Accredited official statistics

English Housing Survey 2024 to 2025: shared owners - fact sheet

Published 9 July 2026

Applies to England

The English Housing Survey (EHS) collects information on the characteristics and housing circumstances of households in England, as well as details of the quality and condition of homes.

This publication presents key information about shared owners, including where they are located, the types of dwellings they live in, and their household characteristics. It also explores the relationship between shared ownership and  affordability, comparing its affordability with that of other tenures. Finally, this fact sheet examines how satisfied shared owners were with their housing circumstances and the extent of complaints.

Shared owners are households participating in a shared ownership scheme. This is an affordable housing scheme where the purchaser buys a share (typically 25% to 75%) of a home, while the remaining share is owned by a registered provider and rent is paid on that portion. Shared ownership homes are always leasehold.

There are eligibility criteria for those looking to purchase a shared ownership home that target those unable to purchase a suitable home on the open market, as well as affordability assessments to ensure purchasers can meet the costs of ownership.

The analysis for Sections 1 and 2 draws on three years of full household sample from the 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 EHS survey years. Combining multiple survey years increases the number of shared ownership cases available for analysis, addressing the relatively small sample size for this tenure in any single year. Section 3 draws on data from the 2023-24 and 2024-25 EHS survey years only, as questions on complaints were not present in the 2022-23 survey year.

1. Profile of shared owners

This section focuses on the characteristics of shared owners, including the types of homes they live in and where they are located. It also explores the characteristics of shared owner households, such as the age of the household reference person (HRP), the presence of long-term illness or disabilities in the household, and weekly household income. 

In 2024-25, there were around 16 million households in the owner occupied sector. More than half were outright owners (55%), around four in ten were mortgagors (44%) while a small proportion were shared owners (2%). The number of shared owners, however, has increased in recent years, from 161,000 households or 1% of owners in 2019-20 to 252,000 households or 2% of owners in 2024-25, Annex Table 1.1.

In 2024-25, 2% of owner occupied households in England were shared ownership. There were 252,000 shared ownership households, an increase from 161,000 (1% of owner occupied households) in 2019-20. Around 152,000 shared owners in 2024-25 lived in houses and 99,000 lived in flats.

For the following section, outright owners and mortgagors are combined into a single category, ‘non-shared owners’, which is further classified into freeholders and leaseholders. While all shared owners are leaseholders, for the purposes of brevity we refer to all non-shared owner leaseholders as just “leaseholders” throughout this report. In the EHS, freehold and leasehold status is self-reported. Respondents who did not know their tenure status, or who appear to have misclassified themselves, were excluded from this analysis.

Region

A higher proportion of shared owners lived in the South East (21%) than in all the other regions apart from London (19%). There were 53,000 shared ownership households in the South East, more than London (48,000), despite having less than half the total leasehold households. The proportion of shared owners in other regions varied between 4% and 13%, Annex Table 1.2.

The proportions of leaseholders across each region was generally similar to the proportion of shared owners across region, except in London and the North West. London (28%) and the North West (25%) had significantly higher numbers of leasehold households than other regions. While there was a substantial proportion of shared owners in London (19%), the proportion of shared owners was still significantly lower than the proportion of leaseholders. For the North West, the proportion of other leaseholders was significantly higher than the proportion of shared owners (8%).

Two fifths of shared ownership households were in London and the South East. The proportion of shared owners in other regions was between 4% and 13%.

Area

The majority of shared owners lived in urban areas (238,000 households). Both leaseholders and shared owners were more likely to live in urban areas (98% and 94%, respectively) than freeholders (88%). Conversely, there was a higher proportion of freeholders in rural areas (12%) compared with shared owners (6%) and leaseholders (2%). There was also a higher proportion of shared owners in rural locations than leaseholders, Annex Table 1.3.

Dwelling type

Around 152,000 shared owners lived in a house and just under 100,000 lived in a flat. Shared owners were more likely to be living in houses (61%) than leaseholders (33%), but both were less likely to live in houses compared with freeholders (99%). Inversely, shared owners (39%) were less likely to live in flats compared with leaseholders (67%) and both were considerably more likely to be living in flats compared with freeholders (1%), Annex Table 1.4.

Household characteristics

Shared owners were more likely to be younger. Shared owners were more likely to be aged 16 to 29 and 30 to 44 years (12% and 39%, respectively) than non-shared owners (4% and 22%, respectively). More specifically, shared owners and leaseholders (12% and 9%, respectively) were more likely to be aged between 16 and 29 years than freeholders (4%). Similarly, there was a higher proportion of shared owners and leaseholders aged 30 to 44 years (39% and 29%, respectively) than freeholders in the same age group (21%). Freeholders were more likely to be older, aged 65 or over (37%), than leaseholders (30%) and shared owners (16%), Annex Table 1.5.

Shared owners tended to be younger than other leaseholders and freeholders. More than half of shared owners (51%) were under 45, and around 39% were 30 to 44 compared with 29% of other leaseholders and 21% of freeholders.

Around 79,000 shared owners had someone in their household living with a long-term illness or disability (32%). This was similar to the proportion of freehold and leasehold households that had a member of their household with a long-term illness or disability (33% and 30% respectively). There were no significant differences between these tenures and shared owners.

Shared owners were more likely to be middle income earners. Around a third of shared owners were in the third income quintile (33%), higher than leaseholders and freeholders (21% and 20%, respectively). By contrast, shared owners were less likely to fall within the highest income quintiles than freeholders (26%) and leaseholders (23%), likely reflecting the income eligibility criteria associated with shared ownership schemes. 

Shared owners were more likely to be middle income earners. A third of shared owners (33%) were in the middle income quintile. This was a higher proportion than there were in the other four quintiles and a higher proportion than were found in the middle quintile for other leaseholders (21%) and freeholders (20%).

2. Affordability

This chapter examines key affordability metrics and compares affordability across tenures, with a particular focus on shared ownership. For further information on the affordability of other tenures, see EHS 2022-23 Affordability and cost of living fact sheet. 

Shared owners could be liable for both mortgage and rent payments. Those who fully repaid their mortgage would only pay rent (just under half of shared ownership cases). These households are excluded from the calculation of average mortgage payments. The average amount of weekly rent paid by a shared owner was £98, lower than rent paid by private and social renters (£239 and £120, respectively). As for mortgage payments, the average weekly payment by a shared owner household was £118, a lower amount compared with mortgagors (£224), Annex Table 2.1.

Average percentage of income spent on housing costs

The proportion of income spent on rent and/or mortgage is calculated using total household income, including any benefits received, and excludes expenditure on service charges. This approach reflects the full income available to a household and assumes that all household members contribute towards housing costs. For this analysis, income quintiles are based on the distribution of all households, rather than being calculated separately within each tenure.

Shared owners typically spent a lower proportion of their household income on housing costs than renters, but more than mortgagors. Private renters spent the highest share, with around a third of their income going on housing costs (33%), compared with social renters (27%), shared owners (23%) and mortgagors (19%). Mortgagors spent the least on housing costs, Annex Table 2.2.

Shared owners generally spent a lower proportion of their household income on housing costs (23%) than renters (private 33%, social 27%), but more than owners with a mortgage (19%).

Housing costs as a share of household income varied by income level across tenures. Shared owners in the lowest income quintile spent an average of more than a third of their household income on housing costs (39%), compared with 11% to 25% among higher‑income shared owners, with a similar trend observed among mortgagors. Social renters showed a comparable pattern, with those in the lowest income quintile spending 37% on average, compared with 8% to 23% in higher quintiles. Private renters in the lowest income quintile faced the highest housing cost share overall, allocating nearly two‑thirds of their household income to housing costs on average (61%), markedly above the 17% to 37% observed among higher‑income private renters.

Shared owners who received housing support spent, on average, more on their housing costs (30%) than shared owners who did not receive housing support (21%). This was also true for private and social renters.

On average, shared owners with no savings spent more of their household income on housing costs (29%) than shared owners with savings (19%). Similarly, private renters (36%), social renters (28%) and mortgagors (22%) without savings also spent more on their housing costs compared with their counterparts that had savings (31%, 25% and 17%, respectively).

40/30 affordability measure

The 40/30 ratio is an indicator of affordability that shows the proportion of households in the bottom two income quintiles – the lowest 40% – who spend more than 30% of their income on housing (excluding service charge). The underlying assumption is that households that have a higher income and spend more than 30% on rent or mortgage payments can more easily do so, as they have a higher residual income for other living costs. This is not necessarily the case for households with a low income. The 40/30 ratio therefore provides an indication of the extent to which high housing costs may cause certain households financial stress. This section focuses on households in the lower two income quintiles who spend over 30% of their income on their rent or mortgage only.

Around four in ten shared owners in the bottom two income quintiles paid 30% or more on their housing costs (40%). The proportion for private renters was markedly higher, with around three quarters of private renters in the bottom two income quintiles paying 30% or more on their housing costs (71% or 1.3 million), more than social renters (45% or 1.3 million) and mortgagors (36% or 355,000), Annex Table 2.3.

Shared owners without savings were more likely to spend 30% of their income or more (49%) than those with savings (30%). This was also true for social renters and mortgagors. 

Ease of paying rent

Renters (including shared owners) were asked whether they had difficulty paying their rent over the 12 months prior to the survey. There was a high proportion of shared owners who found paying their rent ‘easy’ (85%), a figure higher than for social (73%) and private renters (69%), Annex Table 2.4.

Among shared owners, those in the highest income quintile were more likely to find paying their rent ‘easy’ (93%) compared with those in the lowest income quintile (75%). Private renters in the three highest income quintiles were more likely to find paying their rent ‘easy’ than those in the lowest two. There was also a higher proportion of social renters in the highest income quintile who found paying their rent easy (85%) than those in the other income quintiles (70% to 77%).

Those with savings were more likely to report it was ‘easy’ to pay their rent. Shared owners with savings were more likely to find it easy to pay their rent (91%) compared with those who did not have savings (74%). This was also true for private and social renters.

The majority of shared owners found paying their rent and mortgage ‘easy’ (85% and 89% respectively). A significantly higher proportion of shared owners said paying their rent was ‘easy’ compared to private renters (69%) and social renters (73%). The proportion non-shared owners buying with a mortgage that found it ‘easy’ was similar, 87%.

Ease of paying mortgage

Those buying with a mortgage (including shared owners) were asked whether they had trouble paying their mortgage over the past 12 months. Shared owners who had fully paid off their mortgage are excluded from this analysis. Most shared owners and mortgagors found paying their mortgage ‘easy’ (89% and 87%, respectively), Annex Table 2.5.

A higher proportion of shared owners with savings reported paying their mortgage was ‘easy’ (93%) compared with shared owners without savings (79%). Similarly, mortgagors with savings were more likely to report paying their mortgage was ‘easy’ (91%) than those without savings (77%).

Like renters, shared owners who did not receive any housing support were more likely to find it ‘easy’ to pay their mortgage (91%) than those who received support (63%). 

3. Satisfaction and complaints

This chapter examines levels of self-reported satisfaction and complaints and how these vary across tenures. It first explores levels of satisfaction across different aspects of housing, including satisfaction with tenure, accommodation and service charges. The chapter then looks at leaseholders who considered making a complaint and follows them through the decisions they made - whether they made a complaint, the reasons behind the complaints and how happy they were with the response. 

Most of these topics were previously explored in detail for other tenures, including social and private renters, in the EHS 2022-23 satisfaction and complaints fact sheet.

Satisfaction with tenure

All owners were asked how satisfied they were with owning their own home. The majority were satisfied (84% were very satisfied while 13% were fairly satisfied). Around 2% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied while only 1% were dissatisfied. 

Shared owners were less likely to be satisfied with their tenure (71%) than other leaseholders (95%). However, freeholders were more likely to be satisfied (98%) than either leaseholders (95%) or shared owners (71%). Similarly, feelings of dissatisfaction were higher among shared owners (16%) compared with leaseholders (2%) and freeholders (1%), Annex Table 3.1.

Shared owners were less likely to be satisfied with their tenure (71%) than other leaseholders (95%).

Satisfaction with accommodation

All owners were asked how satisfied they were with their accommodation. The majority were satisfied (65% were very satisfied while 29% were fairly satisfied). Around 3% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied while 3% were dissatisfied (2% were slightly dissatisfied and 1% were very dissatisfied). Similar to satisfaction with tenure, the proportion of shared owners who were satisfied with their accommodation (83%) was lower than for freeholders (95%) and leaseholders (90%). Furthermore, there were more dissatisfied shared owners (10%) than leaseholders (4%) and both were more likely to be dissatisfied with their accommodation than freeholders (3%), Annex Table 3.2. 

The analysis in the following sections relates exclusively to leaseholders. For reporting purposes, leaseholders are divided into two mutually exclusive groups: shared owners and other leaseholders (that is, leaseholders who do not own their home through a shared ownership arrangement). The following sections use the term leaseholders when referring to the tenure, while shared owners and other leaseholders are used when highlighting differences between these subgroups. Households who did not know their leasehold status at the time of the survey, who appear to have misclassified themselves or who refused to disclose it, were excluded from the analysis.

Satisfaction with service charge

Leaseholders were asked their opinions on the service charge they pay. More than a quarter said their service charge was ‘much too high’ (26%), around two in ten said it was ‘slightly too high’ (21%) and under half said it was ‘fair’ (49%). Only 3% of leaseholders thought the amount they paid for the services they received was low, Annex Table 3.3. 

Shared owners were more likely to say the amount they pay was ‘high’ (61%) compared with other leaseholders (46%). Other leaseholders were more likely to think the amount was ‘fair’ (50%) than shared owners (39%). 

Shared owners were more likely to report that their service charge amount was too high (61%) compared with other leaseholders (46%).

Considered making a complaint

Leaseholders were also asked if they considered making a complaint to their freeholder or management company in the 12 months prior to the survey. Around 460,000 leaseholders mentioned that they considered making a complaint while the remaining 1.3 million had not. Shared owners were markedly more likely to have considered making a complaint (43%) compared with other leaseholders (24%), Annex Table 3.4.

Made a complaint

Those who considered making a complaint were then asked whether they did so. Around 204,000 leaseholders complained to their management company, 185,000 leaseholders made a complaint to their freeholder and 101,000 did not complain. Please note leaseholders could have complained to both their management company and their freeholder. Other leaseholders were more likely to make a complaint to their management company (49%) than shared owners (17%), Annex Table 3.5.

Topic of complaint

Those who made a complaint were asked what they complained about. The most common complaint was about repairs (59%), a higher proportion than all other reasons. This was also true among shared owners, Annex Table 3.6. 

Leaseholders were also more likely to complain about the administration (19%) than the quality of the home (12%), anti-social behaviour (10%), neighbours (8%) and the behaviour of the freeholder (8%). ‘Other’ reasons were also more commonly cited (28%) than the administration (19%), the behaviour of the management company (16%), the quality of the home (12%), anti-social behaviour (10%), neighbours (8%) and the behaviour of the freeholder (8%).

The proportion of shared owners who mentioned complaining about repairs was higher (78%) compared with other leaseholders (56%). There were no other statistically significant differences between the two groups.

Shared owners were more likely to report considering a complaint (43%) than other leaseholders (24%). The proportion of complaints made by shared owners about repairs was higher (78%) than it was for other leaseholders (56%).

Satisfaction with outcome of complaints

Leaseholders who made a complaint were then asked whether they were happy with the response of the freeholder or management company. Just under a quarter of a million leaseholders were not happy with the response (245,000 or 70% of leaseholders) while 16% were ‘happy about all the responses’ and 14% were ‘happy about some of the responses’. Most shared owners (around 8 in 10 or 82%) were not happy with the responses, Annex Table 3.7.

Technical notes

Further details on the English Housing Survey methodology and glossary of terms can be found in the Technical Notes and glossary.

Underlying data for this report are published as Annex Tables

If you have any queries about this report, would like any further information or have suggestions for analyses you would like to see included in future EHS reports, please contact ehs@communities.gov.uk.