Housing Standards 2002/03: Financial Affordability and Attitudes towards Housing

4. People's opinions about the housing cost burden

4.2 Attitudes of tenants to the amount of rent expenditures

Tenants, co-operative owners and people in other tenures were also asked about their opinion of the amount of expenditures for net rent in ratio to the income of their household in view of the quality and location of their place of residence. Out of the total number of respondents, 1.1% stated that they considered their net rent to household income ratio to be very low and 2.8% of respondents considered it quite low. 43.1% viewed the net rent-to- income ratio to be adequate, 33.9% considered it quite high and 11.3% of respondents as very high. Less than 8% of respondents did not answer the question. As was the case with the evaluation of the total regular housing expenditures, it is also true in this case that respondents who stated that they considered their net rent-to- income ratio to be very low or quite low, actually do record the lowest relative net rent expenditures while respondents who evaluated their net rent-to-income ratio as very high record on average the highest relative expenditures for net rent. The average relative expenditures for net rent of respondents who consider them very and quite low do not differ statistically from the average relative expenditures of respondents who think the ratio to be adequate.

When comparing the structure of respondents' answers according to the tenure (see Figure 19), among tenants in private rental sector and tenants in enterprise flats or in social care homes there is a significantly higher percentage of respondents who perceive the regular net rent expenditures as very or quite low or adequate. On contrary, tenants in municipal flats, sub-lessees, people living in guesthouses and people in other tenures far more often viewed their net rent expenditures to be very or quite high in relation to their household income.

Respondents in a lease relationship were also asked whether they believed that the total rent collected from all the tenants in their building (provided that all the other tenants paid the same rent as the respondent) covered 1) the costs of regular operation and maintenance of flats/building, 2) the costs of regular operation and maintenance as well as the costs of modernisation and reconstruction of flats/building, and 3) the costs of regular operation, maintenance, modernisation and reconstruction plus a profit for the landlord. A total of 12.3% respondents did not answer the first question, 14.8% did not answer the second question and 20.9% did not answer the third question. Almost 85% of the respondents believed that the rent collected in their building definitely or probably covered the costs of regular operation and maintenance of the building/flats, the remaining 15.7% thought the opposite (answers "probably not" and "definitely not"). More than a half (53.4%) of respondents who answered the question thought that the total rent collected in their building was enough to cover not only the regular operation and maintenance but also modernisation and reconstruction of the building/flats. Almost one half (47.4%) of respondents agreed that the total rent collected in their building definitely or probably covered the costs of regular operation, maintenance, modernisation, reconstruction and also yielded some profit for the landlord.

Great differences in opinion can be found again between tenants in municipal flats and in private rental sector. As can be gleaned from Figure 22, while among tenants in municipal flats 88% share the opinion that the sum of rent collected from all households in their building is enough to cover the regular operation and maintenance of flats/building, among tenants living in private rental sector, 76% share the same opinion. The difference is even greater in response to the question whether the total collected rent is enough to cover the regular operation and maintenance, modernisation and reconstruction: in municipal flats 58.3% respondents believe that the rent covers all these items while among respondents living in private rental sector, only 42.7% think so. The difference in the percentage of respondents living in municipal flats and those living in private rental sector in response to the third question is different but not statistically significant.

The fact that tenants in municipal flats more often consider the total rent collected in their building sufficient to cover the costs of regular operation and maintenance compared to tenants in flats of private landlords may be a result of the fact that municipal rental flats are usually situated in buildings constructed at a later date and are therefore in a general better technical shape than buildings with flats of private landlords (their owners have usually acquired these buildings through the "restitution" process). And really, while 68.9% of tenants in flats of private landlords live in buildings constructed before 1960, the percentage is only 41.4% among tenants in municipal flats.

It was possible to assess the difference in the technical shape of municipal and private buildings/flats only indirectly according to what their tenants thought about the quality of individual construction and technical features (the heating system, quality of power distribution system, quality of water mains, quality of windows, heat insulation, noise-proof insulation). The tests performed, however, showed that the general evaluation of the technical shape of flat/building by tenants in municipal flats is not statistically different from the evaluation by tenants living in flats of private landlords.

Furthermore, individual features of respondents such as age, education and sex did not play any significant role in the explanation of the variability of responses to the question about the adequacy of the rent amount in view of the coverage of costs related to the operation of blocks of flats. The size of residence proved to be an important factor differentiating the attitudes of respondents. Responses of tenants in municipal flats and in private rental sector to the question whether they believed that the rent collected from all households in their building was enough to cover the costs of regular operation and maintenance of flats/building significantly differed only in towns with a population over 5,000 and less than 100,000. In smaller municipalities and in large cities the attitudes of municipal tenants and tenants living in private rental sector did not statistically differ. In response to a question whether the rent collected from all households in a building was enough for regular operation and maintenance of building/flats and modernisation and reconstruction, there was a statistical difference between tenants in municipal flats and tenants living in private rental sector but again only in municipalities with a population over 5,000 and less than 100,000. Differences in opinion between tenants living in larges cities proved to be statistically insignificant.