These government policies, first introduced in 2013, sought to improve affordability in the housing market.

However, the IFS found that this effect was limited by restrictions on new housing supply as building delivery faltered. This led to house prices actually being pushed up.

In addition, the IFS’s research found there was a “distributional” effect from Help to Buy policies which made homeownership more affordable at the expense of others.

IFS analysed how Help to Buy impacted affordability for those who did not own homes before the scheme came into effect.

A key factor identified was that affordability was more likely to be driven by income-related constraints rather than anything to do with a deposit.

This made housebuyers’ ambitions dictated by their income rather than how much they could save for a deposit.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   Affordability blocking 1.5 million from housing market
•   Government must back SME developers to ease first-time buyer struggles

The IFS used an example of an individual with a  £30,000 income and a £10,000 potential deposit — the most expensive home they can buy is still £145,000 even with a mortgage guarantee, since they can only borrow up to £135,000 based on income-related lending limits.

This is below the £200,000 that the deposit of £10,000 via the mortgage guarantee scheme under Help to Buy would have supported.

Higher-income individuals saw the largest increases in the share of properties affordable under Help to Buy schemes, as well as the largest increases in the maximum prices affordable.

Patterns are reversed for regional splits: those living in London and the South East saw smaller changes in the share of properties they can afford, driven by higher prices in those areas.

The IFS has argued that offering more generous subsidies to those on lower incomes would help extend the benefits and reach of Help to Buy. Though this would require a “trade-off.”

“It could reduce inequalities when getting on the housing ladder, but would also increase the exposure of both the government and potential new borrowers to housing market downturns,” added the IFS.

“This trade-off would clearly need to be navigated with considerable care.”