Prof David Robinson and Dr Michael Marshall explore England’s housing crisis, focusing on older people and the idea that downsizing could help free up homes. They look at why older people may not move, the challenges they face, and whether financial incentives are enough.
There is a broad consensus that England is in the midst of a housing crisis. Popular and political understandings of this crisis tend to focus on the common sense notion that there is not enough housing to go around. In response, government policy has focused on the challenge of increasing supply through new development. Attention has also focused on demand for housing and how we consume existing supply. One group increasingly singled-out for criticism for ‘over-consuming’ housing are older people.
The essence of this argument is that older people are more likely to under-occupy their homes. If only they would downsize, millions of properties could be freed up for families to move into. Proponents of this argument point to evidence of untapped latent demand among older people for moving. Very few older people move each year, and even fewer downsize. Yet, many older people are open to moving if it improves their quality of life. Some estimates suggest that up to four million people aged 55 and over want to move. If only we could we get the incentives right, so the argument goes, we could release this pent-up demand. In response, various incentives have been suggested to encourage downsizing, such as relief on stamp duty.
The problem with this reasoning is that it puts the horse before the cart, so to speak. There may be latent demand for moving amongst older people, but it is not currently clear who wants to move, into what forms of housing, where, or whether moving can be incentivised financially. In other words, policy prescriptions are being proposed without any real understanding of what older people want, and how easy it is to satisfy these aspirations within the contemporary housing system.
A team from CaCHE, together with colleagues from Sheffield Hallam University, recently undertook a review of the evidence on older people’s housing preferences and priorities. The findings were published recently by MHCLG alongside the report of the government commissioned Older People’s Housing Taskforce. The key takeaway from this review is that older people want many of the same things as people of any age want from their housing – security, quality, affordability. What is less clear Is which issues are most important to people in different circumstances and how these factors interact to inform aspirations and actions.
The stated preference of the majority of older people is to remain in their current home, but preferences are also dynamic. Amenities such as the availability of care and support can become more important as we age, and there is some evidence that older people may be willing to pay more for accessible housing. People’s needs and preferences can also change rapidly with events, including illness and bereavement, and decisions are sometimes rushed. It is also important to recognise that older people are not an homogenous group. While some older people seek moves to access care, there are also segments of the older population – often owner occupiers around retirement age – that seek aspirational, lifestyle moves.
There is strong evidence to suggest that older people’s housing choices are not just motivated by financial considerations. Costs are more likely to be a barrier to moving in some areas, for example very high stamp duty in London. And downsizing is more common among older people with high-value homes and higher housing costs, who have both an incentive and opportunity to reduce their financial burden. However, evidence points to many other factors that inform decisions to stay or move in older age. For example, many older people have deep personal connections to the places where they live and are unwilling to forgo these emotional connections and proximity to family and friends in order to downsize. Downsizing can challenge sense of independence and leave people feeling a loss of autonomy and personal identity. LGBTQ+ older people report concerns that they will have to go ‘back in the closet’ if they move into specialist accommodation. Many older people are also uncertain about their housing options due to a lack of trusted information and advice.
Another issue to emerge from the review is that opportunities for moving in older age are limited – what is preferred is not always what is available. There is an undersupply of housing (general needs and specialist) that is more appropriate for older people by virtue of size, design and location. This is particularly pronounced in the private sector. There is also a variable geography to housing supply, although precisely how the housing aspirations of older people map onto supply at the local level is largely unknown. Meanwhile, specialist housing is often unaffordable to many people, particularly when the costs of support and care are factored in.
Why far more older people express an interest in moving house than actually move is far from understood. Why some people move in older age and others in similar circumstances don’t remains something of a mystery. Hence, one of the key recommendations to emerge from the review was the familiar lament of the housing researcher; we need more evidence. What the available evidence does tell us is that the factors informing the decision to stay put or move in older age are many and complex. Any single initiative designed to encourage older people to ‘right-size’ is unlikely, on its own, to have the desired effect. Affordability is a barrier to moving in older age for many people, but it is far from the only barrier. The kind of financial incentives increasingly talked about as a way of encouraging downsizing will help some people to move, but will make little or no difference to the options of many other older people who would welcome a move to more appropriate housing.
