The UK’s housing crisis is deepening, and the government’s mishandling of refugee accommodation threatens to make it worse. But there is a solution hiding in plain sight, one that’s being unfairly demonised due to stigma, misinformation, and political scapegoating.
Shared Living is not crisis housing
Shared Living – when individuals voluntarily choose to live together in high-quality, well-managed homes – has the potential to ease the UK’s housing shortage. It meets the needs of students, young professionals, couples saving for their first home, and even older individuals who want community, flexibility, and affordability. In fact, COHO’s The State of Shared Living 2025 report more than a third of UK housemates are over 30, and 12% are over 40.
But widespread misconceptions around HMOs are increasingly standing in the way. These misconceptions have been amplified by recent political narratives linking HMOs with emergency refugee housing, a connection that is misleading and damaging.
The problem is policy, not HMOs
The government’s failure to provide proper housing solutions for asylum seekers has resulted in the use of hotels and HMOs as temporary shelters. This emergency response has been exploited by certain media outlets and political voices, turning Shared Living into a scapegoat for broader policy failings.
When Reform UK stands in Parliament and claims that “migrants are now being moved into HMOs, taking houses from local people and causing misery for neighbours”, it’s not just distasteful, it’s dangerous. It also fuels a narrative that drags Shared Living into a xenophobic culture war that so many on the Right are desperate to push. It also pressures local planning committees to reject high-quality shared housing projects based on fear, not facts.
We must draw a clear line between two very different types of shared housing.
Crisis HMOs vs. true Shared Living
Crisis HMOs are last-resort accommodations, often bare-minimum in standard and used in emergency scenarios like refugee housing. They are survival-driven, temporary, and frequently unregulated.
Shared Living is by contrast a conscious choice. It is high-spec, community-driven, and designed to promote connection, affordability, and quality of life. These homes are well-managed, compliant, and designed for long-term occupancy.
Conflating the two is like judging all hotels based on a single, overstretched refugee shelter. It’s misleading, unfair, and counterproductive.
A missed opportunity
The rising stigma around HMOs, fuelled by xenophobia and nimbyism, is discouraging local planning authorities from approving legitimate, well-designed Shared Living developments. This is a tragedy because Shared Living could be one of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to deliver more homes and reduce housing pressure.
Shared Living offers another critical advantage: it fosters community. At a time when loneliness is being described as an epidemic, creating living environments that encourage social connection should be a priority, not a problem.
It is ironic and sad, therefore, that its chance of thriving in the UK is being hampered by those pushing division, rejection, and separation.
It’s time to shift the narrative
To fix this, we need a concerted effort to change how Shared Living is discussed in the media and viewed by planning authorities. We need clearer definitions, better education, and stronger leadership from both government and industry.
If we continue to conflate Crisis HMOs with modern Shared Living, we will lose one of the best tools we have to combat the housing crisis.
If we change the narrative, we give councils permission to say yes to more Shared Living schemes. We enable landlords and developers to deliver homes that people actually want to live in. And we stop punishing a housing model that has the power to make a real, positive difference.
It’s time to stop scapegoating Shared Living. It’s time to start embracing it.
The UK’s housing crisis is deepening, and the government’s mishandling of refugee accommodation threatens to make it worse. But there is a solution hiding in plain sight, one that’s being unfairly demonised due to stigma, misinformation, and political scapegoating.
Shared Living is not crisis housing
Shared Living – when individuals voluntarily choose to live together in high-quality, well-managed homes – has the potential to ease the UK’s housing shortage. It meets the needs of students, young professionals, couples saving for their first home, and even older individuals who want community, flexibility, and affordability. In fact, COHO’s The State of Shared Living 2025 report more than a third of UK housemates are over 30, and 12% are over 40.
But widespread misconceptions around HMOs are increasingly standing in the way. These misconceptions have been amplified by recent political narratives linking HMOs with emergency refugee housing, a connection that is misleading and damaging.
The problem is policy, not HMOs
The government’s failure to provide proper housing solutions for asylum seekers has resulted in the use of hotels and HMOs as temporary shelters. This emergency response has been exploited by certain media outlets and political voices, turning Shared Living into a scapegoat for broader policy failings.
When Reform UK stands in Parliament and claims that “migrants are now being moved into HMOs, taking houses from local people and causing misery for neighbours”, it’s not just distasteful, it’s dangerous. It also fuels a narrative that drags Shared Living into a xenophobic culture war that so many on the Right are desperate to push. It also pressures local planning committees to reject high-quality shared housing projects based on fear, not facts.
We must draw a clear line between two very different types of shared housing.
Crisis HMOs vs. true Shared Living
Crisis HMOs are last-resort accommodations, often bare-minimum in standard and used in emergency scenarios like refugee housing. They are survival-driven, temporary, and frequently unregulated.
Shared Living is by contrast a conscious choice. It is high-spec, community-driven, and designed to promote connection, affordability, and quality of life. These homes are well-managed, compliant, and designed for long-term occupancy.
Conflating the two is like judging all hotels based on a single, overstretched refugee shelter. It’s misleading, unfair, and counterproductive.
A missed opportunity
The rising stigma around HMOs, fuelled by xenophobia and nimbyism, is discouraging local planning authorities from approving legitimate, well-designed Shared Living developments. This is a tragedy because Shared Living could be one of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to deliver more homes and reduce housing pressure.
Shared Living offers another critical advantage: it fosters community. At a time when loneliness is being described as an epidemic, creating living environments that encourage social connection should be a priority, not a problem.
It is ironic and sad, therefore, that its chance of thriving in the UK is being hampered by those pushing division, rejection, and separation.
It’s time to shift the narrative
To fix this, we need a concerted effort to change how Shared Living is discussed in the media and viewed by planning authorities. We need clearer definitions, better education, and stronger leadership from both government and industry.
If we continue to conflate Crisis HMOs with modern Shared Living, we will lose one of the best tools we have to combat the housing crisis.
If we change the narrative, we give councils permission to say yes to more Shared Living schemes. We enable landlords and developers to deliver homes that people actually want to live in. And we stop punishing a housing model that has the power to make a real, positive difference.
It’s time to stop scapegoating Shared Living. It’s time to start embracing it.
