Executive Summary & Market Opportunity¶
Housing Association Business Planning Software — February 2026
What Is MRI HousingBrixx?¶
MRI HousingBrixx is the dominant financial modelling and business planning tool used by UK housing associations and registered providers of social housing. It enables organisations to produce 30-year integrated financial forecasts — linked profit & loss, balance sheet, and cash flow statements — for regulatory compliance, lender covenant monitoring, board decision-making, and stress testing.
The product uses an object-based modelling approach with approximately 300 pre-built "building block" components (tenures, loans, management costs, rent regimes, development projects). Unlike spreadsheets, users control only inputs; outputs are formula-locked, eliminating the breakage and audit risks endemic to Excel-based models.
MRI Software claims 370+ social housing providers use HousingBrixx, with 3 million+ properties modelled on the platform.
Brief History: Brixx Solutions → Castleton → MRI Software¶
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 2002 | Brixx Solutions Limited incorporated (Company #04424822) by Barrie Baxter |
| 2002–2015 | Operated as an independent business, building the housing association financial modelling product |
| May 2015 | Acquired by Castleton Technology PLC (AIM-listed social housing software group) |
| November 2015 | Renamed to Castleton Financial Modelling Solutions Ltd |
| June 2020 | MRI Software (US-based, PE-backed) acquires Castleton Technology |
| July 2021 | Castleton Financial Modelling Solutions Ltd dissolved — product absorbed into MRI's portfolio |
| Present | Marketed as "MRI HousingBrixx" within MRI's broader UK social housing suite (850+ clients, 82% of UK social housing units) |
The Other Brixx
A separate company, Brixx Technologies Limited (brixx.com), was incorporated days after Brixx Solutions in 2002. It now operates as a generic SME financial forecasting SaaS — a completely different product with a 10-year forecast window, no housing-specific features, and no regulatory compliance capabilities. The two companies share historical roots but diverged entirely when the housing product was sold to Castleton.
Market Size¶
The UK social housing sector presents a clearly defined, addressable market:
| Segment | Count | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Total registered providers (England) | ~1,579 | RSH register, February 2026 |
| Large private RPs (≥1,000 units) | ~227 | Must submit FFR + 30-year business plan annually |
| Very large HAs (≥25,000 units) | ~40 | Clarion, L&Q, Sanctuary, Peabody, etc. |
| Local authority RPs | ~165 | Lighter requirements but growing needs |
| Scotland, Wales, NI | ~80–100 | Separate registers, similar requirements |
| Total social housing units (England) | ~2.5M | Owned by private registered providers |
Total Addressable Market (TAM)¶
| Tier | Organisations | Estimated Avg. ACV | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Large HAs (>25K units) | 40 | £30K–£48K | £1.2M–£1.9M |
| Medium HAs (5K–25K) | 80 | £12K–£24K | £1.0M–£1.9M |
| Smaller HAs (1K–5K) | 107 | £6K–£12K | £0.6M–£1.3M |
| Core TAM | 227 | £2.8M–£5.1M | |
| Local authorities + devolved nations | ~245 | £8K avg | £2.0M |
| Expanded TAM | £5M–£7M/year |
Including training, implementation, and consulting services, the total market (software + services) is estimated at £8M–£15M annually.
Near-Monopoly Position¶
MRI HousingBrixx holds a near-monopoly in purpose-built strategic business planning software for UK housing associations:
- 370+ housing provider clients (out of ~227 large RPs who must submit FFRs — penetration exceeds 100% when counting medium-sized voluntary users and group subsidiaries)
- No direct SaaS competitor — the only alternatives are bespoke Excel models, consulting-firm-built spreadsheets, or the Dutch entrant WALS (Ortec Finance)
- Recognised as best practice by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), Scottish Housing Regulator, and major lenders
- Deep institutional entrenchment — regulators and lenders expect HousingBrixx-style outputs
Competitive Landscape¶
| Alternative | Type | Penetration | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bespoke Excel models | In-house / consultant-built | Widespread (especially smaller HAs) | Formula breakage, single-person dependency, poor audit trail |
| WALS (Ortec Finance) | Software (Dutch) | Entering UK market | 100-year horizon, Monte Carlo — but unproven in UK regulatory context |
| ProVal (SDS/Sequel) | Development viability | 200+ UK users | Development appraisals only, not full business planning |
| Consulting firms | KPMG, Deloitte, Savills, Mazars | Large HAs | Bespoke models, £50K+ engagements, not scalable |
| Enterprise FP&A | Anaplan, Adaptive Planning | <20 HAs | £30K–£100K+/year, no sector-specific features |
The primary competitor is Excel — and MRI's own marketing explicitly positions against it.
Pricing Intelligence¶
G-Cloud 14 Published Pricing (Service ID: 520510846921161)¶
| Managed Properties | Annual Licence |
|---|---|
| Up to 1,000 units | £5,460 |
| Up to 2,500 units | £7,090 |
| Up to 5,000 units | £8,975 |
| Up to 10,000 units | £12,240 |
| Up to 25,000 units | £18,315 |
| Up to 50,000 units | £22,645 |
| Above 50,000 units | £22,645 + £3,825 per 20,000-unit increment |
Additional Costs¶
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Additional user licence | £1,350/year per user |
| Dashboards & Analytics add-on | From £555/year |
| MRI Training Academy (2-day course) | £1,020 inc. VAT |
| Consultant day rate (MRI) | £1,000–£1,300/day |
| Annual inflationary uplift | 5.5% or RPI/CPI |
Real Contract Values (Public Procurement Records)¶
| Organisation | Value | Scope | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Longhurst Group (Nov 2024) | £99,000 | HousingBrixx modules + mobile support | Multi-year |
| Two Rivers Housing (Dec 2025) | £315,218 | MRI Financials suite | 41 months |
| Southern Housing (Oct 2025) | £2,389,582 | MRI Housing Enterprise (Brixx as component) | 3 years |
Typical Total Cost of Ownership (Mid-Size HA, ~10,000 units)¶
| Item | Year 1 | Ongoing/Year |
|---|---|---|
| Software licence | £12,240 | £12,240 |
| Additional users (3) | £4,050 | £4,050 |
| Implementation (10 days) | £12,000 | — |
| Training (4 staff) | £4,080 | — |
| Consultant retainer | — | £5,000–£15,000 |
| Total | ~£32,370 | ~£21,290–£31,290 |
Key insight: The software licence is modest (£5K–£23K/year), but total cost of ownership is 2–4× higher when including consultants, training, and implementation. Consultant dependency is the dominant ongoing cost.
The Disruption Opportunity¶
Why Now?¶
Several forces are converging to create the best disruption window in a decade:
-
SORP 2026 — Revised Housing SORP (effective 1 January 2026, first March year-end affected: 31 March 2027) introduces new lease accounting, revised income recognition, and building safety capitalisation rules. Every HA must update their financial models.
-
Building Safety Act — Ongoing remediation requirements for higher-risk buildings (18m+ / 7+ storeys). Phase 2 (October 2026) extends to all 29 HHSRS hazards. Creates entirely new cost lines that must be modelled over 30 years.
-
Awaab's Law — Phase 1 (October 2025) mandates strict timescales for damp/mould response. Estimated sector cost: £180.6M. Phase 2 (2026–27) covers additional hazards. Creates significant new operational cost pressures.
-
10-Year Rent Settlement — CPI + 1% confirmed for 10 years from April 2026. Every HA is refreshing their business plan to model this certainty — a natural moment to evaluate tools.
-
Sector Financial Stress — EBITDA MRI interest cover at 91% (lowest since 2009). Operating margins at 17.3%. Cash reserves declining for the 4th consecutive year. "Little margin for error" — making accurate modelling more critical than ever.
-
Cloud Adoption Accelerating — 47% of social housing organisations are now cloud-only (highest sector increase 2024/25). The market is ready for modern SaaS.
What's Wrong with the Incumbent¶
| Pain Point | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Consultant dependency | Most HAs cannot independently maintain complex models. Strategic objective at board level: "reducing dependency on third-party consultants." Under 20% of HAs fully understand their tech. |
| Rigid interface | "Everything is a process" — excessive steps for small changes. Steep learning curve requiring £1,020+ training per person. |
| Excel escape hatch | Finance directors routinely export data back to Excel for ad-hoc analysis, revealing HousingBrixx's flexibility gap. |
| Integration friction | Despite "Open and Connected" marketing, users report siloed data requiring manual reformatting. |
| Service reliability | 1,695+ incidents tracked since 2020. SaaS dependency with no workaround during downtime. |
| Acquisition risk | MRI is transitioning toward its Agora platform. HousingBrixx "optimisation" narrative suggests eventual absorption into a broader, less specialised system. |
Switching Dynamics¶
Switching costs are extremely high today:
- No standardised export for full business plans — requires manual rebuild
- Parallel running for at least one full reporting cycle ("double-bubble" licensing)
- Training investment starts over
- Estimated switching costs 16× higher than prevention planning
However, the regulatory changes above force model rebuilds regardless — significantly reducing the incremental cost of switching.
Why an Advisor-Led SaaS Model Is the Ideal GTM¶
The conventional approach to disrupting enterprise software — build product, hire salesforce, run long procurement cycles — is poorly suited to this market. An advisor-led model is dramatically more efficient:
The Advisor Advantage¶
-
Trusted relationships already exist — a dominant financial advisor in this market already has relationships with the majority of target clients. No cold outreach required.
-
Domain expertise is the moat — the hardest, most valuable part of building a replacement is understanding how HAs model their 30-year plans: the accounting treatments, regulatory rules, covenant definitions, stress test methodologies, and sector-specific nuances. This expertise already resides with the advisor.
-
Implementation is the wedge — advisors currently implement HousingBrixx for clients and build bespoke models. A purpose-built tool makes their own work faster and more scalable, creating a natural incentive to champion it.
-
Reduced sales cycle — advisor recommendation to a client they already advise on treasury and business planning carries enormous weight. Typical enterprise sales cycle (6–12 months) could compress to weeks.
-
Revenue model alignment — the advisor earns from implementation, training, and ongoing advisory. A SaaS tool with transparent pricing and reduced consultant dependency doesn't cannibalise their advisory business — it scales it.
How It Would Work¶
- Advisor provides: domain expertise, financial modelling logic, regulatory rules, client relationships, implementation support, credibility
- Technology partner provides: modern SaaS platform, cloud infrastructure, AI capabilities, UX design, engineering
- Joint venture or licensing arrangement aligns incentives
Key Conclusions¶
-
The market is real and quantifiable: £5–7M/year software TAM, £8–15M including services, with ~227 core buyers who must use a tool like this.
-
The incumbent is dominant but vulnerable: near-monopoly, high consultant dependency, rigid tooling, acquisition-driven growth, and a parent company focused on platform consolidation rather than product innovation.
-
The timing is exceptional: SORP 2026, Building Safety Act, Awaab's Law, and the 10-year rent settlement are all forcing business plan refreshes — creating a once-in-a-decade window for alternatives.
-
An advisor-led approach is the optimal GTM: the domain expertise required to build a credible competitor is the hardest-to-replicate asset. A financial advisor who already owns client relationships and understands the modelling requirements is the ideal co-founder, not just a channel partner.
-
Modern technology dramatically reduces build cost: cloud-native architecture, AI-assisted development, and modern frameworks mean a credible MVP can be built for a fraction of what the incumbent spent — especially when the financial modelling domain expertise comes from the advisor partner.
Recommended Next Steps¶
-
Validate the pain — structured conversations with 5–10 housing association finance directors to confirm willingness to evaluate alternatives and quantify the pain (consultant spend, workarounds, frustrations)
-
Define the MVP scope — agree on the minimum feature set that would be credible for a pilot: FFR-compliant output, 30-year 3-way forecasting, basic scenario analysis, covenant monitoring
-
Agree commercial structure — define the partnership model (JV, licensing, equity split) between advisor and technology partner
-
Build a working prototype — target 3–5 lighthouse pilot clients within the advisor's existing portfolio, with the goal of running parallel to HousingBrixx for one FFR submission cycle
-
Target the 2027 FFR cycle — if development begins in Q2 2026, an MVP could be ready for parallel testing against the June 2027 FFR submission deadline
This document is part of a four-part research package. See also: Product & Competitive Intelligence · Regulatory Requirements · Build Estimate