There is a practice in estate agency that is so commonplace it has almost become accepted. An agent arrives at an appraisal, reads the room, and tells the seller what they want to hear. A figure that feels ambitious, exciting, and just plausible enough not to be questioned. The instruction is won. The board goes up. The market delivers its verdict.
That verdict, more often than not, is silence.
Writes
Gordon McGuire
“The seller, who trusted the advice they were given, pays the price. Not the agent.”
“The seller, who trusted the advice they were given, pays the price. Not the agent.”
This is not a fringe problem. It is structural, it is widespread, and the data emerging from the UK property market in 2026 makes it increasingly difficult to ignore. According to figures from Property Wire, nearly half, 47%, of homes that left estate agents’ books in March were withdrawn unsold, with analysts attributing this directly to overvaluation, often supported by extended sole agency agreements of 20 weeks or more. Price reductions affected 13.2% of residential homes for sale in the same month, above the six-year average of 10.7%. Across the market as a whole, one in three properties currently listed has already had its price reduced.
These are not the numbers of a market in crisis. They are the numbers of a market being routinely mis-priced by agents whose priority is winning the instruction, not delivering the result.
The gap between promise and reality
The mechanics of this are straightforward, even if the consequences are not. An inflated valuation secures the listing. The property launches at a figure the market does not support. Viewings are limited, offers do not materialise, and weeks pass. Eventually, the price comes down, often to where it should have been positioned from the outset. By that point, momentum has gone, days on market have accumulated, and the property carries the invisible stigma of a home that did not sell first time.
The seller, who trusted the advice they were given, pays the price. Not the agent.
It is worth being direct about what this practice actually is. It is not optimism. It is not ambition. It is an agent prioritising their own pipeline over their client’s outcome. And in a market where buyers are sophisticated, well-informed, and acutely aware of value, it is a strategy that fails with remarkable consistency.
“Sellers in this market have every right to be ambitious.”
“Sellers in this market have every right to be ambitious.”
What the Scottish market tells us
The listing-to-agreed price gap that has emerged in parts of the UK market does not reflect the reality of what is happening across Greater Glasgow and the West of Scotland. This is a market with genuine, sustained demand. Buyer appetite at the top end remains exceptional. The conditions exist to deliver strong, and in many cases record, results – but only when the strategy is right.
This spring, Corum listed 241 homes at £300,000 or above, more than any other agent across the West of Scotland. Of those, 92% went under offer – also the highest rate of any agent in the market. At the premium end, the picture is even more instructive. In Glasgow alone this Spring, we listed 63 homes at £500,000 or above, with 50 going Under Offer so far – giving us a market-leading percentage of 79.4%. A further 29 homes have exchanged in the same period with just one of those failing to proceed. A fall-through rate of less than 2%.
Our closest competitor? Their fall-through rate at the same price point sits at a staggering 15%.
That is not a marginal difference. It is the difference between a pricing strategy and a fantasy. Between honest advice and false hope. Between an agent who wins the instruction and one who delivers the result.
Ambition is not the problem
It is important to be clear about what this piece is not arguing. Sellers in this market have every right to be ambitious. The demand is real, the competition among buyers is fierce, and well-positioned homes are achieving figures that would have seemed remarkable even two or three years ago. Ambition, grounded in an honest assessment of the market, is entirely appropriate.
Recklessness is something else entirely.
The agent who inflates a valuation to secure an instruction is not being ambitious on a client’s behalf. They are being reckless with someone else’s asset, someone else’s timeline, and someone else’s outcome. That is a meaningful distinction, and sellers deserve to understand it before they sign anything.
A good appraisal is not a competition to produce the highest number. It is a forensic, honest assessment of what a home can achieve, the strategy required to get there, and the realistic timeframe within which that outcome is possible. It is the beginning of a process, not the end of one.
“Creating false hope is not a service. It is a disservice dressed up as ambition.”
“Creating false hope is not a service. It is a disservice dressed up as ambition.”
Sellers who have been given an inflated figure and are now watching their home sit unsold will recognise the pattern. The initial confidence. The quiet concern as weeks pass. The conversation about a price reduction that feels, somehow, like a failure, when in reality the failure happened at the appraisal, long before the board went up.
The market did not let them down. The advice did.
In a market as strong as this one, that should not be happening. The buyers are there. The demand is real. The outcomes are achievable. But they require an agent who is prepared to have the harder conversation at the beginning, rather than the easier one that leads nowhere.
Creating false hope is not a service. It is a disservice dressed up as ambition. And in the cold light of a stale listing, the difference is impossible to ignore.