Housing: creative solutions

Picture a young couple, Jess and Sam. They have spent years diligently saving for a deposit, only to watch house prices skyrocket, far outpacing their wages. Enter shared ownership: the government's much-touted “affordable” solution. Buy a 25% stake in a flat, pay rent on the rest, and supposedly climb the property ladder step by step. It sounds reasonable—until the trap snaps shut. Shared ownership is marketed as a lifeline for a generation locked out of home ownership. However, peel back the glossy brochures, and you'll uncover a scheme riddled with exploitation , designed not to empower tenants but to enrich developers. This isn’t housing policy—it’s wealth extraction, disguised as social benevolence. The Illusion of Affordability Proponents claim shared ownership bridges the gap between renting and owning. The reality? A financial quagmire. Buyers face a triple burden: exorbitant service charges, unpredictable rent hikes (often tied to inflation), and the Sisyphean task ...

Shared Ownership has given homes to around 180,000 families and it’s claimed that it offers a third way, an opportunity to house many more at a lower cost, another tenure that broadens the landlord offer. Some housing association websites go further and claim “It’s about getting your foot on the housing ladder. It’s a great alternative to renting and perfect if you can’t afford to buy a house outright.” Really? Whilst housing associations like selling them, the experiences of the occupiers can be quite different. Higher entry costs, administrative charges, rents rising annually, plus the responsibility for all repairs can mean the worst of all worlds. Why do increasing numbers feel trapped in the tenure?   “It’s a step on the ladder” , yet Cambridge University found ( 2012 ) that over 12 years only 27,908 had staircased to 100%, and in many rural areas freehold ownership is expressly prohibited. They concluded that many shared owners simply cannot afford to buy their property in fu...