Is shared ownership the new, secure investment product to replace ground rents?
For profit social housing means profits go to shareholders, not to improve stock or build more (but then, like leasehold, tenants find there is nothing ‘shared’ when it comes to paying the bills)
By Martin Boyd
Martin is chair of LKP and the taxpayer-funded Leasehold Advisory Service
Lloyds Bank has always been involved in many aspects of the property sector. They once found themselves in dispute with the Tchenguiz group over loans linked to ground rent investments. They have provided funds for developers, they have provided mortgages under various names and have owned various estate agency firms.
In 2021 they entered the build to rent market and as of the start of May this year have become the latest in a line of new “for profit” social landlords.
Lbg Equity Investments Ltd (LBGEIL) is a 100% subsidiary of the bank that in turn owns a set of subsidiaries some of which are now directly in the property market. LGEIL has a loan facility with the bank of £8 billion. In the past, it has been know as LB Mortgages Ltd and before that TSB Mortgages Ltd
Citra Living Ltd, trading as Lloyds Living, is an LBGEIR subsidiary which now owns 3,500 rental homes. It now enters the marked as a for profit social landlord
What are for profit social landlords?
For-profit social landlords, also known as For-Profit Registered Providers (FPRPs) in the UK, are organizations that provide social and affordable housing while also distributing profits to their shareholders or investors.
Unlike traditional housing associations, which are typically not-for-profit and reinvest any surplus back into their services or new homes, FPRPs operate with a commercial objective.
Is the concept contentious?
Yes, the concept of for-profit social landlords is highly contentious. Here’s why:
Diverting resources from social mission: Critics argue that allowing profits to be distributed to shareholders means money that could otherwise be reinvested into maintaining properties, building new social homes, or providing support services for tenants is instead going to investors. The National Housing Federation (NHF) in the UK, for instance, has stated that social housing should be a “public good” and not a “driver to increase returns to a shareholder.”
Risk to reputation and values: There’s a concern that the involvement of profit-driven entities could undermine the long-standing charitable values and benevolent reputation of the social housing sector.
Impact on existing providers: Some worry that FPRPs, with their access to significant capital, might out-compete traditional not-for-profit housing associations for land and development opportunities, particularly those arising from Section 106 agreements (where developers are required to include affordable housing in new schemes).
Quality of housing and services: While FPRPs are still regulated by the Regulator of Social Housing, concerns exist about whether the drive for profit might compromise the quality of housing maintenance or the level of support provided to vulnerable tenants.
“Wholesale privatization”: Some fear that the rise of FPRPs could lead to a “wholesale privatization” of social housing, shifting the focus away from public provision.
Supporters of for-profit social landlords argue that they can bring much-needed private investment into the social housing sector, helping to address the housing crisis and increase the supply of affordable homes, particularly when public funding is constrained. They also point out that investors are attracted to the stable, long-term returns offered by social housing, making it a viable option for pension funds and other institutional investors.
Since 2021 Citra Living has purchased 50I homes from Barratts and in 2023 completed another purchase of 604 new homes at a cost of £168.4 million.
Citra Living Ltd (CLL) borrowing facility with LBGEIL is £840 million of which £324 million has been drawn down leaving them with over half a billion to invest.
CLL owns their properties via various subsidiaries:
Citra Living Development (no1) Ltd -formed 2022
Citra Living Development (no2) Ltd -formed 2024
Citra Living Properties (No1) Ltd -formed 2021
Citra Living Properties (No2) Ltd – formed 2023
The ownership of the individual sites potentially sits under a further layer of subsidiaries such as Citra Living The Rise Cardiff Ltd, Citra Living Wharf Street Ltd etc but these companies have yet to file accounts.
The ownership of Citra Living Broadside is less clear. This “entity has re-domiciled from Luxembourg to Jersey”; it uses the same mainland address as the Lloyds Bank and the other Citra Subsidiaries.
It should also be noted that in 2024 Lloyds entered into agreement with Barratt and Lloyds Banking Group in a £150m joint venture with Homes England that will to build new homes. The combined venture, known as the MADE Partnership
MADE Partnership
MADE Partnership is a master developer with the vision, skills, stamina and capital required to deliver large developments. We are a joint venture between Barratt Redrow PLC, Homes England and Lloyds Banking Group. We find solutions for and with partners to unlock the potential of large sites to create great places to live, work and relax.
In May 2025 Cintra Pathways was registered as a for profit social housing provider. This makes them the 80th “for profit” social landlords. The Cintra Living website explains
“As well as providing attractive homes to rent, we also help our customers to take their first steps on the property ladder. Pathways allows you to try before you buy – rent one of our properties for as long as you wish, and then you can buy your home through shared ownership. In most cases, you’ll only need a deposit of 5% of the share you buy, which makes buying a property a much more affordable and accessible process.”
As part of their new company Cintra Pathways Lloyds have recruited some big names from the social sector to its board even though it shows no published accounts yet:
David Montague is ex CEO at L&Q group
Jane Porter is the ex COO of Southern Housing
Geeta Nanda ex CEO of MTVH and currently CEO of Crisis UK and also director at Barratt Redrow PLC.
Geeta Nanda joined Citra Pathways as a director in August 2024 and left in December 2024. The website Social Housing reports “She [Geeta Nanda] stepped down from the for-profit in December due to other commitments, but Social Housing understands she is expected to rejoin the board.”
Analysis
Financial stability: Lloyds bank group clearly has the assets to take a long term view which may provide a number of advantages to consumers compared to some of the other providers in the market but consumers will have several concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Shared ownership: There are many outstanding questions about whether the current shared ownership model is viable. Purchasers with a 5% ownership of their home still faces the liability for 100% of the service charge.
They face potentially paying twice when staircasing if their service charges have paid for things like replacing the roof.
They face not being able to sell their home on the open market as easily as full leaseholders. As leaseholders of a house they still face their landlord imposing rules on how they use their home.
All shared owners face limitations on whether they can sublet when they face a change of circumstances. They face the disadvantage of both rental and leasehold law. They face the risk that the landlord may seek to forfeit their home is they are deemed in breach of the lease.
Building remediation: It seems almost inevitable that with the government working with Lloyds and Barratt’s and many others to help build more new homes that existing leaseholders impacted by the cladding crisis face the ongoing risk of being collateral damage that sees new homes as taking priority over fixing existing homes.
For Profit social landlords: This is a highly contentious part of the sector. Instead of any surplus being reinvested in maintaining or building new homes the for profit sector distributes its shareholders in this case (currently) Lloyds bank. The for profit social housing sector is seen as a useful guaranteed long term income stream which is why some of the insurance companies have now also entered the business. The not for profits and their trade body the National Housing Federation do not agree with the for profit concept. The market predicts the for profit sector will account for nearly 100,000 homes.
Leases and headleases: It’s not possible to tell yet if the leases held by Citra are individual leases or if these as leases that sit under a freehold or a headlease held by Citra. Under all circumstances any potential shared leaseholders will want to understand if their lease sits under an intermediate headlease with control of the property management sitting with a third party. These sites face the yet further problem that they are likely to need to pay the intermediate landlord and administration charge for overseeing the service charge billing in addition to paying the service charge bill
Leasehold law: Shared ownership means leasehold. In turn that means the full spectrum of leasehold law with its fees and charges and someone else deciding the rules over your home. The not for profit social landlords regularly mention their charitable status but sometimes their actions are not that charitable. LKP is aware of one very large charitable social landlord which recently threatened forfeiture in 15 days when it discovered the house owner had installed a patio 5 years ago.
The multi company games LKP readers will be fully aware in the leasehold world are true of the prof profit social housing providers, which sometimes means inexplicable changing of names and disappearing offshore.
Should Lloyds decide to sell any of its Citra subsidiaries at some point in the future it’s a well known way to circumvent the leaseholders rights of first refusal – should they even get to the point of having these rights as shared owner leaseholders.
A new set of conflicts: Lloyds is not the first company to attempt to vertically integrate the leasehold sector. It could work to both the bank and the consumers’ benefit, but it possibly may not.
Lloyds could, perhaps, become the first provider to act as the potential funder of a development; the company providing the mortgages; the company acting as landlord; the company then looking to maximise its income from both its rental tenants and its shared ownership leasehold tenants.
As a registered social landlord it would fall under a specific set of regulations but as many shared owners will attest the government’s regulation system that is intended to ensure value for money has little or no interest in the value for money of service charges.
There are growing stories about the developers pushing the shared ownership model. Lets how someone asks the question. Is shared ownership the next game in town now ground rents have disappeared on all new homes?
Who are the 5 largest for-profit social landlords?
Identifying the top 5 largest for-profit social landlords specifically can be challenging because the sector is still evolving, and many traditional “largest housing associations” are not-for-profit. The data on FPRPs is newer, and their portfolios, while growing rapidly, are generally smaller than established not-for-profit giants.
However, based on available information, some significant players and those making considerable inroads into the for-profit social housing space in the UK include:
Sage Rented Limited: This is frequently mentioned as a prominent for-profit Registered Provider, acquiring new builds for social and affordable rent.
Heylo: Known for its focus on shared ownership properties. As of May 2025, Heylo owns 9,500 homes.
Sparrow Shared Ownership: Another significant player in the shared ownership market, owning around 3,000 homes as of May 2025.
M&G Shared Ownership: Also active in shared ownership, with around 1,573 homes as of May 2025.
Citra Pathways Limited: (owned by Lloyds Bank’s Lloyds Living): This is a new, recently registered for-profit provider that will focus on shared ownership. Its backing by a major bank suggests it could become a substantial player in the coming years.
It’s important to note that many of the very largest housing associations in the UK, such as Clarion Housing Group (the UK’s largest housing association with 125,000 homes), L&Q, and Peabody Trust, are primarily not-for-profit organizations, though some may have commercial subsidiaries or engage in activities that generate revenue to reinvest. The list above focuses on entities explicitly identified as “for-profit registered providers” that distribute profits to shareholders. The overall for-profit sector is still relatively small compared to the traditional not-for-profit sector, holding around 30,000 homes in the UK as of 2024, but is projected for significant growth.
Another notable retirement shared ownership provider is Platinum Skies
List of registered providers:
Related posts:
Tchenguiz gets a reprieve from Lloyds Bank
The Social Housing Green Paper – the government should do more, says ex-civil servant
Housing Ombudsman names and shames social landlords ‘consistently wrong’ with leaseholders and shared owners
Social landlords should not be abusing their unbalanced powers against leaseholders
LKP is now a registered charity
MPs step forward in the new All Party Parliamentary Group for leasehold and commonhold reform
I am a leaseholder in a Retirement Complex which is Social Housing where the Landlord and Management is one of the big G15 companies. Our CEO ( one of those mentioned in your article) recently resigned and has moved into the private sector.
It is interesting to note that one day we could be taken over by one of these for profit companies. Maybe the management would improve, but would the Service charges increase. They would have to take on the Extra Care services where applicacable.
Heaven forbid if some of the top management from companies like Firstport and similar joined in.
I totally agree with the concerns raised. But the scheme is just as dangerous when operated by ‘not for profit’ housing associations. My sister is a shared owner. I initially thought that she was buying into an affordable scheme, but I discovered that it is in fact a terrible deal. She wasn’t told that her rent funds new social housing – this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Surely there must be a better way. With a service charge now exceeding her mortgage, my suster is trapped in an unaffordable property she cannot sell, and responsible for all the costs. Shared owners are sitting ducks.
Ellie,
I believe that entering into a “Shared Ownership” scheme is far worse than a Leaseholder entering into a Leasehold purchase scheme. The way forward for Leaseholders is, in my opinion, Commonhold. I can think of no obvious remedy for those who were enticed into entering into a “Shared Ownership” scheme under current Law.