London named fifth WORST place to retire in the UK, study reveals

Retirement is about far more than property prices. Personal safety, affordability and life expectancy can all play a major role in determining where people enjoy the highest quality of life in their later years.

Of all the cities, England's capital, London, was ranked the fifth-worst place to retire in the UK, with a retirement score of 35.8 out of 100.

To identify the best retirement destinations, workplace pension provider Penfold analysed the most recent government data for 45 major cities across the UK to measure three factors that matter most in later life: health, affordability and safety. These measures were based on raw figures on life expectancy, median house price and crimes committed per 1,000 people.

Each area received an overall retirement score out of 100 based on its performance across the three key retirement factors.

Manchester ranks as the worst place to retire, with a score of 0 out of 100, finishing last overall. The city has an exceptionally high crime rate of 165.9 offences per 1,000 residents, and moderately expensive housing costs affect its retirement appeal.

Salford ranks as the second worst place to retire, with a retirement score of 32.5. Salford has one of the lower life expectancies at 18.1 years past the age of 65 and a relatively high crime rate at 116.7 crimes committed per 1,000 residents.

Liverpool ranks as the third worst place to retire, with a retirement score of 32.6. Although Liverpool scores well for median house prices at £189,036 (86.1), it has the second-highest crime rate in the bottom 10, with 132 crimes per 1,000 residents.

Scotland’s Glasgow is the fourth worst place to retire, with an overall score of 35.5. Glasgow has the worst health score of any city included in the study, with a life expectancy of 17 years after turning 65, resulting in a score of 0.

London completes the bottom five, with a retirement score of 35.8. Despite a perfect health score of 100 (20.8 years after turning 65), London is massively held back by the high property prices, at a median price of just over half a million.

Lincoln and Bristol are the joint sixth worst places to retire in the UK, with a retirement score of 37.8. Bristol’s housing costs are almost double Lincoln's, but Bristol has a much better health score than Lincoln (70.1 compared to 40.3).

Kingston upon Hull (38.3), Leicester (38.9), Nottingham (40.7), and Cambridge (42.1) complete the 10 worst places to retire. Hull, Leicester, and Nottingham stand out for their high affordability scores, but all three record some of the weakest health and safety scores. Meanwhile, Cambridge has an impressive 92.2 health score, with residents over 65 expected to live over 20 more years, but housing is very expensive in the city, with median prices of £475,151.

The 10 worst places to retire in the UK

Rank	Area	Life Exp. at 65	Median House Price	Crime per 1,000	Health Score	Affordability Score	Safety Score	Retirement Score
1	Manchester	17.8	£252,309	165.9	20.8	71.0	0.0	0.0
2	Salford	18.1	£229,462	116.7	29.9	76.4	39.0	32.5
3	Liverpool	18.2	£189,036	132.0	32.5	86.1	26.9	32.6
4	Glasgow	17.0	£193,675	82.9	0.0	85.0	65.8	35.5
5	London	20.8	£550,037	103.9	100.0	0.0	49.2	35.8
6(=)	Lincoln	18.5	£187,079	131.9	40.3	86.6	27.0	37.8
6(=)	Bristol	19.7	£352,262	120.7	70.1	47.2	35.8	37.8
7	Kingston upon Hull	18.1	£135,511	131.3	28.6	98.9	27.4	38.3
8	Leicester	18.7	£227,322	122.5	44.2	77.0	34.4	38.9
9	Nottingham	18.4	£190,200	121.5	37.7	85.8	35.2	40.7
10	Cambridge	20.5	£475,151	103.2	92.2	17.9	49.7	42.1

Perth is the best place to retire in the UK, achieving a perfect retirement score of 100. The Scottish city combines an above-average life expectancy at age 65 (20 years), low crime levels and affordable housing.

Inverness takes second place with a retirement score of 93. The Scottish city offers a life expectancy of 19.6 years at age 65, along with one of the study's strongest safety scores (97.1). Relatively affordable housing, with a median property price of £221,136, further strengthens its appeal as a retirement destination.

In third place is Stirling, with a score of 91.3, where residents can experience one of the lowest crime rates at 39.9 crimes per 1,000 people. Strong health scores and relatively affordable housing help another Scottish city rank in the top three.

Aberdeen also makes the top five with an overall score of 87.1, while Derry in Northern Ireland places fifth with a retirement score of 78.1. Both cities have the two lowest house prices in the top 10 at £130,689 and £189,474, and both share the same life expectancy of 19 years at age 65.

York (77.5), Swansea (74.8), Exeter (73.9), Plymouth (69.1) and Edinburgh (66.2) complete the top 10. York stands out for achieving the highest health score in the top 10, while Swansea becomes the first Welsh city to appear in the best places to retire ranking.

The 10 best places to retire in the UK

Rank	Area	Life Exp. at 65	Median House Price	Crime per 1,000	Health Score	Affordability Score	Safety Score	Retirement Score
1	Perth	20.0	£229,180	39.8	79.2	76.5	100.0	100.0
2	Inverness	19.6	£221,136	43.4	68.8	78.4	97.1	93.0
3	Stirling	19.6	£239,034	39.9	67.5	74.2	99.9	91.3
4	Aberdeen	19.0	£130,689	62.9	53.2	100.0	81.7	87.1
5	Derry	19.0	£189,474	64.0	53.2	86.0	80.8	78.1
6	York	20.3	£310,781	72.2	87.0	57.1	74.3	77.5
7	Swansea	19.5	£205,383	82.7	66.2	82.2	66.0	74.8
8	Exeter	20.1	£282,696	81.4	81.8	63.8	67.0	73.9
9	Plymouth	19.5	£223,161	87.5	64.9	77.9	62.2	69.1
10	Edinburgh	19.6	£303,965	72.8	67.5	58.7	73.8	66.2

Frankie Dewar, Head of Marketing at Penfold, commented on the findings:

"The highest-ranked areas tend to combine several strengths, including longer life expectancy, strong health outcomes and low crime rates. Those factors often prove just as important as affordability when people are choosing where to spend later life. Choosing your retirement destination isn’t necessarily about the cheapest places to buy a home, but about other surrounding factors.

"The Scottish results are particularly interesting. Five Scottish cities appear in the top 10, yet Glasgow ranks among the worst-performing locations in the study. That suggests national averages can mask significant local differences, with factors such as health outcomes and community safety varying dramatically between cities.

"London stands out as a reminder that retirement is a balance between wellbeing and affordability. Despite recording some of the strongest life expectancy figures in the study, the capital ranks among the worst performers overall due to its significantly higher housing costs. In contrast, many of the top-ranked retirement destinations offer a more attractive combination of good health outcomes and affordable living, suggesting that financial security remains a key part of retirement quality.

“It's curious to see that some of the cities with the longest life expectancy, including London, Oxford and Cambridge, performed surprisingly poorly overall. Living longer is undoubtedly important, but the findings suggest that affordability and safety can have just as much influence on the quality of those extra years.

"Manchester, on the other hand, shows that retirement isn't just about what you can afford to buy. The city has a huge population of tourists, commuters, and students, which may contribute to a higher reported crime rate when measured against the resident population.

"Ultimately, deciding on the best place to retire can be extremely difficult as some factors may matter to you more than others. An area may offer cheap housing, but if health outcomes, safety or life expectancy are weaker, it may not deliver the same retirement experience as some of the higher-ranked locations."