This is Home Front with Vicky Spratt, a subscriber-only newsletter from i. If you’d like to get this direct to your inbox, every single week, you can sign up here.

Good afternoon and welcome to the election week edition of Home Front. Whoever forms the next government is going to have to deal with the problem of private rents.

The “problem of rent” was first diagnosed more than 80 years ago by Sir William Beveridge’s 1942 report on the state of social security. He noted that it was almost impossible to design state support for housing costs because rents varied across the country and were increased regularly by landlords.

Nowadays, this problem is greater than ever and finding a solution has never been more urgent for millions of private renters across the country who cannot afford their housing costs.

Inflation may have fallen back to 2 per cent but private rents are still rising. Spare a thought for private renters because their housing costs increased by an average of 8.7 per cent between May 2023 and 2024, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

This means that private rents are rising faster, not only than inflation, but also more rapidly than wages (which rose by 6 per cent in the same period) and, crucially, the state support available to those struggling to pay them.

Last autumn, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt increased the local housing allowance. This is how housing benefit is calculated. However, that boost will now have been completely wiped out by rent inflation.

Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) exclusively shared with me for Home Front shows that 40 per cent of low-income private renters – that’s 920,000 households – were hit with a rent rise in the past 12 months.

According to the JRF’s cost of living tracker, the average rent increase for this group was £180 per month. That’s the equivalent of an additional 10 per cent of their monthly income and £2,160 a year.

The JRF’s senior economist, Rachelle Earwaker, told me that there were now one million low-income private renters who were now spending more than half of their income on rent.

Rent is only considered affordable if it takes up less than a third of an individual or household’s income.

“These rent rises completely wipe out any increase to incomes or benefits that low-income private renters might have seen over the last year,” Earwaker explained.

The fallout from these “runaway” rents is dire. Earwaker said that more than three-quarters of low-income private renters were being forced to go without essentials – that’s 1.8 million households who were unable to afford the basics like food, heating and toiletries because they were spending so much on paying for a place to live.

She added that 50 per cent of low-income private renters – that’s 1.3 million households – were skipping meals because they did not have enough money for food.

“All of this has a detrimental impact on people’s health and wellbeing,” Earwaker warned when we spoke about the JRF’s findings. “This also has an impact on public services – such as the NHS – because people need them more when they’re struggling.”

If nothing is done about unaffordable rents, Earwaker said there would be more homelessness.

While private renters on low incomes are undeniably the hardest hit, middle-income renters are struggling too.

While writing this week’s Home Front, I spoke to several private renters who earn above average wages in the region of £50,000. They all told me their rent had increased by £150 to £200 per month or around £2,000 a year.

This has left one single woman scouring the shelves in Aldi to see what food she could afford, one couple delaying having a baby because they were worried about money and another young woman in her thirties saying goodbye to more than half of her take-home pay on her student loan repayments and housing costs.

The plight of middle-income renters is just as serious – they cannot save, which means they won’t have emergency funds if they are evicted or become unwell and cannot work. There is a knock-on effect for the economy when wealthier renters’ costs increase, too. They have less disposable income, which means less money circulating elsewhere in the economy.

You know it’s bad when the group that lobbies on behalf of private landlords – the National Residential Landlords’ Association (NRLA) – agrees with independent poverty experts such as the JRF.

The NRLA is also warning that housing benefit does not cover private rents. It says that two-thirds of low-income private renters experience a shortfall between the state support their receive and the cost of their monthly rent.

As a result, Ben Beadle, chief executive of the NRLA, has called on the next government to make sure that “housing benefit rates will permanently track market rents”.

This is not currently a policy of any of the major political parties.

And, so, once again we return to Sir William Beveridge’s “problem of rent”. It poses an awkward question: should the state agree to permanently subsidise private landlords?

Failing to do so penalises private renters who have nowhere else to go because there is not enough social housing. But agreeing to permanently link housing benefit to rents could incentivise rent rises.

It sounds like an impossible situation but the good news is that there is another solution. Britain could build social housing at scale, fast. Research has shown this would boost the economy by stimulating housebuilding and it would also solve the problem of rent once and for all (unless Right to Buy continued unfettered and allowed it all to be sold off again).

Other than the Liberal Democrats, who have committed in their manifesto to building 150,000 social homes a year, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have pledged such a number. Perhaps that’s because they know they would have to deliver it, while the Liberal Democrats have the luxury of making promises on which they will unlikely be tested because the party won’t form a government.

The Green Party, similarly, favours rent controls to cap increases as a solution to this mess. Whether a potential Labour government would be bold enough to adopt something similar in government remains to be seen.

How housing costs should be handled remains a painful thorn in the side of the welfare state.

Regardless, someone is going to have to do something. Private renters can’t take much more.

Has your rent recently gone up? Please email me vicky.spratt@inews.co.uk

Key housing

If you still need evidence of the “problem of rent”, I’d direct your attention to my exclusive about the spiralling temporary accommodation bills faced by local councils across England.

Exclusive data from the Local Government Association (LGA), shared with i, shows the total amount spent on temporary accommodation by councils across England has soared by more than £733m over the past eight years.

In 2015/16, councils spent around £315m on emergency housing. However, in 2023/24 they spent £1.048bn. The true figure could be higher and may rise when the latest data on spending are available.

The cost of private rents is part of this story. There are more homeless families because a growing number of private renters simply cannot afford rents in their area. They fall behind. Get evicted. Then they end up in expensive temporary accommodation because there is not enough social housing.

Do have a read of the article. Sources from several councils told me that they risk financial ruin if nothing changes.

And, finally… it’s time to return to Housing Market Watch…

The Bank of England’s latest mortgage approvals data shows that the number of people taking out mortgages has fallen slightly, from 60,800 in April to 60,000 in May.

This reflects the fact that Britain’s housing market is stuck. House prices remain high and unaffordable, while interest rates remain at a 16-year high of 5.25 per cent.

All eyes are on the next Monetary Policy Committee meeting but, even if the Bank of England does cut rates, it won’t be by much, so this problem is unlikely to disappear.

Ask me anything

Over the weekend, someone on Instagram asked me whether they would be able to buy a house if Labour wins the election.

I’m afraid I have to reject the premise of the question. Much of the coverage of this election has suggested that the result is a done deal. However, whether Labour wins and, crucially, what size majority the party would have, remains to be seen.

Last week, the pollsters at Ipsos released some fascinating research showing that 36 per cent of people could switch their vote at the last minute.

Indeed, Housing Secretary Michael Gove, in an interview with Andrew Neil, told Times Radio he was “keeping hope alive” and suggested that the Tories could still pull off a last-minute victory.

Now, Mr Gove’s optimism is admirable but it’s unlikely that the polls – which have consistently suggested a Labour lead – have got it completely wrong. But waking up to a massive Labour majority on Friday is far from a sure thing.

Please keep your questions coming: @Victoria_Spratt, on X, formerly Twitter, @vicky.spratt on Instagram or via email vicky.spratt@inews.co.uk.

This is Home Front with Vicky Spratt, a subscriber-only newsletter from i. If you’d like to get this direct to your inbox, every single week, you can sign up here.