'I'm a property expert – you're mistaken if you think shared ownership will rescue the market'

Even many estate agents shy away from them, so for those not familiar, this is a typical case.

A buyer is looking in an area where the average property costs £400,000, way beyond reach for full ownership.

Through shared ownership, they can buy a 50 per cent share, paying a mortgage on half the value plus subsidised rent on the other half, in this example. The combined monthly costs? £1,000.

The scheme's advantages are genuine. Buyers only need a deposit on their share, so if you're buying 50 per cent of a £400,000 property, your deposit is calculated on £200,000, not the full amount. For many, this cuts the deposit requirement in half or more.

Getting on the ladder sooner is the real draw. In expensive areas like London or the South East, shared ownership can be the only realistic path to homeownership for key workers, young professionals, and anyone earning a decent wage but not enough for a £350,000 or so mortgage.

The rent element is subsidised, keeping it below market rates. You're not just throwing money away on private rent because you're building equity in your share while paying below-market rent on the rest.

Sounds reasonable, but that's where things begin to get less of a 'no-brainer' and stop looking like a silver bullet.

The service charge situation is pretty unfair. Buy 50 per cent of a flat, pay 100 per cent of the service charges. Buy 25 per cent, still pay 100 per cent.

Housing associations justify this by saying you benefit from the full property, but it doesn't sit well with many.

You're simultaneously a homeowner and a tenant. Mortgage payments, insurance, all repairs and maintenance costs fall on you despite paying rent.

Boiler breaks? Your problem. Roof leaks? Your bill. Yet you still pay rent on the share you don't own. It's like taking a taxi and being asked to pay for the petrol.

There is also decreased mobility, as, unlike a tenancy where you just give a month's notice to move, we all know, selling, and selling a shared ownership especially, is far from quick.

The question isn't whether shared ownership works for individuals; it clearly does for some – 250,000 households have used it.

The question is whether it addresses the housing crisis meaningfully, or simply creates an elaborate system where people pay mortgages, rent, and full service charges just to live in a home that's only kind of their own.

Less silver bullet, more sticking plaster? The scheme has existed for decades, yet house prices continue climbing faster than incomes.

If shared ownership were truly effective at addressing housing affordability, we'd expect to see a meaningful impact on market prices or at least stable affordability ratios.

Instead, the scheme seems to accommodate rising prices rather than challenge them. The woeful lack of new-build housing is in a large part responsible for this.

Housing associations benefit from the arrangement too. They receive rental income on their retained share while property values appreciate, essentially getting the best of both worlds.

When someone staircases to full ownership, they sell at current market rates, often significantly higher than original development costs.

Meanwhile, buyers find themselves in a perpetual state of partial ownership, paying for the privilege through multiple revenue streams – mortgage, rent, service charges, and maintenance costs.

To me, it seems like a workaround for a broken housing market rather than a solution to it.

Better than nothing? Yes.

The answer we actually need? No, afraid not.

How shared ownership actually works

For those unfamiliar with the mechanics, here are six key points that explain how shared ownership operates in practice.

Who qualifies

Household income must be under £80,000 (£90,000 in London), and you cannot already own a home. Priority goes to existing social tenants, armed forces personnel, and those with local connections to the area. These income caps haven't been updated since April 2016, making them increasingly restrictive as wages rise.

Deposit and rent structure

You only need a deposit on your share – typically five to 10 per cent of your portion, not the full property value. So on a £300,000 property where you buy 40 per cent, you need a deposit of £120,000, not £300,000. You then pay rent on the remaining 60 per cent, usually around 2.75 per cent annually of the housing association's share.

Staircasing – buying more shares

You can purchase additional shares in 10 per cent increments, eventually reaching 100 per cent ownership. However, you pay the current market value, not the original price. If property values have risen significantly since purchase, buying additional shares becomes expensive. Most people never reach full ownership.

Service charges

You pay 100 per cent of service charges regardless of your ownership percentage. Own 25 per cent of a flat? Pay 100 per cent of the building insurance, maintenance, and management fees. This feels particularly unfair and can add hundreds per month to housing costs.

Repair responsibilities

Despite paying rent to a housing association, unlike a normal rental, you're responsible for all internal repairs and maintenance. The housing association covers external structure and communal areas, but everything inside your home – boiler, kitchen, bathroom, decorating – falls to you as the 'owner'.

Selling process

The housing association has first refusal when you sell, and they nominate buyers from their waiting list. This can slow the selling process significantly. You can only put the property on the open market if you cannot find suitable buyers within eight weeks. There's usually a requirement to hold the property for at least 12 months before selling.

Jonathan Rolande is a property expert and the founder of House Buy Fast. For more information, visit www.jonathanrolande.co.uk.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter