste pipe dripping sewage, broken and uneven entrance steps to basement, windows sticking DAMP Condensation, which Is an excessive build up of moisture in the air, can lead to problems such as black mould and peeling wallpaper or paint. Often It can be alleviated by providing adequate ventilation or heating. Condensation MS categorized as * minor' damp except in cases where It was so severe as to render a room unusable, or very Inconvenient to use. This usually occured In shower compartments where the landlord had provided no, or very inadequate ventilation. Here a tenant could not have remedied or alleviated the problem by a change of lifestyle. Rising or penetrating damp, unless localised 357- THE ADAPTED STAhDARDS FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION The guidelines &et by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers (1986) for houses in nultlple occupation v#ere followed as closely as possible, and In their interpretation the advice of officers from Plymouth's Environmental Health Department was sought. The standards used for the analysis are detailed below. Space Individual rooms, bedsits, flats One person units of acconnodatIon One room units: t3m2 Including kitchen facilities 1(>m2 %^ere provided with a separate kitchen Shared kitchens: 3m2 per person Two or more rooms: each kitchen 4. 5m2 living/kichen nm2 living room 9m2 bedroom 6.5m2 Two or more person units of accommodation One room units: not suitable for married couples or cohabitees. In other cases for two or more persons, or one adult and one child aged over one less than ten, only 20m2 T%M or more rooms: each kitchen 7m2 llvlng/kltchen 15m2 IIvlng room 12m2 living bedroom I4fn2 bedroom tOm2 Each bedroom/study: one person units 10ni2, two person units 15m2, except %^ere there Is a separate living room which is not a kitchen/dining room, then one person units 6.5m2, t%M person units I1ro2 Other rooms No. of persons Kitchen Dining/Kitchen Living and Dining rooms 1-5 7tr2. 11.5m2 11m2 6-10 10n2 19.5n2 16.5m2 11 - 15 13.5tr2 24m2 21.5m2 16 4- 16.5(n2 29rr2 25m2 Bed & breakfast accommodation one person units: bedroom 8.5m2, except where no corrmon room then 10m2 All Accotmiodatlon: Children - age under 1, 0 person; age 1 under 10, ft person; age 10 or more, 1 person. 358- Naturpt ^.Ighting a) All habitable rooms to have an area of clear glazing set in a window or door. b> No artificial lighting should be needed on a sunny day. a) All rooms, staircases landings and passages shall be adequately lit by electricity. b> Time switches not allowed In bed a breakfast accorrrnodat Ion, otherwise only In conmon landings, passages and staircases, and shall stay on for an adequate time to allow a person to cUrrb stairs or enter a room. c) There shall be sufficient switches to operate the artificial lighting on each landing or passage. VeptMaUpn a> Minimum floor to ceiling height to be 7ft except in attic rooms where half the room or more should have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 7ft. b) All habitable rooms to have a window openable to the external air. c) All kitchens, bathrooms and water closet compartments to have a window openable to the external air or mechanical ventilation. Pprsopal Washing Facilities a) Every occupancy to have a washbasin or sink with hot and cold running water. It should be for the exclusive use of the occupancy except In shared houses occupied by five or less persons, where a shared washbasin provided in a bathroom Is acceptable. b) Baths or showers should not be more than one floor distant and should be provided on the ratio of one for 1 - 5 persons, two for 6 - 10 persons and three for lt-t5 persons. c) Baths or showers should not be provided in kitchens or bedrooms. gyiitgry Conypnigpce? a) Water closet compartments should not be more than one floor distant and should be provided on the same ratio as for baths or 6ho%Mrs. b) External water closets are not reckonable. c> Each shared water closet should be separate from the bathroom unless only tw^ single person units share, or there is an additional separate bathrooca d) water closet compartments should have a washbasin with hot and cold running water, unless the water closet is In the bathroom which has such a washbasin and accords with c). e) Sinks in place of a washbasin only acceptable If a single person occupancy who has exclusive use of the washbasin and water closet. 359- f) Households with children under 16 should have the exclusive use of sanitary conveniences. Fa^Uit;??^ fqr Stgrfly, prpppratipn ^ goflking Pf pQPd md t^hp PlfiPftpal of Wft^tP W^tpr (K^^hen FgcUltipq) a) Each occupancy to have the use of either kitchen facilities within the unit of accomnodation, or a separate kitchen. In shared houses a separate kitchen is required, and in bed and breakfast accomnodation, kitchen facilities separate from those used as part of the service should be provided. b> Shared kitchens are only suitable for single person occupancies. c> Each occupancy should have a food store which can be a larder ventilated to the external air, or a refrigerator. If in a shared kitchen a separate lockable facility is required for each occupancy. d> Work topCs) of an aggregate size. If over 1ft wide* of at least 2ft by 4ft for one or two persons, 3ft by 4ft for three or four persons, and 4ft by 4ft for five persons shall be provided. e> Cookers shall have (i> two rings or hotplates with either a grill or an oven for each person, or (ID three or four rings or hotplates with a grill and an oven for two or three persons. If there are more than three persons sharing there should be a cooker in accordance with Heating All habitable rooms should have adequate heating. A potential output of more than one kWh Is' expected In rooms more than lOnC. Paraffin or oil fired heaters are not acceptable. Refuse Storage Refuse storage containers shall be provided for each household or on a ratio of one for every three persons. -360- APPENDIX D: QUESTIO^tNAIRE 361- HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QU^^TIfff^yRE CODE NO. DATE TIft INTERVIEW. FOR C0MPLETIC3N BY IhfTERVIE^R Age of Bulldlnfl Pre 1919 1 1919-1945 2 146-1970 3 1971 to date 4 Building Type Terraced. - 1 Semi detached. 2 Detached 3 Other (Specify) 4 Storeys Fronfr E?^t;Brior ln1;Qrno^ Appearan^e Viewed All of accorrmodatlon Part of acconmodatlon (Specify).. -362- SECTION A 1. I would first like to ask you some questions about the type of tenancy you have. Could you tell me vrf>o you rent your accommodation from? Is it... Property Company 1 Individual Landlord 2 Relation 3 Another Tenant 4 Other (Specify) DK NR 2. Does your landlord/the other tenant live in this house? Yes 1 No 2 3. Do you rent from someone who normally lives here and expects to come back after you move? Yes (Specify) 1 No 2 DK NR 4. Have you agreed to rent your home for a certain length of time only or can you have it for as long as you like? Specified Period 1 As long as he/she likes 2 DK NR IF SPECIFIED PERIOD How long? 363- 5. Did you or anyone else In your household sign an agreement or contract for your aconmodation? Yes 1 No 2 DK IF YES Can you tell me who made the agreement with your landlord, was it: Respondent 1 Partner 2 Jointly done 3 Respondent A partner/friend with others (as a company) (Specify) 4 Other in household (Specify 5 (Distinct) Separate agreements made with members of household 6 DK NA Vas the agreement for a: Licence 1 Tenancy 2 Shorthold 3 CASK AS APPROPRIATE IF CAN SEE AGRBB^m TO ASCERTAIN LETTING TYPE) DK NR NA IF NO (VERBAL A(atEE>gNT) What was agreed? -364- 6. Did you pay a deposit before moving in? Yes 1 No 2 DK NR IF YES Was the deposit described as: Rent In advance 1 Aga I nst damage 2 Key and contents deposit 3 Key deposit 4 Other (Specify) DK NA How much deposit did you pay? F^NT IN ADVANCE OTHER OK 1^ NA 7. a) How often do you pay rent Wteekly 1 Fortnightly 2 Monthly 3 Quarterly 4 Year 5 Term 6 Other DK m b) How much Is your rent for this period? £.,.. per DK NR 365- 7. COMTINUED c) Does that rent Include general or water rates? Yes No DK NR General rates I I I I I Water rates I t I I I IF NO How much extra Is that? General rates £ per DK Water rates f per DK W d) Do you have a rent book? Yes 1 No 2 DK NR IF YES: Did your landlord provide you with the rent book or did you get it yourself? Landlord provided 1 Tenant provided 2 IF NO: DK W Do you get a receipt for the rent? 8. Do you know if your rent (or the rent of the tenant from whom you let your acconmodatIon) ever been registered by a Rent Officer or Rent Tribunal? Yes 1 No 2 DK NR IF YES When was It last registered? Month Year DK 366- 9. Does your landlord provide any of the following? READ OUT SERVICES Can I Just check, Is the cost of the (service) Included In the rent you mentioned earlier, or do you pay extra for It? INCLUDE OBLIGATORY CHARGES WfrCTICR PAID TO LAM)LORD OR TO SOMEOTC ELSE IF ADDITICTJAL CHARGE How much do you pay for (service) ENTER BELOW Service Cost (if extra) Breakfast Other meals Cleaning of stairs, hallways etc Lighting of stairs, hallways etc Laundry Heating inside acconnodation Lighting inside accormodatIon Car parking Other services (specify) J_a. eg telephone, T. V. . 10. What do you think of the level of rent you pay for your accornnodatlon? (PROBE AS f^CCESSARY - Why Is that?) (So) Would you say It Is: High 1 About right ...2 Low 3 DK NK 367- 11. Now I have some questions on what sort of rooms you have. Could you tell me, is your accofrmodation let to you as: Furnished 1 Uhfurnlshed 2 IF PART FURNISHED VOLUtnEERED, CfCCK STATUS RE REI^ f^GISTRATION AM) REPLACEMENT BROKEN ITEMS - CATE(jORISE APPROPRIATELY DK NR 12. ENTER BELOW a) What rooms do you/your household pay rent for altogether, I mean rooms you use, Including kitchen, bathroom and wcs, even if you share these? b) Do you sublet any of these rooms or other rooms to anyone outside your household? c) Do you share any rooms with (your sub tenant/the tenant from whom you rent acconmodation/or) anyone outside your household? How many people share (room)? 1 Room Occupied/used by: ~ 1 Descrlp 1 1 H/H Sub-Ten 1 H/H + Others - SPECIFY 1 No. i 1 Only Only 1 Landlords/Othertenants/1 PersonsI 1 1 Sub-tenants 1 in 1 1 1 1 total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lilt II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 368- 12. ccrrriMjED IF SUB-LETTIhG ONLY May I just check, does the rent you mentioned earlier Include your tenants rent or is that paid to your landlord 0 on top of your own rent? IF RENT ^(CLl^P gl^-TPWJTS RENT How much extra rent do you pay to the landlord for your tenant? £ per IF RE^fT INCLUDES SUB-TCNAMTS RErfT How much does your tenant pay for his/her accotrmodation? £ per 13. IF NOT SHARING Is your accofimodation: Self-contained with separate entrance 1 Self-contained with shared entrance 2 Not self-contained-shared passage to H/H separate rooms 3 14. IF SHARING QNL.Y. KF NOT 9HAR^M? GO TQ 1?. How do you feel about sharing? Do you: Prefer to share 1 Prefer not to share 2 Not mind either my 3 Why Is that? DK NR NA 15. How many people are there altogether In this house?. IDENTIFY TYPES OF HOUSEHOLD 369- The housing conditions of people privately renting are of particular Interest to this study. So 1 would like to discuss with you, in some detail, the condition and state of repair of your home. 16.a) Firstly can you tell me which of these different kinds of repair, as far as you know, are your landlords responsibility and which are your responsibility? READ OUT BELOW AM) ENTER Repairs Land. Ten. DK resp. Structural and external repairs (Including gutters, pipes, drains, outside painting) \ Repairs to water, gas, electricity supply and heating. nternal decoration Other Internal repairs fig door handles. Ipcks. ^tc, b) Have you done or had done any repairs or other work here? What was that? Why? Did you recover the cost from your landlord? Yes. No 17. Now so that I can be precise about your housing conditions, I would like to ask some questions on the state of repair of, and the facilities in, each room you use. Can we start with your (room)? REFER TO a 12 (ROOMS), AM) HOUSING COM)ITIGN CHECK SHEET, AND COMPLETE FOLLOWING SHEETS AS APPROPRIATE. 370- Housing Condition Check Sheet Habitable Rooms Room Used for, floor, front/rear, approx size sq ft CelIing 7' hlght, state: peeling paintwork/paper, cracked, bulging, perished, damp-signs Floor Wooderv-rattles, springy, cracked, rotten - damp concrete/solid - uneven, broken Walls Plaster - perished, crumbling, cracked, paper/paint peeling, signs damp, gaps between floor and wails (Party/part 11 ion, exter ior) Window(s) No. approx size, adequate (light needed on sunny day) Type sash, casement, metal, wood. Fit, rattles, gaps (draughts) stuck, holds shut, broken sash cords props open, rotten, broken wood/glass. Door(s) Fit, gaps (draughts) rattles, shut locks broken rotten, broken panels, glass wood. Heat ing How, landlord provided, type fireplace condition coal storage, exclusive elect, pt. gas, portable. Wiring/Sockets - No. adequate round/square pin, switched safety, old-cloth covered wired Personal Washing Facilities - Sink/handbasin h & c, condition. Single Room Lettings As for habitable rooms then: Facilities for storage/preparation, cooking food Larder (vent to outside) fridge, sink, h & c, drainer, condition drainage, work surface/table, cooker (landlord provided) condition, rings grill oven. 370a KITCfgN/ETTCS As for habitable room to inciter supply, excluding heating them:- Vent II at I on - windows adequate or mechanically ventilated. Facilities for storage/preparation/cooking food Larder (vent to outside) fridge, sink h & c drainer, condition drainage, work surface/table, cooker (landlord provided) condition, rings grill oven. Point exclusive for cooker, or gas supply. BATHRO(yi/«: Check - no bathroom (shower)/bathrooin + tC, sep. bathroom Thin - as for habitable rooms to 'door' then:- Water supply - baths, sinks, pressure drainage h & c \K water heating Vent 11 at ion - windows adeq, glazed, mech. vent. SEPARATC/ADDITIONAL WC As for habitable rooms to Include 'door' then:- No. in house, exterior VC, working order, plurrtoing, drainage PASSAGES/COMMON PARTS As for habitable rooms to Include 'door' then:- electric lighting - 2 way. working Stairs, sound, uneven, rotten - bannisters, loose carpet Front - (interviewer checks) roof chicmeys, gutters, drainage walls access - surface Rear - check If used by tenant/rooms at rear, roofs falling slates - condition, gutters drainage, walls, rear access surface. ALL - Fire safety. 370b- SAMPLE CHECK SJCETS gINGLE ROOn LETTINGS Description. With/Without Kitchen Facilities Floor of house Size Celling Floor Vans Windows Doors Heating Wiring apd sockets Water Supply and Personal Washing Facilities Facilities For Storage, Preparation, Cooking Food. If With Kitchen Facilities Larder/Fridge Sink - Condition, Drainer, H/C Work Surface Cooker Q|:her Conrpents. Tenants Comnents PROBE FOR FEELINGS RE PROBLEMS (DISREPAIR ETC) WHAT DOTE AND LANDLORD RESPONSE 371 SAMPLE CHECK SHEET H/«ITABLE ROOM EXCEPT SINGLE_ROqMLETTINGS Description Floor o^" hou^e Size Cellfng Height/Condition Floor Type/condition Vails Exterior/party/Partlclpatlon Condition Vlndows No. Size Type Condition Doors Condition (Security) Heating Wiring and Sockets Adeq. and Condition Water Supply and Personal Washing Facilities Other Conments Tenants Coffments PROBE FOR FEELINGS RE PROBLEMS (DISREPAIR ETC) WHAT DONE AND LANDLORD RESPONSE -372- SAWLE CHECK SHEET Ftopr In Houge size Floor windows Poors Wiring and Sockets Water Supply Facilities For Storage, Preparation. Cooking Food Larder/Fr idge Sink Cond. Drainer H ft C Work Surface Cooker Other Comnents Tenants Conments PROBE AS BEFORE 373- SAMPLE CHECK SKET BATHROQM/WC No Bathroom J L Bathroom With WC EIL Separate Bathroom J L Floor In H CelItng Floor Walls Windows Doors Water Supply (Bath/Shower, Sinks H ft C. WC Working Order) V^ter Heating Other Comnents ft Tenants Confnents Separate WC J L Additional WC J L Exterior EZI Interior Floor I I No. In House Condition (Celling, Floor, Walls, Windows/Vent 11at Ion, Doors) Q|:her qofrment^ T^QHts qpTTypepls. PROBE AS BEFORE. -374- PASSAGES/COhHON PARTS Condition (Celling, Floor, Walls, Windows, Door) Lighting - Electric Lights Working, 2-Way stalrp ffP0 PppniPl^erp ALL LETS Refuse Bins Hs^ns pf Es^gpQ m C^apQ of Flr^ REAR ^)a^R Condition Surface Yard Mails guttertpg windows Roof Tenants Copyrept PROBE AS BEFORE 375- 18. Have you sought advice from anyone about any problems of disrepair? Who? What did they say? How Is your landlord over repair probl^ns? (Is he helpful? Prompt?) 19. Overall, would you say the general condition of your home is: Very good 1 Good 2 Adequate 3 Poor 4 Very poor 5 20. How do you get on with your landlord generally? Now I have some questions on how you found your accorrmodatIon and on what you think about it. But first; 21. Would you tell me how long you have lived here? IF 3 YEARS OR MORE, GO TO Q. 30 22. How did you find this accomnodat ion In the first place? PROMPT Did you find out about It from: REFER TO CATEGORIES IN Q. 27 376 23. a) Can you tell me which of these best describes the background to your move, - had you been: U Actively looking for somewhere to live 1 2. Just 'keeping your eyes open' 2 3. Not locking but wanting to move 3 4. Not locking and not especially wanting to move, Just heard of/saw better accom. 4 IF RESPONSE = 1 OR 2 How long were you looking (around) for accoimodat ion? (DISCUSS) IF f^SPONSE = 3 Was there any special reason you had not been looking for acconmodatIon although you wanted to move? (DISCUSS) IF RESPONSE = 4 PROBE AM) CONTINUE OR GO TO Q. 29 IF WIM)FALL b) How long were you able to look for accomnodat Ion? (Old you need accoffmodation urgently or could you have taken as long as you liked?) Approx. Time 24. When you started looking (around) for somewhere to live/were t^altlng to move, did you have you any particular ideas about the sort of accormxxiat ion you wanted? Yes KNEW SORT OF ACCOM. WANTED What sort of place did you want No - would you have considered any sort of accontnodat Ion? IF YES (ANY SORT CONSIDERED) Why was that? No (NOT ANY ACCOM. BUT NO PART. SORT WANTED. ) 377- 25. Could I Just check If any of the following features were Important to you when you were looking (around) for somewhere/were wanting to move? - Was the (FEATURE) very linportant, important, or not Important to you, or did you not think about the ( )?. I NIW> I FEATURE VIMP TYPE: <9/C TYPE: I I SEqUR^TY TP^RE I QUALITY I (new-darrpfree) 26. When you started looking (around) for somewhere/were wanting to move, did you have any particular Ideas about the area or part of town you wanted to live in? Yes - AREA Pf^FERRED Where?. No - ANYWHERE IN PLYMOUTH 378- 27. a) When you were looking Caround) for somewhere/Mre wanting to move, did you ask < ) about accomnodatIon? PHRASE AS APPROPRIATE FrIends/re Iat Ives 1 Own landlord 2 Letting agency 3 Estate agency 4 Newspaper adverts 5 Shop windows 6 Student agency 7 Social worker/other professional 8 Other SPECIFY b) What did you find out from (irFORMATION SOURCE(S> USED)? PROBE DEEPLY: Were many vacancies available? Were the vacancies of the sort you wanted, and the cost? Were there any you couldn't or wouldn't try for-what-ta#>y? WHERE INTERACTION-Was < > helpful ? Did C ) say anything about your chances of getting what you wanted-what they thought you might get? c) Dtd your contact with/looking at ( > make you change your plans in any way about what sort of accormodatIon you would try and get? 379- 28. Before you got this place, did you apply for, go and see, telephone about, or get offered any other places? - How many? What happened? Total nunt>er. 29. Would you tell me exactly how you applied for your present accorrmodat ion? Ch£CK I) Did you approach your landlord personally/through a friend/agent/apply in writing? II) What did your landlord want to know about you before letting to you? Did he ask you (or did you mention) the number of people in your household/your working situation/how long you expected to stay/anything else? 30. What decided you to rent this place as opposed to other private rented property? IF WINDFALL MOVE GO TO Q. 33. IF RESIDENT MORE THAN THREE YEARS GO TO Q. 33. 31. REFER TO RESPONSE JO Q, W^ERE Q. 24 = Yes K^EW WHAT SORT OF ACCOM. WANTED - Was this exactly the sort of place you first wanted, %rfas It (REPEAT RESPONSE TO Q. 24)? CftCK RESPONSES TO Q. 25 Was It the (FEATURE) you wanted? (PHRASE AS APPROPRIATE) 380- 31. CONTINLCD WVCRE 0. 26 = Yes AREA PREFERRED - ASK AS APPROPRIATE Was it the right area for you? W^€RE ACCCrtlODATION OBTAIhCD NOT SAfC AS FIRST WANTED IN SOf€ RESPECT OR IN DIFFERENT AREA - You've said you di*i't get the (ASPECTS OF ACCOTMOOATION/AREA) you wanted, why was that? PROBE- Dld you find It difficult to get the sort of accommodation you first wanted? Was this place preferable for some reason? Did you forgo (ASPECT) In favour of something else? NOTE CHANGING ASPIRATIO^e & REASON FOR CHANGE OWING SEARCH 32. Did you feel able to pick and choose acoirmodatIon when you were locking (around) for somevrfiere? - Why was that? PROMPT: Where some places unsuitable? Where there some places you felt you couldn't get? (NOTE PERCEIVED CHOICE AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT) 33. a) Overall, would you say you were: Satisfied. 1 Dissatisfied 2 Neither, or both satisfied and dissatisfied with your accornrodatIon? 3 b) In what respects are you (RESPONSE)? 381 34. a) Would you tell me how long you expect or hope to stay here? PROMPTS: Do you have any plans to move? Do you plan to stay here permanently? CHECK: Do you have another permanent home? Yes 1 No 2 b) WEPE fcei INTEI4)ING TO STAY PERMANENTLY: Are you considering moving to other private rented acconmodatloo? (IF YES, PROBE- WHAT SORT, IF LOOKING, HOW LONG, WHAT TRIED AM) HOW SEES CHANCES) - IF NO, PROBE WHAT PLANS 35. I'm very Interested In the role private renting plays In people's lives. So could you tell me firstly, what sort of accommodation have you ever lived In, that Is, apart from your parental home? Private rented Call types) Counc11 HA/Trust Own home Parental home only IF COUNCIL/HA/TRUST/OW HO^E What were your reasons for moving from( )? IF>t TYPE ASK FOR LAST TEI^RE AND LAST MOVE. 382- 35. CONTINUED Did you move from your ( ) directly Into this place? Yes 1 GO TO Q. 36 No 2 How many other places did you live in after moving from ( ) and before moving here? Were they all/was It a permanent private rented let(s)? (Did you rent any temporary accormodat Ion such as a room In a hostel, a let with your Job or business or a holiday let?) Yes 1 How many other lets have you had? Were any of those lets temporary acconmodation such as a room In a hostel, a let with your job or business or a holiday let? No 2 GO TO Q. 36 36. CHECK ANSWERS TO Q. 35 What sort of acconmodatIon did you live in directly before you lived here? Was it: Private rented permanent: secure(regulated)/ 1 lIcenced/shorthold Private rented temporary: holiday let 2 Private rented with Job or business 3 Council 4 HA/Trust 5 Hostel 6 Own home 7 Parents/relatives home 8 Other SPECIFY 383- 36 CONTINUED Where was thiat? Plymouth 1 Elsewhere GB 2 Abroad 3 VHERE NOT ALREADY ^Ng^REP m Q- 35 What were your reasons for moving from that accormodation? 37. a) What were your reasons for renting privately at the time you moved here? - I mean, rather than renting council or housing association accomnodat Ion, or your own home? CfCCK: Did you try or think about buying a house or renting from the council or a housing association when you were looking for somewhere/were wanting to move? IF YES PROBE AS TO WHAT DID, AM) WHAT HAPPErED b) Did you feel you had to rent at that time? What about now, do you feel you have to rent at the present time? ..^ 38. Are you on a council or housing association waiting list (now)? Yes 1 No 2 IF YES How long have you been on the waiting llst(s)? 384- 36. CONTINUED Time CouncIt Time HA/Other SPECIFY WHICH What were your reasons for registering' Do you know how long It will be before you are rehoused? CHECK ALL, DISCUSS POSITION ON WAITING LIST, POINTS FOR REHOUSING, OFFICIAL VISITS/LETTERS, CONTACTS WITH AGENCIES IF NO Have you considered registering with the council or a housing association since you moved here? PROBE 39. Would you tell me what sort of accorrmodation you would most like to live In. Would your ideal choice be: Private rented 1 Council 2 Own home 3 HA/Trust 4 Other SPECIFY DK Why do you prefer ( ) accoirmodatIon? 385- iO. t/hat sort of accoirmodatlon do you expect, or think most likely you will be living In, In 2 yrs time; In 6 yrs time? Private rented 1 1 1 CounclI 1 1 1 Own home 1 1 1 HA/Triist 1 1 1 Other SPECIFY . 1 1 1 OK IF ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF PREFERRED TENURE (BUT PERMAI^CNT HO^t NOT PARENTAL HOME, SEE (0.34 a> CHECK) GO TO Q. 42. 41. a) IF EXPECTED TENURE 2 YRS SAME AS PREFERRED TENURE-SOLE WUTHPfJE R^gPQNSE; RESPONSE (PREFERRED TENURE) OWCR-OCCUPATI ON Are you Intending to txjy a house within the next two years? Have you made any moves already towards buying your own home? (SAVING FOR A DEPOSIT, VIEWING PROPERTIES, VISITING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ETC. ) CpgNQIL/HA CHECK RESPONSE a 38 PRIVATE RENTED CONTINUE IF WLTIPLE RESPONSE EXPECTED TENURE 2 YRS ASK b) AS l^LL 386- 42. COrfTINUED b> IF EXPEC-TED TENURE 2 YRS OR 6 YRS DlFFERE^fT FROM Pf^FERRED TENURE. DK. MULTIPLE RESPOfCE: You have said that you prefer ( > accorrmodatton but expect to Live in < ) acconinodatIon don't know whether you will gain Cpreferred) accom. in 2 yrs nay live in ( ) accomnodatIon In 6 yrs Why Is that? What would your gaining your Cpreferred) accotrmodation depend on? PROBE- Have you investigated your chances of getting ( > with (CHECK RESPONSE Q. 38) the council/building societies/ estate agents/other agencies? SECTION E i2. To conclude, would you give me a little more information about yourself (and your household) to help me clarify the results? E^fTER IN BOX BELOW 1 PERSON 1 RELATIONSHIP 1 SEX 1 MARITAL STATUS 1 AGE 1 1 NO 1 TO RESP. 1 1 Wldwd/divd/Coheb 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mar/Sinaie/Seotd 1 1 1 1 1 Respondent 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 etc 1 1 1 I 1 387- 43. Can you tell me If you are,..? Are other mefnbers of your household...? I PERSON I RELAT I EMPLYD EWLYD RETRD u^e^p i STUOhfr i NOT I NO. I TO RESPI FT PT I FT ED I AVL J L 1 1 1 respandl 1 1 1 t t 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 etc 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 44. What Is the occupation of (adults)? 45. Can I Just check, were there any other, or different, people in your household when you first moved here? CHECK MARITAL STATUS, CHlLDf^N, PART>CRS, NOTE DIFFERENCES TO Q. 43 Were you (WORKING STATUS) at that time? Was (OTHER rChCERS OF HOUSEHOLD - WORKING STATUS REF. Q. 43) Was the occupation of ( ) the same? NOTE DIFFERENCES 46. Do you receive (any form of) Housing Benefit or Housing Benefit Supplement? HB ms Yes 1 1 1 No 1 1 1 IF YES How much rent does that cover? Does it cover; All Part SPECIFY £ per -388 47. Can you tell me the total Income, before tax, of your householcf? In your total Income, please Cdon't Include Housing Benefit but do include all (other) benefits, allowances or other Income. IF 2 OR MORE ^tWERS WORKING AM)/OR STUDEI^S SUGGEST SORTING OUT INCOME IMJIVIDUALLY. FOR STUDEhfTS NOTE GRAm AM) PARENTAL CONTRIBUTION, IF PAID AM) PERIODS ON SB AM) AMOUNT. IF EARNINGS VARIABLE EG FOR SELF-EWLOYED, RELATE TO AVERAGE *(EEK IN PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. USE BELOV AS APPROPRIATE H/H MEMBERS INCOME 1 per 2 per 3 per 4 per TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOfg per May I just check - in your household Income, did you include all the (nernbers of your household? and did you Include allowances or income such as: (Chi Id Benefit, Family Income Supplement, Widow/War Pension, Mobility/Attendance Allowance, allowance for foster child, sickness benefit or pay, Industrial injuries benefit, rent from sub-letting?) 389- REFERENCES ABBOTT, P. and SAPSFORD, R. (1987) Women and Social Class. Tavistock Publications. ABU-LUGHOD, J. L. and FOLEY, M. M. (1960> Consumer strategies. In: Foole, N. , Foley, A. L. and Winn I ck, L. (eds) Housing Choices and Constraints. McGrawHlll, New York. 387-447. ACKROYD, S. and HUGHES, J. A. (1981) Data Collection In Context. Longman, London. ADAMS, J. S. (1969) Directional bias In Intra-urban migration. Economic Geography. 45, 302-23. ALBON. R, and STAFFORD, D. C. (1988> Rent control: Its costly repercussions. Social Policy and Actnlnlstrat ion, 22, 1, Spring, 10-21. ALLBESON, J. (1980) Rent-Stop. Poverty Pamphlet 46. Child Poverty Action Group, London. ALLEN. J. and MCDOWELL, L. (1982) The Impact of short ho Ids. Housing Rfiyl^w. Nov-Dec. 194-97. ALLEN, J. and MCDOWELL, L. (1989) Landlords and Property. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. AM)REWS, K. and JACOBS, J. (1990) Punishing the Poor. Macmillan. London. ARDEN, A. (1989) Manual of Housing Law. Fourth Edition. Sweet and Maxwell. ASSOCIATION OF DISTRICT COUNCILS AhD THE HOUSE BUILDERS FEDERATION (1991) Bridging the AffprdabM^ty Pap in 1990, Association of District Councils. Cited In Foster, S. with Burrows, L. (1991) Urgent Need for Homes. Shelter, London. AUGKTON, H. with MALPASS, P. (1990) Housing Finance: a basic guide. Third revised edition. Shelter, London. BALCHIN, P. N. (1989) Housing Policy: An Introduction, Second Edition. Rout ledge, London. BALL, M. (1989) Housing: the state and the market. In: Ball. M. Gray, F. and McDowell, L. The Trappf orfnat jop of Qritaln. Fontana. BARBOLET, R. H. (1969) Housing Classes and the SocfO-ecologlp^l Systems. University Working Papers 4, Centre for Environmental Studies. London. BARLOW. J. and DUNCAN, S. (1988) The use and abuse of housing tenure. Housing Studies, 3, 4, 219-231. -390- BARRETT, F. A. (1973) Resident ial S^»rch ^fihav^PMr: A Study of Intra-urban Relocation In Toronto. (3eographical Monographs, 1. York University, Toronto. BASSETT, K. and SHORT, J. (1980) Housing and Residential Structure. Rout ledge and Kegan Paul. BELL, W. (1958) Social choice, lifestyles and suburban residence. In: Dobriner, W. (ed) The Suburban Community. Putnam, New York. 225-47. BERRY. M. (1986) Housing provision and class relations under capitalism: some implicatons of recent Marxist class analysis. HQViping Stiidles. 1. 4, 109-121. BIRD, H. (1976) Residential mobility and preference patterns In the public sector of the housing market. Transact ions. Institute of British Geographers. 1, 20-33. BLALOCK, A.B. and BLALOCK, H. M. (1982) Introduction to Social Research. Second Edition. Foundations of Modern Sociology Series. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. BLALOCK, H. M. (1979) Social Statistics. Revised Second Edition. McGraw-Hi11 BOODY, M.J. (1976) The structure of mortgage finance: building societies and the British social formation. Transactions, Institute of Pritish Geographers, 1, 58-71. BOURhC, L. S. (1981) The Geography of Housing. Edward Arnold, London. BOVAIRD, E. HARLOE, M. and WHITEHEAD. C. M. E. (1982) Appendix 1: The private rented housing sector. In: House of Conmons. The Private Rented Housing Sector. First Report from the Environment Coimiittee. Session 1981-82. Vol. III. Appendices. BOVAIRD, E. HARLOE, M. and V*4ITEHEAD, C. M. E. (1985) Private rented housing: its current role. Journal of Social Policy. 14, 1, 1-23. BOWLEY, M. (1945) Housing and the State 1919-1944. AlI en and Unwin, London. BRADSHAW. J. (1985) Tried and found wanting: the take-up of means- tested benefits. In Ward, S. (ed) DHSS in Crisis. Child Poverty Action Group, London. BRITISH MARKET RESEARCH BUREAU (1976) Housing Consumer Survey. National Economic Development Office, HMSO, London. BROWN. L. A. and HOLI-ES. J. (1971) Search behaviour in an intra• urban migration context: a spatial perspective. Environment and Planning. 3, 307-26. 391 BROUN, L.A. and MOORE. E.G. (1970) The Intra-urban migration process: a perspective. (3eograflska Annaler, 528, 1-13. BWINETT, J. (1978) A Social History of Housing 1815-1970. Methuen, London. BUraCY, E. (1967) Housing on Trial: A Study of Imnlgrants and l^q^al Goverprpent. Oxford University Press. BURROWS, L. and HUTfTER, N. (1990) Forced Out! Shelter Publ icatlons, London. CAWsELL C. F. and KAHN, R-L. (1968) Interviewing. In: Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol II. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass. CASTELLS, M. (1976) Theory and ideology in urban sociology. In Pickvance, C. (ed) Urban Sociology, Critical Essays. Tavistock, London. CASTELLS, M. (1977) The Urban Question. Edward Arnold, London. CATER, J. and JOTCS, T. (1989) Social Geography. Edward Arnold, London. CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE (1990) Family Expenditure Survey 1988. HMSO, London. CHARLTON, A. HARGREAVES, S. and PACKWOOD, R. (1991) Harassment and M legal Eyl^^tipn. Shelter, London. CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC FINANCE AM) ACCOUNTANCY. (1990a) Hornpl^gspess Statistics: 1989-90; Actuals. Stat ist ical Information Service, London. CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC FINANCE AND ACCOUNTANCY. (1990b) Housing Rents Statistics at April 1990. Statistical Information Service, London. CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP (1987) National Welfare Rights Handbook. Seventeenth Edition 1987-88. Child Poverty Action Group, London. CICOUREL, A,V. (1964) Method and Measurement in Sociology. Free Press, New York. CLAPHAM, D. and KINTREA, K. (1984) Allocation systems and housing choice. Urban Studies. 21, 261-69. CLAPHAM, D. and KINTREA, K. (1985) Rationing, choice and constraint: the allocation of public housing in Glasgow. Journal of Social Policy, 15, 51-67. CLARK. W. A. V. (1986) Human Migration. Scientific Geography Series, 7. Sage Publications. 392- CLARK, W. A. V. and ONAKA, J. (1983) Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanations of residential mobility. Urban Studies. 20, 47-57. CWto 214 (1987) Housing: The Government' s Proposals. White Paper. HMSO. COLES, A. (1989) Satisfying Preference. Housing Review. 38, 4. July-August. 103-105. COUPE. R. T. and MORGAN, B. S. (1981) Towards a fuller understanding of residential mobility: a case study in Northampton, England. Environment and Planning A, 13. 201-215 COURANT, P.N. (1978) Racial prejudice in a search model of the urban housing market. journal pf Ufbap E^pnomic^, 5, 329-45. CRONIN, F.J. (1982) Racial differences in the search for housing. In: Clark, W. A. V. Ced). Modelling Housing Market Search. Croom Helm. 81-105. CROOK, A.D. H. (1989) Multi-occupied housing standards. Policy and Pot^tjcs, 17, 1, 41-58. CROOK, A.D. H. and BRYANT, C. L. (1982) Local Authorities and Private Landlords: A Case Study. Sheffield Centre for Environmental Research. CULLINGWORTH, J. B. (1963) Housing in Transition. Helnemann. London. CULLINGWORTH, J. B. (1979) Essays on Housing Policy. George Allen and Unwin, London. DAMER, S. (1980) State, class and housing: Glasgow 1885-1919. In: Mel ling. J. (ed) HoMsing. Policy and thfi State. Croom Helm, Beckenham. DANIELS, W.W. (1968) Pacial p^scirlfnipat^pp m RpgtQn^- Penguin, ^ Harmondsworth. DAVIS, J. (1990) Plymouth City Housing Official. Personal Conversation. DEPARTTCNT OF EMPLOYI^vfT (1988) Employment Gazette. April. W1S0, London DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT (1990) Employment Gazette. April. H1S0, London DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENT (1981) Letting Rooms in Your Home. Housing Booklet 4. Welsh Office. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON^ENT (1982) ^pgl^sh House Cpntf^frfon SMrvgy- HMSO, London DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO|v*ENT (1983a) Regulated Tenancies. Housing Booklet 7. Welsh Office. -393- DEPARTtCNT OF ENVIROt*€Mr (1983b) ShorthoId Tenancies. Housing Booklet 8. Welsh Office. DEPART^ENT OF ENVIROM^^ (1988) English House Condition Survey 1986. WBO. London DEPARTTCNT OF ENVIROr*HNT (1991) Annual Report. Cmnd 1508 HMSO. London DEPARTfCNT OF ENVIROTftNT (Quarterly) Housing and Construction Statistics. HMSO, London DIBBLIN. J. and DUNLOP. A, (1988) Loadsamoney landlords. Roof. Sept ember/October. DOeSON, J. (1990) Middle market renting. Housing. March, 23-24. DOLING, J. (1976) Family life cycle and housing choice. Urban gtMt^les. 13, 55-58. DOLING, J. (1984) Have the Rent Acts become Irrelevant? Estates gt>2:pttP. Jun 23rd. DOLING, J. and OAVIES, M. C1984) Public Control of Privately Rented Housing. Studies In Urban and Regional Policy, 2. Gower. DOrWISON, D. (1967) The Govemrppnt pf Housing. Penguin. Harmondsworth. DOrWISON, D. and UNGERSON, C. (1982) Housing Policy. Penguin Books. Harmondsworth. DOUGLAS. J. (1970) Deviance and Respectability. Basic Books. New York. DUNCAN, S. S. (1975) Research directions in social geography: housing opportunities and constraints. Transact Ions. Institute of British Geographers. N.S. 1, 10-19. DUNCAN, S. S. (1976) Self help: the allocation of mortgages and the formation of housing sub-markets. Area. 8, 307-16. ELLIOT, B. and MCCROTE, D. (1975) Landlords In Edinburgh: some preliminary findings. Sociological Review. 23, 3, 539-76. ELLIOT, B. and MCCRONE, 0. (1982) The City: Patterns of Domination and ConfI let. Macmiltan, London. ENGLISH, J. (1979) Access and deprivation In local authority housing. In: Jones, C. (ed). Urban Deprivation and the Inner City. Croom Helm, London. EVERITT, G. (1991) Just Homes. Ecumenical Council for Social ResponsibiIIty EVERSLEY, D. (1975) Landlords slow goodbye. New Society. 31. 16th Jan. 119-21. 394 FENTON, M. and COLLARD. D. (1977) Do Coloured Tenants Pay More? Working Papers on Ethnic Relations, 1. Social Science Research Council, University of Bristol. FITZ-GIBBON. C. T. and MORRIS, L. L. (1987) How tp Apfttyz^ Qa^a. Sage Publications, London. FLO^RDEW, R. (1976) Search strategies and stopping rules in residential moblity. Transactions. Institute of British geographers, 1, 47-57. FORD, J. (1975) The role of the building society manager in the urban stratification system: autonomy versus constraints. Url^ftn gfrH^ifi^, 12, 295-302. FORREST, R. and MURIE, A. (1978) Landlords In Cheltenham. Working Paper 63, Centre for Urban and Regional Research, University of Birmingham. FORREST, R. and MURIE. A. (1987) The affluent home owner: labour market position and the shaping of housing histories. The Sociological Review. 35, 2, 370-403. FOSTER. S. with BURROWS, L. (1991) Urgent M^e^ for HorT>es. Shelter, London FRANKLIN, A. (1990) Ethnography and housing studies. Housing gtu^ies, 5, 2, 92-111. GANS, H.J. (1961) Planning and social life, friendship and neighbour relations in suburban cocmunltles. Jcxjrnal of the Arp^r'^cffn >n^titutfi pf planners, 28, 103-40. GAULDIE, E. (1974) Cruel Habitations. George Allen and Unwin, London. GINSBURG, N. (1989) The Housing Act, 1988 and its policy context: a critical corrmentary. Critical Social Policy. 9, 25, Sumner, 56-81. GOULDhCR, A.W. (1975) For Sociology: Renewal and Critique In Sociology Today. Allen Lane, Penguin. GRAY, F. (1975) Non-explanation in urban geography. Area. 7, 228- 35. GRAY, F. (1976) Selection and allocation in council housing. Trapsaqtions, Institute of British Geographers, 1, 34-46. GREATER LCTsOON COUNCIL (1986) Private Tenants in London. The G. L. C. Survey 1983-84, G. L. C. Housing Research and Policy Report, 5, Greater London Council. GREVE, J. (1965) Private Landlords In England Occasional Papers on Social Acini n Ist rat ion, 16. G. Bell and Sons, London. 395 GRIFFIN, T, and ROSE, R. (eds) (1990) Social Trends 20. Central Statistical Office. Government Statistical Service, mSO, London. GUARDIAN (1990) Rent book revival. 7th-8th April. HAftsETT, C. (1977) Non-explanation in urban geography: throwing the baby out with the bath water. Area 9, 143-5. HAMTCTT, C. (1984) Housing the two Nations: socio-tenurial polarization in England and Wales, 1961-81. Urban Studies. 43, 389-405 HADDON, R. F. (1970) A minority in a Welfare State society: location of West Indians in the London housing market. The New Atlantis. Milan, 1, 2, 80-133. HARLOE, M. (1985) Private Rented Housing In the United States and Europe. Croom Helm, London. HARLOE, M. , ISSACHAROFF, R. and MIM«, R. (1974) The Organisation of Housing. Heinemann, London. HARVEY, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City. Edward Arnold, London. HARVEY, D. (1975) Class structure In a capitalist society and the theory of residential differentiation. In Peel, R., Chisholm, M. and Haggett, P. Processes in Physical and Human Geoqraphv. Bristol Essays, London. HATCH, J.C. S. (1973) Estate Agents as Urban Gatekeepers. Paper read at a British Sociological Association Urban Sociology Group meeting. October, mimeo. HENDERSON, J. and KARN. V. (1984) Race, class and the allocation of public housing in Britain. Urban Studies. 21, 115-128. HENDERSON, J. and KARN, V. (1987) Rqce. Qj^ss Qr>^ Stftt^ Housing: Inequality and the Allocation of Public Housing in Britain. Studies in Urban and Regional Policy 4. Gower, Aldershot. HERBERT, D. T. (1973) The residential mobility process: some empirical observations. Area. 5, 44-8. HOGGART, R. (1957) The Uses of Literacy. Chatto and Windus, London. HOINVILLE, G. and JOWELL, R. and Associates. (1985) Survey Research Practice. Gower, Aldershot. HOLMANS, A.E. (1987) Housipg Policy in PrUftip. Croom Helm. London. HOUSE OF COrtlONS (1982) The Private Rented Housing Sector. First Report from the Environment Committee, Session 1981-1982. HMSO, London. -396 HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION GROUP (1985) Houses in Multiple OccupatIon. Housing and Planning Review, 40, 1, Feb. HOUSING MONITORING TEAM (1980) Landlords in Dudley. Research Memorandum 85, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. University of Birmingham. HYMAN. H.H. et al (1954) Interviewing in Social Research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. IM)EPEM)ENr (1987) 1st December. irCICHEN. 6. (1981) The housing decisions of young people. British ^O^r^ft^ of Soc^p^pgy. 24. ia-14. INSTITUTE of ENVIROrrCNTAL HEALTH OFFICERS. (1986) Environmental Health. Professional Practice. Vol II, Institute of Environmental Health Officers, London. JONES, G. (1989) Plymouth City Housing Department, Personal Conmunlcat ion. KAYE, S. (1986) Too Many Empty Homes in Plymouth. Devon and Cornwall Housing Aid, Plymouth. KEARNS, A. (1989) From conifers to condominiums. Roof. January/February. KEMP, P. (1980) The Changing Ownership Structure of the Private Rented Sector: a case study of Partlck East 1964 to 1978. Centre for Urban and Regional Research, Discussion Paper 17. University of Glasgow. KEMP, P. (1988a) Private renting: an overview. In: Kemp, P. KEMP, P. (1988b) New proposals for private renting: creating a cotimercial ly viable climate for investment in rented housing? In: Kemp, P. (ed) The Private Provision of Rented Housing. Avebury, Gower, Aldershot. KENDIG, H. L. (1984) Housing careers, life cycle and residential mobility: inplications for the housing market. Urban Studies. 21, 271-83 KIRBY, D. A. (1973) Residential mobility among local authority tenants. Housing and Planning Review. 29, 2, 533-47. KIRBY, D.A. C1983) Housing. In: Pacione, M. (ed). Progress in Urban Geography. Croom Helrr^ London. LAKE, R. V. (1980) Housing search experiences of black and %rfhite suburban homebuyers. In: Sternlieb, G. et al. Ceds). America's Housing: Prospects and Problems. Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick. -397- LA^BERT, J., PARIS, C. and BLACKABY, B, (1978) Housing Policy and the State. Macmillan, London. LAWRENCE, J. <1985) The bed and breakfast racket. New Society. 31st Jan. LEEDS IWIVERSITY UNION (1982) The Licence Loophole. Research and Welfare. Leeds University Uhion. LESLIE, G.R. and RICHARDSON, A. H. (1961) Life cycle, career pattern and the decision to move. American Sociological Review. 25, 894-902. LEVITT, I. (1990) Young Single Homeless in Plymouth: A Survey. Polytechnic South West, Plymouth. LEVITT, I. (1991) Housing and homelessness. In: Chalk ley, B. Dunkerley, D. and Gripaios, P, p^yrnouth; MgirUf"ie City in Transit ion. David and Charles, Newton Abbot. LISTER. R. (1981) Welfare Benefits. Social Work and Law. Sweet and Maxwell, London. LUBA, J. (1991) Compensating tenants for disrepair. Housing. 26, 10. Dec. 90/Jan. 91 LYON, S. and WOOD, M. E. (1977) Choosing a house. Environment and Planning, 9, 1169-76. MADGE, J. and BROWN, C. (1981) First Homes: a Survey of the Housing Circumstances of Young Married Cffupl^s. Policy Studies Institute, 600. MANION, T. and FLOWERDEW, R. (1982) Institutional approaches in Geography, In Flowerdew, R. (ed) Institutions and Geographical Patterns. Croom Helm, London. MARSH, C. (1982) The Survey Method. Contemporary Social Research Series 6. C^eorge Allen and Unwin, London. MARTIN, G. and CROOK, T. (1984) Private landlords and the improvement of the housing stock. Housing Review, 33, 3, May/June. MATZA, D. (1967) The disreputable poor. In: Bendix, R. and Llpset, S, M. (eds) Class. Status and Power. Rout ledge and Kegan Paul, London. MCCARTHY, K. F. (1979) Housing Search and Mobility. Santa Monica, California. Rand Corporation Report, R 2451 HUD. McCARTW, K.F. (1980) Housing Search an^ Consurrytion Adjustment. Santa Monica, California. Rand Corporation Report, P6473. MCCARTHY, K. F. (1982) An analytical model of housing search and mobility. In: Clark, W. A. V. (ed). Modelling Housing Market Se.flr.ch. Croom Helm. 3D-53 398- MCDOWELL, L. (1978) Competition in the private rented sector: students and low income families in Brighton, Sussex. Transactions Institute of British Geographers. 3, 55-65. MCLEOD, P. B. and ELLIS, J. R. (1982) Housing consumption over the life cycle: an empirical analysis. Urban Studies. 19, 177-85. McCRO^E, D. and ELLIOT, B. (1979) What else does someone with capital do? New Society. 31st May, 512. MEHAN, H. and WOOD, H. (1975) The Reality of Ethnomethodology. Wi ley. New York. MERRET, S. (1979) State Housing in Britain. Rout ledge and Kegan Paul, London. MICHELSON, W. (1980) Residential mobility and urban policy: some sociological considerations. In: Clark, W. A. V. and Moore, E.G. Residential Mobility and Public Policy. Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, 19. Sage Pub Iicat ions. 79-99. MILLS, C.W. (1970) The Sociological Imagination. Penguin, Harmondsworth. MILf^CR HOLLAM) (1965) Report of the Committee on Housing in Greater London. Cimd 2605, W1S0, London. MOORE, E.G. (1972) Residential Mobility in the City. Conmission on College Geography Resource Paper 13, Association of American Geographers. Washington D.C. MORRIS, E. and WINTER, M. (1978) Housing. Family and Society. Wlley. New York. MOSER. C. A. and KALTON, G. (1975) Survey Methods in Social Invest i gat ion. Second Edition with Supplementary Bibliography. hieinemann Educational, London. MUrfftO, M. and SMITH,, S.J. (1989) Gender and housing: broadening the debate. Housing Studies. 4, 1, 3-17. MURIE, A. (1983) Housing Inequality and Deprivation. Studies in Deprivation and Disadvantage, Helnemann, London. MURIE. A. Nlt^R, P. Al^ WATSON, C (1976) Housing Policy and the Housing System. Urban and Regional Studies, No 7. George Allen and Unwin, London. NATIONAL CONSUTER COUNCIL (1984) Of Benefit to Al I. National Consumer Council, London. ^CW PLYMOIKH HOUSING ASSOCIATION (1945) Report on Housing. Plymouth. rEW SOCIETY (1981) The changing face of bad housing. New Society. 26th Feb. 376. •399- NORMAN, P. (1975) Manager la I ism: a review of recent work. In Harloe, M. (ed) Prqceetilngs of the Conference pn Urban Change and Conflict. Centre for Environmental Studies, Conference Paper 14, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AhO SURVEYS) (1981> Census ^9^1: Defjnltjpns. Gr^^% Prltalp. Social Survey Division. mSO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AM3 SURVEYS) (1982> Census 198V County Reports. Great Bfltqin. Part One. Social Survey Division. fflSO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AfO SURVEYS) (1983a> Census 1981: Hpus^ng gnd Hpuseholdg. England and W^^ep. Social Survey Division. msO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AM) SURVEYS) (1983b) Census 1981: National Report. Great Britain. Part Oie. Social Survey Division. fflSO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AM) SURVEYS) (1983c) Census 1981; Small Area Statistics. Saspac 3, Lamsac's Working Party. Lamsac, Edinburgh OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AM) SURVEYS) (1984) Census 1981: Key Statistics for Local Authorities. Great Britain. Social Survey Division. HMSO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AM) SURVEYS) (1985> General Household Survey 1983. Social Survey Division. HMSO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AND SURVEYS) (1989a) Family Expenditure Survey 1987. Department of Employment, HMSO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AM) SURVEYS) (1989b) General Household Survey 1987. Social Survey Division. HMSO, London. OPCS (OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AM) SURVEYS) (1990> General Household Survey 1988. Social Survey Division. HMSO, London. OLDMAN. J. (1990) Who Says There's No Housing Problem? Shelter, London. OPPEN}€IM, C. (1988) Poverty: the Facts. Child Poverty Action Group Factsheet. ORENSTEIN, A. and PHILLIPS, W. F. R. (1978) Understanding Social Research. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. PAHL, R. E. (1975) Whose City? Penguin. Harmondsworth. PALEY, B. (1978) AUltMdes to getting in 1?76- OPCS Social Survey Reports. New Series 1091. mSO, London 400- PATERSON, A. J. (1983) (unpublished) The Price Paid for Plymouth's New City Centre. Plymouth Polytechnic. PAW50N, H. (1991) The security risk. Roof. January/February, 42-43. PAYIC, J. and PAYhC, G. (1977) Housing pathways and stratification: a study of life chances in the housing market. Journal of gociQl PftHcy, 6, 2, 129-56. PHILLIPS, D.R. and WILLIAMS, A. M. (1982) Local authority housing and accessibility: evidence from the South Hams, Devon. Transactfpns, jps^ityte Qf Pr^tish Geographers, N. S. 7, 304-20. PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (1990) Housing Renewals Strategy. Plymouth City Council, Plymouth. PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (1991) Housing Strategy Subrplssion 1991/92. Plymouth City Council, Plymouth. PLYMOUTH HOrCMAKERS PROJECT (1990) Plymouth Homemakers Project. PLYMOUTH TirtS (1973) 9th Mar. RALLY STEERING GROUP (1985) Charter for Private Tenants Rights. London. RAYNSFORD, N. (1985) The false hope and the fiasco: housing benefit. In Ward, S. (ed) DHSS in Crisis. Child Poverty Action Group, London. RAYNSFORD, N. (1989) Housing. In: McCarthy, M. (ed) The New Politics of Welfare: an Agenda for the 1990s, Macmi 11an, London. RAVEN. T. (1985) Re^>uMding f:he Private Rented Sectpr, Interviews with Irrproving Landlords. TW54, Department of Town and Regional Planning. University of Sheffield. RETWICK, D. (1987a) Plymouth City Housing Officer; Personal conversation. RENWICK, D. (1987b) (unpublished) Housing Renewal within Plymouth's Inner Area. Discussion paper. REX, J. and MOORE. R. (1967) Race, Conmunity and Conf i ict. Institute of Race Relations, London. Oxford University Press. ROBERTS, R. (1971) The Classic Slum. Penguin, Harmondsworth. ROBERTSON, C. (1973) Justice for landlords. New Statesman, 21st Sep, 379-80. ROBSON, B. T. (1975) Urban Social Areas. Oxford University Press. London. 401- ROSSI, P. (1980) Why Families Move. Second Edition. Sage Pub I i cat i ons, London. SANCHEZ, C. (1990) Plymouth City Rent Officer. Personal conversation. SAUM>ERS, P. (1984> Beyond housing classes: the sociological significance of private property rights in the means of consumption. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, d. 202-27. SELLITZ, C, JAHODA, H , DEl/TSCH, M. and COOK, S. W. (1959) Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, New York. SHORT, J. <1979> Landlords and the private rented sector: a case study. In: Boddy, M. (ed. ) LandL Property and Finance. Working Paper 2, School for Advanced Urban Studies. University of BirmlnghanrL SHORT. J.R. (1978> Residential mobility in the private housing market of Bristol. Transactions. Institute of British Gepgraphqr?, N. S. 3, 533-47. SHORT, J.R. C1982> Housing in Britain. Methuen, London SILVEY, J. (1975) Deciphering Data. Longman, London. SIMON, H.A. CI957) Models of Man. Social and Rational: Mathematical essays on rational and human behaviour in a social setting. Wi ley. SKELLINGTON, R. (1981) How blacks lose out in council housing. New Society, January 29th. SMALL LAMX.ORDS ASSOCIATION (1980) Letters from Landlords. Small Landlords Association, London. SMITH, D. (1977) Racial Disadvantage in Britain. Penguin, Harmondsworth. SMITH, H.W. <198U Strategies of Social Research. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. SMITH, S.J. <1989) The Politics of 'Race' and Residence. Polity Press with Basil Blackwell, Oxford. SMITH, T. R. and CLARK, W. A. V. (1980) Housing market search: Information constraints and efficiency. In: Clark, W. A. V. and Moore, E.G. (eds). Residential Mobility and Public Pol icy. Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, 19. Sage Publ icat Ions. 100-25. SOCIAL SERVICE IN PLYMOUTH (1920) Underbill Printers. SOCIAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION CI986) The Measurement of Social Class. Proceedings of a Conference. Social Research Assoc iat ion. -402- SOUTH WEST HOUSING AID (1989) Annual Report 1969. Shelter, London. SOUTH WEST HOUSING AID (1990) Annual Report 1990. Shelter, London. STAPLETON, C. (1980) Reformulation of the family life cycle concept. Environment and Planning A. 12, 1103-1118. SUDMAN, S. and BRADBURN, N. M. (1974) Response Effects in Surveys. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago. SULLIVAN, O. (1989) Housing tenure as a consumption-sector divide: a critical perspective. Ipternatlonal Journpil of Urban and Regional Research. 13, 2, 183-99. TAYLOR, R.M. (1938> A Social Survey of Plymouth. King and Son, London. THOMAS, A.D. and «DGES, A. <1986> The 1985 Physical and Social Survey of Houses in Multiple Occupation in England and Wales. Department of the Environment, htlSO, London. TCOD, J.E. , BOTE, M. and NOBLE, I. (1982) The Privately Rented Sector In 1978. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey Division. h^SO, London. TOOD, J.E. (1988) Recent private lettlngs. In: Kemp, P. TOOD, J.E. (1990) Private Renting in 1988. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey Division. WiSO, London. TOWNSEND, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom. Al I en Lane. TROY, P.N. (1973) Residents and their preferences: property prices and residential quality. Regional Stydles, 7, 183-92. WAITE, A. <1981) Dodging the Rent Acts. New Law Journal, 30th April, 460-62. WATSON, P. J. AW ABERCROhBIE, P. (1943) Plan for Plymouth. 1943. Underhlll, Plymouth. WATSON. S. and AU5TERBERRY, H. (1986) Housing and Home Iessness: a Feminist Perspective. Rout ledge and Kegan Paul, London. WEIR, S. (1975) Landlords exploit Rent Act loopholes. Roof. Oct, 11-14 WEISBROD, G. and VIDAL, A. (1981) Housing search barriers for low- income renters. Urban Affairs Quarterly. 16, 4, June, 465-82. WESTERN DAILY rCRCURY (1906) Ptymouth housing: Warrens of the poor: Important report. 1st Nov. 403- WESTERN DAILY MERCURY (1906) Report of the Town Clerk and Medical Officer; HoMslng ^ssoq\^t\ojys r&piy. 7th Nov. WESTERN EVENING HERALD (1906) Notes of the Day. 20th Sep. WESTERN EVENING ^CRALD (c. 1917> WESTERN EVENING HERALD (c. 1930) At the Heart of Housing. WESTERN EVENING HERALD (195d> Ist Jan. WESTERN EVENING HERALD (1963) 22nd Nov. WESTERN EVENING HERALD (1972) llth May. WESTERN EVENING HERALD (1972) 30th Aug. WESTERN EVENING HERALD (1973) 25th May. WESTERN EVENING fCRALD (1973) 1st Dec. WESTERN EVENING HERALD (1981) 2nd Feb. WESTERN MORNING rCWS (1977) tOth Mar. WHITEhtAD, C.M.E. HARLOE, M. and BOVAIRD, A. <1986) Prospects and strategies for housing In the private rented sector. Journal qf goc^pi PoUcy, U, 2. 151-74. WILLIAMS, P. R. (1976) The role of Institutions in the Inner London housing market. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers. N. S. 1, 72-82 WILLIAMS, P. (1978) Urban Manager laIIsnc a concept of relevance? Area. 10, 4. 236-40. WOOD, G. and MACLEMOAN, D. (1982) Search adjustment in local housing markets. In: Clark, W. A. V. (ed>. ModeU Ing Housing Market Search. Croom Helm. 54-80 404