By Shared Ownership Resources

In March 2026, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report on shared ownership. Their report flags up gaps in understanding on the part of both shared owners and government.

Here we explain why the findings weren’t a surprise for a number of shared owners, and why Shared Ownership Resources has published an Open Letter calling on the NAO to undertake a follow-up value for money Investigation.

The NAO report: Scope

The NAO is the UK’s independent public spending watchdog. They conduct investigations to establish the underlying facts in circumstances where concerns have been raised with them, or in response to intelligence that they have gathered through their wider work.

Their shared ownership report sets out:

• Facts on how the shared ownership model in England works
• Challenges that affect shared ownership
• Redress (routes for complaints and resolution) for shared owners, and
• Improvements made to the model by MHCLG and Homes England.

The NAO report does not examine the value for money of shared ownership or make recommendations.

1.      How the shared ownership model in England works

The report summarises the respective roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Homes England, the Greater London Authority (GLA), the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) and the Housing Ombudsman.

In short, MHCLG sets the policy direction; Homes England and the GLA provide grant funding through the Affordable Homes Programme; the RSH oversees registered providers of social housing in England; and the Housing Ombudsman can resolve disputes between shared owners and shared ownership providers.

2.      Challenges that affect shared owners

According to the report, whilst shared owners are well informed about initial affordability, longer-term financial risks may not be obvious when buying their initial share. The NAO also found that MHCLG does not fully understand customer journeys and experience due to incomplete data.

3.      Redress (routes for complaints and resolution) for shared owners

The redress process for shared ownership is complex, and the NAO concluded that shared owners may not know all the routes of redress and advice available to them.

4.      Improvements made to the model by MHCLG and Homes England

Per the report, each iteration of the Affordable Homes Programme has made improvements to the shared ownership model, and recent amendments to data collection will assist MHCLG’s understanding of the customer journey.

The Shared Ownership Code

The report also refers to the Shared Ownership Code – an industry-led initiative to help improve the accessibility and standardisation of information about shared ownership processes and costs.

Why the NAO findings weren’t a surprise from a shared owner perspective

The sectoral focus remains firmly on demand, access and ‘popularity’, as opposed to long-term outcomes and impact.

‘Shared ownership providers and other stakeholders told us the model is popular with consumers.’ (National Audit Office, 2026)

Yet Regulator of Social Housing tenant satisfaction scores (TSMs) tell a different story. Poorly designed as they are, TSMs still evidence widespread shared owner dissatisfaction, with some of the largest landlords having some of the lowest satisfaction scores. (Something which appears to make little, if any, difference to RSH landlord gradings.)

Of course, shared owners have been raising concerns for many years prior to the introduction of TSMs – both individually and through campaigning groups.

When individual shared owners report problems, it is not unusual for them to be informed that they failed to carry out sufficient due diligence, or their solicitor was at fault. In this respect, a ‘caveat emptor’ culture appears relatively widespread.

Consequently, many have taken their complaints elsewhere. For example, to the Housing Ombudsman which, in 2024, published an Insight report identifying various factors driving service failures: miscommunication, complexity of ownership and management arrangements, and two-tier markets following the introduction of the new model for shared ownership.

100 shared owners submitted evidence to a 2022 Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee inquiry into shared ownership, with a number reporting being “trapped” by increasingly unaffordable shared ownership properties they had purchased or inherited. 1,707 people responded to a Shared Ownership Council survey, with only 21% stating that they would recommend shared ownership. And, of course, the media regularly publishes case studies of shared owners explaining how shared ownership has proven problematic for them.

Why Shared Ownership Resources is calling for a follow-up NAO investigation into whether shared ownership offers value for money

Shared Ownership Resources (SOR) has long advocated for scrutiny of full life cycle costs and value for money.

In 2022, SOR submitted evidence to the cross-party Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee’s consultation on the regulation of social housing, pointing out that: “An absence of whole life cycle cost data makes it difficult to sustain the argument that shared ownership is effective at meeting need, or providing meaningful affordability, over the long-term.”

In 2023, SOR submitted evidence to the same committee’s inquiry into shared ownership, addressing terms of reference with a particular focus on long-term outcomes and value for money.

Also in 2023, we published an Open Letter to the Regulator of Social Housing making a case for better monitoring data to drive improved outcomes for shared owners, and to evidence value for money.

And, in the same year, SOR published a report, Shared Ownership: the consumer perspective, in which we explored conflicts of interest arising from the cross-subsidy model.

‘Shared ownership plays an important part in shared ownership providers’ business models as it enables them to create mixed tenure developments and provides income to support the financial viability of their housing schemes.’ (National Audit Office, 2026)

‘Too many associations still see shared ownership simply as a cash “cow” to underwrite their mainstream rental businesses.’ (Thinking Outside the Box, Whitehead and Williams, 2020)

More recently, in 2025, SOR submitted evidence to the Housing Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee’s inquiry into the affordability of home ownership. Our recommendations included:

• Addressing barriers to full homeownership
• Measures to enable potential entrants to the scheme to make informed decisions, and to support them in planning a pathway through the scheme
• Independent, robust data and research on long-term outcomes for shared owners for a better understanding of value for money and opportunity costs (on a full life cycle cost basis)
• Viable exit routes
• A joined-up approach delivered alongside effective and enforceable regulation.

Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go on all fronts.

Consequently, Shared Ownership Resources is calling on the NAO for a follow-up investigation into the value for money of shared ownership, both for shared owners and for the public purse, with meaningful recommendations to ensure that the scheme delivers on its promises of affordability and a realistic route to full homeownership.