Social Housing Bill: A review of shared ownership

A cross-party group of MPS – the Public Bill Committee – is scrutinising the Social Housing Bill [HL], which includes an amendment calling for a statutory review of shared ownership.

The Committee invited written evidence to inform their work. In Shared Ownership Resources’ written evidence, below, we focus on an amendment requiring a statutory review of shared ownership (Clause 13) and on the objective of protecting existing social housing stock.

Don’t have time to read this right now?

Read the key recommendations in the green box below.

Response

1. A review of shared ownership

There are three reasons why a review of the operation and effectiveness of the shared ownership scheme in England is necessary.

1.1. There are widely acknowledged gaps in data on long-term outcomes, impacts and opportunity costs for shared owners.

1.2. However, there is an increasing evidence base that shared ownership is not working as intended for a significant number of households, alongside a possibility that it works least well for the households most in need of access to affordable housing.

1.3. “Industry wisdom” regarding shared ownership needs greater critical scrutiny.

2. Gaps in data

2.1. To date, a predominantly short-term focus on demand, access and “getting onto the property ladder” has often been prioritised over a robust assessment of long-term potential costs and risks, full life cycle costs, opportunity costs and outcomes.

2.2. In a 2020 report, Thinking Outside the Box, the authors said:

“What is clear is that the partial-ownership sector as a whole has become overly focused on sales and getting people in, and insufficiently focused on their customers’ subsequent journeys through to full ownership. Too much attention has been focused on the receipts from sales and too little on the longer-term customer experience, or the journey to exit.”

2.3. In 2026, the Leasehold Advisory Service said:

“Longer-term outcome data for shared owners is a recognised sector-wide gap”.

Shared Ownership Insight Report

2.4. The National Audit Office states that:

“Historically, the data on share ownership has been incomplete, although improvements have been made. This means MHCLG does not fully understand customer journeys and experience”.

Investigation into Shared Ownership

3. “Industry wisdom”

3.1. “Industry wisdom” sometimes appears to place greater reliance on sectoral assumptions than on real-life data.

3.2. For example, the conclusions of a Leeds Building Society report, Taking the Longer View, are widely quoted in support of the “benefits” of shared ownership: “Shared ownership forecast to cost less than renting in 93% of areas after 10 years”. The basis for the initial service charge assumption (0.25% of the property value) relied upon in sensitivity analysis underpinning the “93%” conclusion is not specified in the report and does not appear to align with current service charges as provided in sales listings. Yet the 0.25% assumption appears to be becoming an “industry benchmark” with a subsequent report by Pepper Money, for example, also asserting that shared ownership is cheaper than the alternatives of full ownership or private renting likewise on an assumption of: “annual service charge of 0.25% of the property’s value”.

3.3. The Leeds Building Society report also stated: “We estimate that by year 10, shared owners are on average £29,000 better off than private renters, peaking at £42,000 in London”. However, in 2015, the London Assembly Housing Committee reported concerns that: “It is not always possible to convert the equity built up on a share of a home into full owner occupation”, raising a question as to what degree gains in equity may be paper gains with little opportunity to realise benefits.

4. Is shared ownership working as intended?

4.1. There are an increasing number of indicators that shared ownership is not working as intended, though data is lacking on many of the specifics.

4.1.1. Following a 2024 inquiry into shared ownership, Clive Betts, Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee, said

“Rising rents, hefty service charges, complex leases, disproportionate repairs and maintenance costs are experienced by too many people who take the shared ownership route. The Government needs to take clear and urgent action to tackle these issues and ensure shared ownership genuinely delivers affordable homeownership”.

4.1.2. A Shared Ownership Council survey of 1,707 shared owners, in 2024, found that only 21% would recommend shared ownership.

4.1.3. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSMs) for 2024-25 show that fewer than half (48%) of shared owners are satisfied with their landlord.

4.1.4. The 2024-25 English Housing Survey found that shared owners were less likely to be satisfied with their tenure (71%) than other leaseholders (95%). The survey also found that shared owners were more likely to report that their service charge amount was too high (61%) compared with other leaseholders (46%). Shared owners were more likely to report considering a complaint (43%) than other leaseholders (24%), and most shared owners (around 8 in 10 or 82%) were not happy with the responses.

4.1.5. A 2026 Fabian Research Report found that:

“The benefits of shared ownership are diminishing as rents and service charges rise rapidly. A lack of transparency on service charges; limited control over contractor procurement; responsibility for paying for maintenance and repair services that end up being poor value for money; and limited redress have resulted in many shared owners regretting their purchase”.

On the Ladder: Helping those without intergenerational wealth become homeowners

4.1.6 Based on an analysis of enquiry data over five years, in 2026, the Leasehold Advisory Service concluded that:

“When shared ownership works, it works well. When it does not, as the accounts in this report show, the consequences for people’s finances, their ability to move, and their wellbeing can be severe”.

Shared Ownership Insight Report

5. Who does shared ownership work best for? And who not?

5.1. In our 2023 report, Shared Ownership: The consumer perspective, we called for robust data collection, evaluation and reporting on the ongoing financial sustainability of shared ownership, and on the extent of shared owner transition to full ownership. We emphasised the need for a full life cycle approach to evaluating shared ownership and are pleased to see this gaining some traction in the sector, with recent CCHPR and CIH reports calling for a “life cycle analysis”.

5.2. In our own report, we also stated that:

“Improved national monitoring data is urgently required to assist better understanding of the demographics for whom shared ownership remains affordable and those for whom it does not”.

Shared Ownership: The Consumer Perspective

5.3. In 2015, the London Assembly Housing Assembly, said:

“While shared ownership falls within the auspices of “affordable housing”, in both policy and planning terms, an increasing proportion of shared owners earn above the median household income in London”.

First Steps on the Ladder

5.4. The English Housing Survey 2024-25 reports that:

“Shared owners in the lowest income quintile spent an average of more than a third of their household income on housing costs (39%), compared with 11% to 25% among higher‑income shared owners.”

5.5. In oral evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee, in 2025, we referred to unpublished Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) research which shows that low-income shared owners are having very different experiences to those whose earnings are closer to the upper £80,000-£90,000 income thresholds. JRF analysis of a cost of living survey from May 2024 to November 2025 found that 36% of low-income shared owners said they fell behind on other bills to prioritise their rent or mortgage costs, compared with 14% of low-income mortgage holders who were not shared owners, 12% of private renters, and 13% of social renters. It appears that low-income shared owners are not doing that well compared to higher income shared owners and people in other tenures.

5.6. A review should consider not just whether shared ownership is effective, but which demographics it is most effective for (high satisfaction, ongoing affordability, transition to full home ownership), and those for who it is most likely to have adverse outcomes and impact (low satisfaction, “trapped” in increasingly unaffordable and/or unsuitable homes with no viable exit route).

5.7. A review should take a longitudinal, full life cycle approach with due account paid to living in shared ownership homes in retirement and to intergenerational wealth and inheritance issues following the death of a shared owner.

6. Widespread support for a review

6.1. There is increasing demand for a meaningful review of shared ownership, from shared owners and housing sector stakeholders alike.

6.2. In 2024, Richard Blakeway, former Housing Ombudsman, said:

“Criticisms of shared ownership stem from its inherent complexity, fundamental inequities in its design, and responsibility for residents without the same level of control.”.

Adding:

“We may be at an inflection point for shared ownership. Any future reform of shared ownership must address the recurring reasons for dissatisfaction and service failure that is so evident in our casework.”

Press release, Ombudsman sets key tests for improving fairness in shared ownership complaints in latest Insight report, 2024

6.3. In 2026, the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research (CCHPR) said:

“The proposed review of the shared ownership model presents an important opportunity to build a stronger evidence base around affordability over time, staircasing, access to full ownership and the wider customer experience”.

Shared Ownership in England: A Lifecycle Analysis of Structure, Outcomes, and System Dynamics

6.4. In the same year, the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) said:

“There is broad consensus on the need for a fundamental review of shared ownership, encompassing both its policy rationale and operational mechanisms, and the need to view shared ownership with a “lifecycle approach”.

Shared ownership in England: Assessing the tenure’s evolving role

7. What’s missing from Part 2 (Clause 13)

7.1. We support Clause 13, but recommend widening the scope of the review to include the operation and effectiveness of: 

• buyback
• downward staircasing and simultaneous downward staircasing and sale
• variants (Older Persons Shared Ownership (OPSO) Extra Care, Home Ownership for people with a long term disability (HOLD) and rural homes in Designated Protected Areas)
• retirement, intergenerational wealth and inheritance issues
• subletting
• dispute resolution and redress.

7.2. Our report, Shared Ownership Insights: Buyback explains why shared owners sell their homes, challenges for resale and why buyback might sometimes be the best, or only, option. We would be happy to discuss our findings and recommendations with the Committee.

7.3. Current dispute resolution and redress systems do not appear to be working well for shared owners. The English Housing Survey 2024-25 found that:

“Shared owners were markedly more likely to have considered making a complaint (43%) compared with other leaseholders (24%)” and that “Most shared owners (around 8 in 10 or 82%) were not happy with the responses”.

7.4. Some shared owner complaints fall outside the scope of the Housing Ombudsman, with the First-tier Tribunal Service providing a potentially costly and risky alternative.

8. Protecting existing social housing stock

8.1. Simultaneous sale and staircasing transactions are a frequently used mechanism where a suitable buyer cannot be found for a shared owner’s share. However, these transactions transition scarce social housing stock to the open market and, potentially, to private landlords – at open market prices. This is at odds with the social purpose of shared ownership as affordable social housing. There is a strong case for shares to be “recycled” to ensure maximum benefit for the grant invested in these properties.

8.2. Addressing a housing crisis requires not only building more homes but also ensuring high occupancy rates. In some cases, where a shared owner relocates but cannot sell their share and is denied permission to sublet or does not wish to take on the risks associated with being a private landlord, the property will become unoccupied. Clearly this represents poor value-for-money of the grant to develop that property.

8.3. Families who inherit OPSO Extra Care homes report that resale can take many years, often at significant cost to the deceased person’s estate. In the meantime, a publicly subsidised retirement home is not being used as intended, resulting in poor value-for-money of grant to address the housing needs of older people. Tackling barriers to resale of OPSO homes would help make best use of specialist provision during a social care crisis.