By David Cowan (University of Bristol), Helen Carr (University of Kent) and Alison Wallace (University of York)

Shared ownership week offers a moment for the sector not just to celebrate innovation within social housing, but also to reflect on what more needs to be achieved to make the products which fall under the label “shared ownership” better. There is no question that those products have the potential to revolutionise housing experiences, and to provide a relevant option to those unable to access social housing or ownership.

However, having spent the last couple of years working on Leverhulme Trust funded research into shared ownership, we have made a series of policy recommendations to improve the experience of all the key players. Too often, we think, the experience of the buyers themselves is ignored, beyond anecdotal evidence. In our research, we discussed shared ownership with a range of key stakeholders, spent time with two providers and interviewed over 70 of their buyers (the interviews lasting up to two hours).

Our buyers’ data demonstrates the richness and complexity of their experiences. They did not always access it to experience the “dream of home ownership”; some were desperate, most made rational economic choices about cost. Many wanted security and stability and some found that, instead, shared ownership created issues.

Some of these issues were due to the leasehold relationship. The problems of leasehold are well-known as a tenure, but our research highlighted that those problems are exacerbated in this tenure. Service charges, rents, and the nature of a full repairing lease can all have a particular effect on shared owners. A particular issue for many of our participants concerned third party managing agents, many of which were described as bad quality and failed to provide the means to buyers (and providers) to check the amounts being charged.

A lot of work has been put in to “translate” the lease to the parties, but we think that the single most important audience for the lease has not been buyers but lenders. Of course, lenders need to know that they are protected and that the products offer more security to them than traditional home ownership products (how many private sector leases have a mortgagee protection clause?). But there is a widespread lack of appreciation about the nature of the lease among buyers (and, for that matter, some policy-makers). The sector has made efforts to provide explanations but these often are not translated by buyers into their everyday experiences of the tenure.

You can blame conveyancers but that is to misunderstand the role conveyancing now plays – the era of “leaving everything in the hands of our lawyers” is long gone. In any event, how many housing lawyers (let alone conveyancers) would have appreciated that the lease is both a long lease for some purposes and effectively an assured shorthold tenancy (for 99 years)?

We can talk about a “full repairing lease” but who is responsible for repairing the window in my front door? Who is going to come out when I have a leak at 3am? It is in those practical, everyday lived experiences that the sector needs to focus. Another of our findings is that, while a full repairing lease can be happily accepted at the time of acquisition when the property may be shiny brand new, that acceptance become tainted when the shine fades.

So, for example, why should we have to pay for lift repairs when we have a ground floor flat and the lift services traditional home owners? And, more generically, why should we have to pay for all the repairs when we are also protecting the social housing provider’s share? That is, why shouldn’t the provider pay their share? That is a difficult question to answer if you put to one side the technical about subsidy and the full repairing lease.

What was the most interesting thing about our buyers’ data is that interviews were often complex and contradictory. In our interviews, we asked about issues they had and, towards the end, asked them if they felt like an owner or a tenant, part of the social or private sectors. Buyers often felt out of control in their homes but, when asked if they felt like owners, said that they did because they had control – that is the idea of ownership and is expressed often through what some academics call “stuff” (feature walls, decorative items, memories). Few felt that they were part of the social sector because, as we put it, they abstracted themselves from that sector; but some felt that providers treated them like they were part of that sector – generic newsletters, for example, were a particular bugbear.

So, our buyers’ messages and experiences need to be heard and understood by the sector. Providers, policy-makers, regulators, lenders, charities and all involved bodies need to understand that they can celebrate the product, but they should also seek to resolve the issues that the ultimate consumers experience in their everyday lives. One of the interviews we did will live with me for a long time – the buyer was in tears for an hour while explaining the various problems – but the experiences we encountered in this project suggest that there is some way to go before we can truly celebrate shared ownership week.

More information is available on the University of Bristol Law School website.