London listings at 66 days: are completed sales telling a different story?

[jade_details]

I’ve been checking London properties between £586,600 and £879,800. The country homes in my sample appear to take roughly 66 days to find a buyer, with many of the outliers seemingly connected to property tax issues or concerns.

I’m unsure how much confidence to place in that figure because it comes mainly from listings still visible online. Would recent completed sales, new-listing volume and withdrawn stock give a different picture? Planning applications may also be affecting how buyers compare otherwise similar homes.

The London-wide average is no help for the two neighbourhoods we actually like. How would you narrow this down?

 

[clear_wall]

The 66-day figure is probably biased upward if it mainly captures homes still advertised: the attractive or correctly priced ones disappear first. Completed deals are useful, but they reflect decisions made earlier, so compare them with listings from the same period rather than today’s asking prices.

Within each neighbourhood, separate by condition and property style. A renovated home and one needing major work are not really competing on equal terms.

 

[clear_wall]

One missing detail: what counts as “find a buyer” in your sample—marked under offer, removed from the market, or actually completed? Those dates can be far apart.

I’d also record the first asking price, date of any cut and final visible price. A home sitting for 66 days before a reduction tells a different story from one reduced after two weeks and agreed soon afterwards.

 

[path.slow]

I’d be cautious about attributing the outliers mostly to property tax. That may be the stated or obvious difference, but seller motivation, poor condition, an awkward neighbourhood boundary or unresolved expectations around a planning application could explain the same long marketing period.

How tightly have you drawn the two areas? Even crossing one main road or moving farther from transport can make a small sample look inconsistent.

 

[gardensAndMoss]

Completed prices alone will not show failed chains or withdrawn homes, so I would keep all three groups: completed, still listed and withdrawn. Then note condition, original price, reductions and whether the seller appears to have relisted.

Buyer financing matters too. A property can attract interest quickly yet remain advertised because the buyer’s position is uncertain. That is another reason not to treat days online as a clean measure of demand.

 

[ravi.miles]

You have already identified completed, active and withdrawn properties as separate groups; what remains unclear is whether the two neighbourhood samples use consistent boundaries. I agree that 66 days is useful, but only as a feature of this selection rather than a rule for London.

I would combine the earlier suggestions in one comparison sheet for each area. Record the initial listing date and price, reductions, present status, condition, relevant planning issues, buyer-financing delays where known, and the completed price if a sale eventually registers. Keep track of fresh listing volume as well, since a low figure can make a handful of stale properties look more representative than they are.

Once obvious boundary mismatches are removed, the sheet should show whether marketing time reflects demand or merely a few sellers, relistings and failed transactions. If very few genuine comparables survive, I would rely less on the average rather than widen the area until the number looks persuasive.