Gatekeeping the definition of Shared Ownership

Anyone active in UK leasehold will have come across people who gatekeep Shared Ownership.

Their main concern is to derail any conversation where Shared Ownership is treated as overlapping with leasehold. Thisn't People's Front of Judea stuff. It's dog-on-a-string-brigade stuff. They don't want to be seen as part of the broader group; it inevitably follows that they don't want the whole group working together for its own interests. It's Separatism.

"Shared Ownership" is a UK scheme whereby one pays gradually for a home, owning a proportion of it and paying rent on the other portion; generally there is an option to "staircase" to increase the proportion so owned, often to 100%.

It can be implemented in relation to a freehold or leasehold title to the home, with a "shared ownership trust" (SOT) or "shared ownership lease" (SOL). I have just invented these two abbreviations, but the phrases themselves are used in the tax and landlord tenant laws.

In practice, SOTs don't seem to exist, possibly due to disadvantageous tax treatment. This means that whenever you see a home that is held on a "shared ownership" basis, 99% of the time it is held on an SOL. In any case, the ownership will be on the Land Registry, and the title will be stated to be "Freehold" or "Leasehold". Anyone going round claiming Shared Ownership isn't leasehold has to explain away the fact that all SOLs are registered as leasehold, and that no-one can find any Freehold SOTs.

The retreat of the argument looks something like this:

• "Shared Ownership isn't leasehold"
• "Ok, Shared Ownership is not always leasehold"
• "The term `shared ownership' is not defined in statute."
• "Ok, but even if `shared ownership lease' is defined in statute, shared ownership has some characteristics that differ from leasehold."

They are desperate to make it exhausting and expensive to get to that point.

The fact is: Shared Ownership is, in all observable cases, a subset of leasehold, with certain distinguishing features. These features are very much the exception not the rule. But there is a desparation not to be seen as part of a larger set of leasehold properties, probably for political/image reasons.

It's not like there isn't real money riding on this. If SOLs weren't leases, it would affect the eligibility of many buildings to obtain Right To Manage, and it also affects enfranchisement premiums. Both of these effects are worth five figure sums at thousands of sites.