1. The right action that did not happen
Should have + V3 can evaluate an earlier action as appropriate or desirable. In a context of criticism or regret, it usually suggests that the action was not done. However, the form itself does not prove this: it can also express an expectation, and whether the action was completed may be unknown.
In the context of a missed call, You should have called naturally means “you were supposed to call, but you did not call.” This conclusion comes from the use of the form in context, not from an obligatory negation built into every use of should have.
Compare: “You should call” is advice for the future, while there is still time; “You should have called” states that the moment has passed. In English, these meanings are distinguished reliably by the form have + V3.
should have / ought to have + V3; V3 = the third form of the verb (called, gone, written)
- verb / V —
- A word for an action or state, such as work or be. The pattern determines its form.
- V3 / past participle —
- The third verb form: worked, gone, seen. Used after have/has or in the passive, for example; it is not always the same as V2.
You should have called the client before the deadline passed.
You should have called the client before the deadline passed.
The call did not happen; the speaker thinks it was necessary.
I should have taken the earlier train.
I should have taken the earlier train.
I did not take the earlier train; this expresses regret about my own choice.
The committee ought to have consulted the tenants.
The committee ought to have consulted the tenants.
A more formal tone; the consultation did not happen.
2. Criticism and regret: whose action are we evaluating
You / she should have… often criticizes someone else’s choice, while I should have… often expresses regret or self-criticism. However, the subject alone does not determine the speech act: I should have finished by now can report an expectation, and an evaluation of someone else’s action can be sympathetic.
We should have asked can express shared regret or criticism of a group. We changes the group considered responsible; it sometimes softens the tone, but it does not guarantee politeness and is not always an exact substitute for you.
Perhaps and with hindsight can soften an evaluation, but they do not automatically make it calm or neutral. The tone depends on intonation, the relationship between the speakers, and the content.
She should have checked the figures before presenting them.
She should have checked the figures before presenting them.
Criticism of a third person.
I should have checked the figures myself.
I should have checked the figures myself.
The same form, but the speaker is evaluating themself: this is regret.
Perhaps we ought to have asked more questions at the start.
Perhaps we ought to have asked more questions at the start.
The opening perhaps and the pronoun we soften the evaluation.
3. Ought to have: a more formal option and its forms
Ought to have expresses the same meaning as should have, but it sounds more formal and occurs more often in written evaluations, such as reports, decisions, and official findings. In conversation, should have is more common, while ought to have is appropriate when the speaker wants to emphasize an objective obligation.
Unlike should, ought requires to: ought to have + V3. Negative forms are ought not to have or, more conversationally, oughtn't to have. Questions with ought in the past sound very formal, so should is usually used instead: “Should we have informed them?”. Ought is less common in American English.
In rapid speech, people say should've, ought to've, and shouldn't've. In writing, these correspond to should have, ought to have, and shouldn't have. Should of is a common spelling based on what is heard; avoid it.
The auditors ought to have queried the discrepancy in March.
The auditors ought to have queried the discrepancy in March.
Report style: ought to have + V3.
Residents oughtn't to have been left without heating for a week.
Residents oughtn't to have been left without heating for a week.
Negative ought with the passive: the action happened and was inappropriate.
We should've left at six.
We should've left at six.
Conversational contraction; in formal writing, write should have.
4. Shouldn't have: when the action happened
In a regret reading, the affirmative form usually evaluates an action that was not taken, while the negative form evaluates an undesirable action that was taken: You shouldn’t have shouted. However, in a different context, shouldn’t have can express an expectation that the action did not happen. Do not infer the actual result from the negative form alone.
The criticism concerns the choice: the action was wrong, harmful, or inappropriate. Options include shouldn't have, should not have (more formal), and ought not to have; for emphasis, use should never have: “We should never have signed it”.
Needn’t have + V3 usually means that the action was done unnecessarily. It can also express criticism or grateful reassurance such as “you needn’t have gone to so much trouble.” The basic difference is that shouldn’t have evaluates whether the action was appropriate, while needn’t have evaluates whether it was necessary.
You shouldn't have forwarded that email to the whole department.
You shouldn't have forwarded that email to the whole department.
The email was forwarded; the speaker considers this a mistake.
They ought not to have released the figures before the family was told.
They ought not to have released the figures before the family was told.
A more formal negative form; the figures were released.
We should never have signed that contract.
We should never have signed that contract.
Never intensifies the regret; the contract was signed.
5. Form: V3, been V-ing, and the passive
The third form of the verb follows have: should have gone, should have written, should have known. Two common mistakes are using the Past Simple after have (should have went) and using should of instead of should have.
For an action that was continuing at a particular moment in the past, use should have been + V-ing: “He should have been watching the gauge”. The criticism concerns the process, not the result.
In the passive, the subject identifies the person or thing affected by the action: the windows should have been sealed. The agent can be left unnamed or added with by. The passive does not guarantee impersonal criticism: the responsible person may be clear from the context.
should have been + V-ing (verb with -ing): process · should have been + V3 (third form): passive
- verb / V —
- A word for an action or state, such as work or be. The pattern determines its form.
- V3 / past participle —
- The third verb form: worked, gone, seen. Used after have/has or in the passive, for example; it is not always the same as V2.
- V-ing / -ing —
- The verb form ending in -ing: working, going. Its role depends on the construction.
He should have been watching the gauge, not his phone.
He should have been watching the gauge, not his phone.
Should have been + V-ing: we criticize an ongoing action at that moment.
The windows should have been sealed before winter.
The windows should have been sealed before winter.
Passive: the agent is not named, so the criticism is impersonal.
She ought to have gone to the doctor sooner.
She ought to have gone to the doctor sooner.
Gone is the third form of go; went would be incorrect here.
6. Expectations: when this is not criticism
Should have can express an expected completion: The parcel should have arrived by now. This may be a neutral assumption, or, in the context of a delay, also a complaint. By now, by Friday, and already help establish the reference point; by Friday can also refer to a future deadline.
An expectation by itself does not say whether the action happened. We need to find out whether the parcel arrived. If it did not arrive, the speaker may simply report the fact or may also be criticizing the delivery service; the grammatical form does not rule out the second intention.
Note: a confident conclusion from evidence is expressed by must have, while an unrealized possibility is expressed by could have. These are neighboring topics. Should have expresses a norm, an obligation, or an expectation.
The courier should have delivered it on Monday; it still hasn't come.
The courier should have delivered it on Monday; it still hasn't come.
This can be read as an expectation based on the schedule; depending on the tone, it can also be a complaint about the courier.
The final results should have been posted by now.
The final results should have been posted by now.
By now signals an expectation based on the schedule.
7. Short answers, questions, softening, and idioms
In conversation, the verb is often omitted while the modal with have remains: “Did you lock up? — No, I should have.” Keep should have: should alone in a past context would be understood as an evaluation concerning the future.
The question “Should we have consulted a lawyer first?” asks whether that step would have been the right one, so it evaluates a decision that was made. The rhetorical question “Shouldn't you have checked?” is indirect criticism. Openers such as perhaps, I think, and with hindsight create restraint, while the modal form itself does not change.
Set phrases include should have known better (than to…) — “you should have understood that it was not acceptable,” and should have thought of — “you should have considered.” They most often have a self-critical nuance.
Did you lock up? — No, I should have.
Did you lock up? — No, I should have.
The verb is omitted, but have remains.
Shouldn't you have checked the forecast first?
Shouldn't you have checked the forecast first?
A question with an implied criticism.
You should have known better than to reply to him in anger.
You should have known better than to reply to him in anger.
The idiom should have known better than to…
8. Nearby forms: could have and must have
Should have places the action within the world of norms: it was the right thing to do. Could have only opens up a possibility: “You could have called.” Must have draws a conclusion from evidence: “Someone must have called.” Both are separate topics; they are included here only to distinguish them.
Must have expresses a conclusion, but a sentence with it can also criticize someone. Could have does not describe the action as obligatory, although You could have told me! can sound very sharp. Do not place these forms on a fixed scale of criticism strength.
In this topic, choose according to meaning: the right action — should/ought to have; an incorrect action — shouldn't have; a conclusion from evidence and an open possibility remain neighboring topics.
You should have told me about the leak.
You should have told me about the leak.
Norm: this was the necessary step.
You could have told me about the leak.
You could have told me about the leak.
In a critical context, the form identifies an unused opportunity; the strength of the criticism depends on the tone and context.
You must have noticed the leak.
You must have noticed the leak.
Must have expresses a conclusion that the leak was noticed; whether there is also criticism depends on the context.
Common mistakes
Incorrect:You should of told me about the delay.
Correct:You should have told me about the delay.
Of here is a spelling based on the sound of the contraction 've. Have is required after a modal.
Incorrect:She should have went home earlier.
Correct:She should have gone home earlier.
The third form is required after have: gone, not the Past Simple went.
Incorrect:He should had called her yesterday.
Correct:He should have called her yesterday.
Do not use had after a modal verb: the past is expressed by have + V3.
Incorrect:You ought to told him the truth.
Correct:You ought to have told him the truth.
For the past after ought to, use have + V3: ought to have told. Without have, the sentence is ungrammatical.
Incorrect:The data should have store securely.
Correct:The data should have been stored securely.
Here, the data are the object of storage, so the passive have been stored is required. The reason is the subject’s role, not simply the absence of a named agent.