Rising housing costs cause family conflict
Nearly 10 million people have been forced to continue living with an ex-partner because they can’t afford to live on their own, or know someone who has, according to Shelter research.
The findings are part of a YouGov survey of 5,438 people commissioned by the housing charity to examine the extent to which unaffordable housing is affecting the way we live our lives.
The data suggests 9.9 million adults have experience themselves or know someone who has been forced to live with an ex-partner.
Kay Boycott, director of policy and campaigns at Shelter said: ‘Unfortunately relationships do break down which is painful enough, but being forced to carry on living with an ex-partner, even for a short time, must add real pressure to the situation.
‘The fact one in four of us either have experienced or know someone that has experienced this situation, means this may be more widespread a problem than we realised.’
Due to high housing costs increasing numbers of people are being forced to remain living together after breaking up, the research suggests. It also found high housing costs are often the cause of arguments between couples, and with their families.
Nearly one in six respondents, equivalent to 6.6 million people nationwide, said worries about housing costs had led to arguments with partners or other members of their family.
Ms Boycott continued: ‘As a nation we have accepted the way housing costs have risen hugely over the last few years, but are we ready to accept the human cost this brings?
‘We can no longer ignore the massive repercussions our housing crisis is having on individual lives. Tackling the problem must be a priority for all political parties and a key election issue for us all.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (7)
Bill Caddick | 12/01/2010 10:23 am
Laughable really - the extrapolation of 10 million people "forced to live with an ex-partner" is statistical nonsense and using it to try to influence affordable housing policy is lunacy. The analysers and the Director at Shelter just don't take the trouble to properly interpret, understand or reflect on how to use statistics. Anyone with a hint of intelligence would not make the extrapolation - just think of the double counting / assumptions this must include. That there is a need for affordable housing is a given but don't take on board this statistical rubbish.
Inside Housing will be inviting an astrologer to make predictions about housing next, and then we really be in "cloud cuckoo land"
Bill
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
not a stat | 12/01/2010 10:58 am
I agree- in all these surveys that are published for whatever reason- I can say I have never ever been asked one question, never stopped on the street, never asked though my professional memberships if I have had any effect from any of the survey questions, and neither have my circle of friends. So 1 in 6? Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 12/01/2010 11:43 am
Worries about vitually any cost often lead to rows with partners, putting a housing spin on this is not really that surprising. Has the cost of clothes caused rows with a partner? The cost of alcohol? Transport, etc, etc. Lets get the govt to tackle the cost of everything - yeah, that'll work..... Completely agree with the extrapolation criticism, I consider myself a fairly regular bloke with a decent circle of friends, I can't think of any couple I know who lived with each other against their will following a breakdown in theri relationship......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 12/01/2010 2:22 pm
this article does quite properly keep stressing the need for more affordable and more social housing. What posters above do not seem to realise that taking lack of housing as a given might be enough for them but is not enough to prompt into nationwide action. Lacck of housing needs to be constantly repeated from all sorts of angles and campaigned for in all sorts of ways RELENTLESSLY for it to become a reality.
There is evidence that adults keep on living with parents or go back to their parents because of lack of housing, so I am not surprised partners of broken relationships have to put up with each other longer. It cannot be good because if we are talking about a million of people, this million of people is not in a good situation to be productive for the rest of society if they have to be under some permanent state of psychological stress while in their homes. It will affect them, their work, their children or rest of family, etc etc.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 12/01/2010 3:20 pm
All these surveys do is provide fodder for sensationalists.
9.9 million people based on a skewed sample. Its a manipulated stat.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
not a stat | 12/01/2010 3:44 pm
you've missed the point. Its not about the obvious need for more housing. Its about how statistics can be manipulated to any end one feels like to make the point. Extrapolating out a 1 in 6 repsonse from only a very very tiny sample size is inappropriate, doesn't produce corherant results that can be taken seriously by policy makers. Its a waste of money in terms of outcomes. That was the point.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Geoff Buck | 18/01/2010 8:55 am
I agree with those questioning the conclusions drawn from the survey. In fact Shelter claimed even more: "In a survey conducted by the housing charity, nearly a quarter of people – the equivalent of 11.3 million adults - said they or someone they know have had to stay living with their partner because they cannot afford to live on their own." (http://media.shelter.org.uk/Press-releases/Housing-shortage-forcing-warring-couples-to-stay-together-Shelter-research-shows-2bd.aspx).
It is also sloppy journalism for Inside Housing to pass on these figures as "fact". And what is Shelter implying; that we need 10m more housing units; 5m more housng units; better counselling services; some heads banging together for a reality check; or what?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment