Gazumping: How the London Market Loses Millions —
and Why We Welcome the New Reform

The second big topic under government discussion is the possible return of the £5 million investor visa — a fast-track visa in exchange for investment into British high-tech businesses. Such a programme existed many years ago and was highly successful. There are also some rumblings in the media around inheritance tax. So there is no shortage of positive signals. And the war in the Middle East only underlines London's status as a "safe haven" for capital.

The market itself, meanwhile, remains extremely subdued: transaction volumes are down by around 40%. Yet, paradoxically, the biggest deals are still going through. As we wrote earlier, this month the most expensive house in UK history was sold. And in one of our beloved developments overlooking Hyde Park — where we ourselves have sold quite a few flats — the most expensive London penthouse of the past ten years was sold. Incidentally, several very interesting apartments and a sub-penthouse are still available there — do get in touch if you're interested.

But today we want to talk about something else — gazumping. Even in a market this sluggish, with noticeably fewer deals around, buyers keep regularly outbidding each other on deals that have already been agreed. It has been the bugbear of London for years. (Scotland, by the way, has a different — and far stricter — law on this.) Buyers work on a deal for months, agree the price, move towards exchange of contracts — and then, a few weeks or even days before exchange, someone appears with a higher offer, and all that effort, and sometimes money too, goes, as they say, straight down the drain.

The friction this creates is enormous. Clients, understandably, sometimes suspect that "the agent made it all up to push the price higher." Our clients, fortunately, know it is most certainly not us. We state with full responsibility: we have never done this and never will, because we know such "tricks" always come back like a boomerang — and our reputation is worth more to us than anything money can buy. However, we have been victims of gazumping on numerous occasions. This year alone we've had three such situations: twice we were gazumped, and the third time we were "almost gazumped" — our client was already in a deal when another investor appeared and decided to buy the entire development outright. We managed to close the deal literally a day before.

And now the government has finally woken up. The other day the Financial Times published an article about a major reform of the home buying and selling process. In essence: sellers will be required, even before listing, to prepare so-called "sales packs" — containing information on the property's condition, local authority search results, leasehold costs and its status in the chain. Most importantly, legally binding agreements will come into force at an earlier stage. If a seller accepts a higher offer from another buyer (that very "gazumping"), or a buyer demands a last-minute discount ("gazundering") — the offender will face a financial penalty. According to government data, roughly one in three transactions today collapses before completion, and the process takes around 170 days on average across Britain — in London it takes even longer. We wholeheartedly welcome this reform.

And now — a story we want to share as a vivid demonstration. All the more so because today marks exactly one year since this property came to market: a stunning penthouse on the Strand.

One of our long-standing, much-loved clients, with whom we have built a relationship over many years, viewed a huge number of apartments and chose this one. The owner had bought it around ten years ago for almost £15 million. The flat carried a mortgage of just under £9 million, plus a mezzanine loan, plus more than £100,000 in unpaid service charge arrears. The owner had plenty of financial difficulties and urgently needed to cover his obligations — in other words, he was prepared to walk away at a loss relative to the purchase price.

The property came to market on 9 July 2025 at £12 million. In the autumn, someone offered £9.25 million — the owner declined. Early in the new year, we and our client entered the negotiations. By that point the owner already had an offer of £9.75 million, which he was seriously considering. We offered £10 million, persuaded the selling agent and the owner that it was the right price, and our offer was accepted. We began moving swiftly towards the exchange of contracts. Our client did everything to honour his promise of a fast deal — even instructing his bank to transfer the entire purchase amount (not just the 10%) to his solicitor's account well ahead of exchange.

And during this period, another agent (which is normal — a vendor may have several agents acting for them) — one of the big corporate agencies with a global name, well known in the market for its aggressive style of doing business (we won't name names, but if you're curious, do ask us — we'll be delighted to tell you) — came galloping in on a white horse with a new offer: £10.5 million.

From the very same party that had previously offered £9.75 million.

And this despite the fact that we had already shaken hands, agreed that the property would be taken off the market, received assurances of exclusivity — and our client had started spending money on lawyers and surveyors. The owner said: "If you can match it — excellent. If not, I'm going with the new party."

We tried everything to persuade the owner: "They will chip you on the price before completion. They may not perform. It will all fall apart. Do not do this. We are serious buyers, cash, a couple of weeks from exchange — you'll have all your money, and you know us as agents." The owner wouldn't listen. Greed won, and the owner went with the other party.

Our client — a highly experienced property player — refused to play these silly games and bought another property instead, though it certainly left a sour taste.

And then today, exactly one year after the property came to market, we learned (drum roll… Ta-daaaa!) — the deal has collapsed. Literally the day before the exchange of contracts, the new party declared: "Knock a million off the price, or there's no deal." Exactly what we had warned about. Exactly what we, our client, and everyone around had been saying: "This will end in tears."

And it ended exactly as we predicted — in tears. And yes, the tearful owner said: "I should have listened to you." But there is nothing worse than "I should have listened to you" when everyone has lost.

Judge for yourself. The bank will now repossess the flat — the owner gets zero, and will likely be left with debts on top. With us, he could have walked away with a few hundred thousand: yes, crystallising a loss against the £15 million purchase, but possibly with half a million in his pocket. The agents from that "big" agency on the white horse, who brought the other buyer — zero. The agent we were dealing with — zero. Us — zero. Our client didn't get the flat — bought another one, but not this one. A classic lose-lose: nobody won.

All of this could have been avoided if the law were different — as it is in Scotland and virtually everywhere else in the world: once you make an offer, it's binding; once you've shaken hands — that's it, nobody can gazump you. That is exactly why we welcome the forthcoming reform so warmly.

Gazumping happens all the time — as the press shows, we're talking one third of deals. So please remember: next time you hear a story like this, bear in mind that it is by no means always "the agents making things up." More often, it's the owners' greed. And greed, as a rule, doesn't pay. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.