£2m-plus homes face slower sales and bigger asking-price gaps

What happened

£2m-plus homes were substantially less likely to sell than lower-priced properties in the third quarter of 2026, according to TwentyCi. Its Property & Homemover Report found that 25% of homes above that threshold which reached an outcome sold, compared with 53.1% of properties priced below £2m.

That qualification matters when reading the figures: the comparison concerns properties reaching an outcome during the quarter, rather than every home advertised for sale. It should not be read as a claim that three-quarters of all £2m-plus listings failed to sell during those three months. The reported findings do not provide a fuller definition of an outcome.

TwentyCi also reported a median selling time of 86 days for homes above £2m, against 41 days for those below the threshold. That makes the higher-priced group’s median 45 days longer, or more than double the lower-priced group’s. A median marks the middle of the recorded selling times, rather than a deadline that applies to each property.

Among £2m-plus properties that sold, the achieved price averaged 90.5% of the original asking price, according to TwentyCi. The equivalent figure below £2m was 96.3%, indicating a smaller gap between the initial advertised price and the eventual sale price. However, the higher-value figure came from only 27 completions during the quarter.

Flats showed a separate weakness in the report, with TwentyCi putting their national likelihood of selling in 2026 at 41.2%. The figure was lower in London: 27.2% for inner-London flats and 30.7% for those in outer London. These are findings about property type and location, distinct from the comparison between homes above and below £2m.

The background

TwentyCi’s figures show that flats’ national sale prospects have weakened over several years, rather than only in the latest quarter. The reported likelihood of selling was 54.2% in 2022 and 44.2% in 2025. The 2026 figure is therefore 13 percentage points below the 2022 level and three percentage points below last year’s.

The report draws on what TwentyCi describes as factual property-change data covering 99.6% of sale and rental property transactions. That broad coverage is different from the number of observations supporting any individual finding. In particular, it does not remove the limitations of the 27-completion sample used for the high-value asking-price comparison.

An asking price is the seller’s advertised starting point, not an independent measure of a property’s value. Receiving less than that amount does not, by itself, establish that the home has fallen in value since a previous sale. The 90.5% figure measures the relationship between initial asking prices and achieved prices within the reported sample.

The report’s focus on selling outcomes also differs from measures of what households can afford to buy. Property Pulse UK’s coverage of family-home affordability and mortgage-rate constraints examines that separate part of the market. A property’s affordability to a particular household and its likelihood of finding a buyer are related questions, but they are not interchangeable measures.

For flat owners considering letting rather than selling, rental conditions are another separate consideration. The pressures described in rental affordability and supply outside London cannot establish the achievable rent or demand for an individual London flat. TwentyCi’s sales figures do not provide a comparison of the financial outcome from selling versus letting.

Read moreRightmove asking prices: cheaper regions fall as mortgage costs bite

What people are saying

Colin Bradshaw, TwentyCi’s chief executive, said national transaction totals and average prices were insufficient to explain how the housing market operates. His assessment emphasised differences between individual properties and local markets. The report’s message is therefore about variation within the market, rather than a single sale prospect applying to all UK homes.

Bradshaw highlighted the difficulties facing flats and the longer selling periods recorded at the expensive end of the market. Those are two different patterns within the research: one concerns whether a sale is likely, while the other also concerns the time needed to achieve it. Neither measure alone gives a complete account of a seller’s position.

For mortgage lenders, Bradshaw argued that the characteristics of the property and its surrounding market matter when assessing security. He described valuations as an important reference point, with information on supply, demand and selling times providing additional context. His comments concerned the risk associated with the property, rather than a new mortgage eligibility rule.

TwentyCi was more cautious about drawing conclusions from the achieved-price figures for expensive homes. It said the results from 27 completions should be treated as preliminary evidence, not a settled finding for the whole high-value market. That warning limits how confidently buyers or sellers can apply the 90.5% figure to another property.

Separate research from estate agency Yopa, reported in the same week, examined a hypothetical reduction in the government’s mansion-tax threshold from £2m to £1.5m. Yopa said almost one in 10 London homes currently advertised for sale would have fallen within scope under that lower threshold. This was a conditional calculation, not evidence that the threshold had changed or an explanation for TwentyCi’s sales results.

What happens next

For sellers above £2m, TwentyCi’s timing figures provide a reason to test an agent’s proposed timetable against recent local evidence. The 86-day median is a reference point, not a promise that a sale will happen within that period. Asking about comparable homes that sold, alongside those still advertised, can help put a marketing plan in context.

Flat owners have a different question to explore: whether their building and neighbourhood reflect the wider pattern reported by TwentyCi. The inner- and outer-London percentages describe broad groups, not the probability attached to a named flat. The published findings do not establish which property features account for the differences or predict when those figures might improve.

Buyers considering an offer on an expensive home should not treat the reported asking-price gap as an automatic discount. An offer still needs to reflect the particular property, comparable sales and the buyer’s budget. TwentyCi’s small high-value completion sample gives especially limited support for applying one percentage reduction across unrelated listings.

Mortgage arrangements remain a separate part of that budget assessment. The report does not announce changes to lenders’ affordability tests or borrowing limits; those issues are addressed separately in coverage of changes to lender-level high-LTI mortgage limits. Bradshaw’s comments instead concern how lenders understand the property supporting a loan.

A larger set of completed high-value sales would help establish whether the asking-price pattern persists, in line with TwentyCi’s caution about the current sample. Further comparable figures would also show whether flats’ likelihood of selling continues to decline. The reported findings offer neither a date for a recovery nor a forecast of future house-price changes.

Why this matters

TwentyCi’s findings give sellers a reason to look beyond national price headlines when choosing an asking price and planning a move. Buyers also need to distinguish evidence of slower sales from proof that a particular home warrants a discount. For owners of expensive homes and London flats, the practical issue is how closely local comparable properties match the report’s patterns. The small sample behind the high-value price figures makes that local check especially important.