Housing benefit does NOT cover the full social housing rent in 64% of cases. 2 in 3 tenants in council and housing association properties pay some or all of their rent without housing benefit.
Ten years ago 3.4 million SRS tenants received housing benefit. By March 2020 this had fallen by almost 750,000 to 2.68m. Three quarters of a million FEWER council and housing association tenants received Housing Benefit (or its UC equivalent UC-HCE) in 2020 than they did in 2013
The 201920 English Housing Survey (EHS) says 36% were getting full HB, 25% getting partial HB and 39% not getting a penny in housing benefit (HB or UC-HCE) at March 2020. DWP SHBE exact data for February 2013 said 3.401,023 SRS households received Housing Benefit which was 83%
These official figures will take the housing sector and industry by surprise yet official facts such as these are largely ignored by the housing ‘sector’ who tend to reaffirm their beliefs in myth and shibboleth and especially when it comes to THE biggest issue in the social rented sector which is AFFORDABILITY which is far greater than undersupply of social housing. Try another piece of data from the EHS which says the average (mean) household income in the social rented sector as below in Chart 1.
Chart 1 – Household income by tenure (EHS)

The figures are for the principal person and /or partner. They also reveal the average (mean) housiehold income in the PRS is DOUBLE that of the average (mean) SRS household income.
Official housing data also tells us the average (mean) weekly rent is:
- £107.24 in the SRS which is 26.35% of the mean HA household income
- £170.76 in the PRS which is 22.44% of the mean PRS household income
AFTER rent:
- The mean HA household income is £300pw for all other household expenditure
- The mean PRS household income is £590pw for all other household expenditure
All other household expenditure cost whether energy, food, council tax, water rates, insurances, travel costs are the same across tenures so the average (mean) PRS household has DOUBLE the income AFTER paying rent than the SRS household mean. In short, and despite average PRS rent being almost 60% higher than HA rent the PRS rent is MORE affordable than the SRS rent.
I have been researching the housing state of play in early 2013 to look at the impact of the first decade of austerity policies as it is 10 years on 1 April 2023 (a very apt date!) when the bedroom tax began.
Official housing data says the total number of SRS properties in GB was 4.1m in 2013 and the very exact DWP SHBE data says for February 2013 that HB was received by 3,401.023 SRS households. Housing Benefit was received by 83% of all SRS households in GB and that had been broadly the same since HB was introduced in 1987 – a generation of very broad proxy between HB receipt and rent affordability.
Scrutinising the SHBE data from 2013 is complex and has to be inexact as it wasn’t broken down by full or partial HB receipt like EHS data yet it is possible to assess within 1 or at most 2 percentage points a comparator for the EHS 201920 data of 36% full HB, 25% partial and 39% zero HB receipt. I have presented this in Chart 2 below and it is a huge change of seismic import.
Chart 2 – SRS HB receipt prior to austerity and by 2020/21

In overview comparing SRS HB receipt in 2013 and 2021 we see those getting full HB to cover all their SRS rent has HALVED and those who are ‘self-payers’ in housing jargon and get nothing in housing benefit has more than DOUBLED!
These are staggering and at first glance incredulous. I have checked, double-checked and checked again my figures and they are ‘reliable ballpark’ figures and over an 8 year period they see full HB reducing by 3% of SRS tenants per year and 2% more SRS tenants each year getting zero housing benefit. The austerity policies of bedroom tax (reducing HB for 13% of all SRS tenants in HB receipt alone) and overall benefit cap and increases in NDDs can explain this alone. We have also had a consistent increase in EET activities by SRS landlords over the period as well (seeking to get more tenants into part or full time employment) which also factors in and makes sense of these dramatic changes.
What we can say with absolute certainty is the use of HB receipt as proxy for SRS rent affordability became defunct on April Fools’ Day 2013. Any business or researcher or think tank that still uses HB receipt as any form of proxy for SRS rent affordability needs to rid themselves of that absurd notion.
Would any business in any sector ascribe the context of one third of its customers and project them onto 100% of customers?
Of course not that would be dangerously perverse yet that is precisely what equating HB receipt as proxy for rent affordability does … and is the regrettable and ignorant norm of many social housing actors.
In summary the importance of data to social housing and especially to homelessness cannot be underestimated. What the data on tenant composition and affordability clearly tells us it is highly probable more SRS households than PRS households will fall into arrears in 2023 and 2024 and likely that more SRS evictions into homelessness will occur than PRS evictions.
Why has Shelter become a one-trick pony and only focus on LHA shortfalls in the PRS yet says nothing about SRS shortfalls when two-thirds (64% at 2020) of SRS households do not get enough in housing benefit to cover SRS rent?
Throw into the mix the EHS data on energy prepayment meters (PPM) and 43% of SRS households had them in 2019/20 when just 19% had them in the PRS. The weekly average dual fuel bill in March 2022 was £24.56 (£1278pa) yet this is increasing in April 23 to £67.31pw (£3500pa) – and is typically around 5% higher with PPMs.

Energy costs have gone from 6% of average (mean) SRS household income to 17% whereas in the PRS from 3.2% in March 2022 to 8.8% in April 2023. Which tenure can better afford this £43 per week increase in gas and electricity – The SRS household or the PRS household?
A far higher percentage of SRS households will have to prioritise energy due to PPMs over rent to keep the lights on, keep the fridge capable of storing food that cannot afford to heat and to avoid immediate penalty changes should the PPMs run out.
It is that level of ‘sophistication’ and depth that the SRS ‘sector’ its plethora of lobbies and paid academic research and similar homeless actors need to look at regarding SRS they don’t and never have. They are all residing in the pre-Austerity period of a decade ago.
In summary I ask a series of questions beginning with a rhetorical one of
Is household income by tenure a far more critical determinant of SRS rent affordability than receipt of housing benefit? (That one is rhetorical.)
- Why do Shelter and so many other lobbies focus solely on LHA housing benefit shortfalls in the PRS yet say nothing at all about housing benefit shortfalls in the SRS?
- Is the tell a lie often enough and the public (want to) believe it at play when they and politicians and even academics largely believe housing benefit shortfalls only happen in the PRS but not in social housing?
- Does (a) household income by tenure; (b) the sharp fall in housing benefit receipt, and; (c) the PPM proportion, all combine to logically deduce more SRS tenants than PRS tenants will fall prey to the arrears to eviction to homeless pathway in 2023 and 2024? (That is also rhetorical.)
- Have any of the SRS sector landlords factored these critical pieces of primary data into their deliberations for imposing a 7% rent increase in April 23?
- Is there any purpose in building more social housing when those for whom it is intended and give its social purpose cannot afford it?
- Is the mantra of just build more bloody social housing which is heavily promoted by the social housing sector and its allies, in fact, specious?
Does the mantra of just build more bloody social housing heavily promoted by Shelter as panacea to ending homelessness have any purpose when homeless households cannot afford social housing?
Food for thought housing sector peeps!? There are dozens more similar questions of critical consequence to the social housing model yet all are based on the social housing ‘sector’ and its advocates and usual sycophantic suspects who consciously choose never to use primary data and fact and rely instead on myth and shibboleth.