- More than 1.23 million workers are on zero-hours contracts across the UK
- Unpredictable income is failing strict rent insurance and tenant screening checks
- Landlords are relying on insurers, quietly filtering who gets to rent
For a growing number of workers in the UK, having a job is no longer enough to secure a home. Employment, once the basic threshold for entering the rental market, is being changed. People are working, earning and participating in the economy, yet struggling to access housing.
At the centre of this is the rise of zero-hours and flexible employment. Around 1.23 million people in the UK are now on zero-hours contracts, a record high and roughly 3 per cent of the workforce. The number has been steadily rising, reflecting how deeply flexible work is now embedded across sectors such as hospitality, retail and care. These contracts do not guarantee minimum hours, which means income can fluctuate from week to week.
The impact of that uncertainty is no longer confined to the workplace. It is beginning to shape who gets access to housing and who does not.
Also read: Guaranteed Hours Rule May Cost Jobs, Govt Warns | EasternEye
A workforce that earns, but struggles to qualify
Zero-hours contracts are often described as flexible, but the reality for many workers is less straightforward. Income may be steady over time, but it is rarely predictable in the short term.
The instability is measurable. Around 59 per cent of workers on variable hours receive less than a week’s notice of shifts, while 13 per cent are given less than 24 hours’ notice. That level of unpredictability makes it difficult to plan finances, commit to regular payments or demonstrate stable income; all of which are central to rental assessments.
More than 32.8 per cent of zero-hours workers rely on such jobs as their main source of income, blurring the line between casual work and full-time dependence. Yet the structure of that income does not align with how the rental market evaluates affordability.
This is where the contradiction becomes clear. A worker may earn enough across a month or year to comfortably afford rent. But if that income cannot be shown as consistent or contractually guaranteed, it may not meet the thresholds set by landlords, letting agents or insurers.
In effect, the issue is not whether people earn, but how that income is recognised. Rental systems continue to favour fixed salaries and predictable earnings, leaving flexible workers at a disadvantage.
The hidden filter reshaping access to housing
Rental insuranceiStock
The Swindon tribunal case offers a clear example of how this plays out. A prospective tenant saw his application rejected after his employment, while not formally zero-hours, was interpreted as such because of its flexibility. That interpretation meant he did not meet the criteria linked to rent guarantee insurance, and his holding deposit was withheld.
This is where the system shifts. Landlords are increasingly relying on rent guarantee insurance to protect against missed payments. These policies often come with strict conditions, including requirements for stable, predictable income and, in many cases, the exclusion of zero-hours contracts.
What this does, in practice, is move decision-making away from landlords and into the hands of insurers. A tenant may be able to afford the rent, but if they do not meet insurance criteria, the tenancy may not go ahead.
It creates a quiet filter. Workers are not always being directly rejected for being on flexible contracts. But the rules that define “low risk” can produce the same outcome.
At the same time, the cost of renting is rising. Households in England now spend around 36.3 per cent of their income on rent, above the commonly accepted affordability threshold. Average rents have reached roughly £1,232 per month, increasing the financial pressure on tenants.
In that context, even small fluctuations in income, the kind common in zero-hours work, can affect how a tenant is assessed, regardless of their overall earning capacity.
A system out of step with modern work
The broader picture is one of misalignment between two systems that no longer move together.
The labour market has shifted towards flexibility, with employers relying on contracts that allow hours to vary in response to demand. At the same time, the housing system continues to operate on assumptions of stability and predictability.
The impact is particularly visible among younger workers. Around one in eight people aged 16 to 24 are on zero-hours contracts, and they are more than five times as likely to be in such roles compared to older workers. These are also the years when individuals typically enter the rental market, creating a direct overlap between flexible employment and first-time renting.
Young worker iStock
Researchers have described this as “one-sided flexibility,” where workers remain unsure how much they will earn from one week to the next. That uncertainty does not stay within the workplace. It follows them into housing decisions, where predictability is still the benchmark.
Flexible work shifts uncertainty onto workers, making income less predictable. The rental system then interprets that uncertainty as financial risk, often excluding those who cannot demonstrate stability in conventional terms.
With over a million people in zero-hours employment and rents continuing to rise, this gap is no longer marginal. It is structural.
A growing number of people are working, earning and contributing to the economy. But without the kind of income the system recognises, they remain on the margins of the rental market, able to work, but not always able to rent.
