Inside Housing is reporting on the response that emerged after a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, shared with Inside Housing, was made to the Greater London Authority (GLA).

The FOI asked the GLA for “discussions, emails or read-outs of meetings between the GLA and MHCLG where findings and/or recommendations in the House of Commons Committee for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities inquiry report into shared ownership affordability were discussed”.

The full article can be seen here, and reveals a significant degree of tension between government bodies, including the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and Homes England, in response to a critical inquiry into the affordability and fairness of shared ownership schemes. The inquiry by the House of Commons Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities Committee identified major flaws, such as uncapped service charges, rising rents, and disproportionate maintenance costs, which make the scheme unaffordable for many participants.

Key Points:

1. Reaction to Criticism:
   • Both MHCLG and Homes England were reportedly “taken aback” and “unimpressed” by the severity of the committee’s findings.
   • The inquiry questioned the effectiveness of shared ownership as an affordable housing solution, calling for urgent reforms to lease terms, maintenance cost allocations, and other affordability metrics.
2. Proposed Reforms and Resistance:
   • Recommendations included capping service charges, ensuring proportional maintenance costs, and addressing issues like providers buying back shares in unsellable properties due to building safety concerns.
   • Homes England and MHCLG appeared hesitant to integrate these recommendations into their affordability guidance, instead favoring tools like “budget planners” to shift responsibility to mortgage advisors.
3. Buybacks for Trapped Shared Owners:
   • The report advocated for mandatory buyback schemes for shared ownership shares in cases where owners were unable to sell, often due to remediation work on buildings.
   • The implementation of such measures would likely require increased government grants, which Homes England seemed reluctant to embrace without a clear directive.
4. Government’s Stance:
   • While the previous government published its response to the inquiry, it avoided committing to significant reforms. The new government has acknowledged challenges but has yet to outline concrete plans to address them.
5. Sector-wide Implications:
   • These findings highlight persistent affordability issues and systemic problems within shared ownership schemes, putting pressure on providers and policymakers to reevaluate their approach.
   • The call for improved protections, affordability checks, and provider accountability could reshape how shared ownership is managed in the future.

The emails underscore a disconnect between the government’s housing objectives and its willingness to address the deeper structural flaws in shared ownership, a program initially intended to widen access to homeownership. With no definitive action from the current administration, the future of shared ownership remains uncertain amidst growing scrutiny.