Property transactions are notorious for triggering long periods of concern and anxiety, in both buyers and sellers. Transactional progress requires each party to move at the same protracted pace as the UK’s frustratingly slow, chain-dependent process which, in turn, also insists that all of those involved display an immediate and clear understanding of occasionally complex legalese. Accordingly, timeframes are unpredictable and to top everything, there is a strong undercurrent of potentially significant financial risk, enough to put most people on edge.
Many folks maintain that the anxiety associated with a property transaction is not dissimilar to going through a divorce, with worry compounded by the fear of a chain collapsing, or the scale of fees, including stamp duty, Land Registry fees and a host of other expenses, each of which have a nasty habit of accumulating rather too rapidly.
In a flat, lifeless market similar to the one we’re currently experiencing (May 2026), there’s one additional feature we’re likely to hear about more frequently than normal: gazundering.
Though it’s been around for some time, gazundering remains a particularly nasty aspect of the property market. Finding oneself on the receiving end of such practice tends to leave a horrible taste.
The gazunderer is the property buyer who operates most effectively at the point where the seller is likely to suffer maximum possible disruption: both parties are likely to be on the cusp of exchanging sales contracts, removals will have been organised, mortgage offers been thoroughly checked and children enrolled at new schools when the buyer delivers his distressing news.
Although by this stage the parties have agreed upon the buyers’ original offer, he returns to revoke this offer and make a lower bid.
Actually, very few gazunderers make their revised bid in person, leaving their solicitors to do the dirty work, another reason, perhaps, why gazundering is considered completely unscrupulous. Yet while it is not illegal, its ‘last minute’ timing means it’s an unpleasant strategy designed to force the sellers into accepting the new, revised offer in order to avoid the transaction running aground.
Actually, very few gazunderers make their revised bid in person, leaving their solicitors to do the dirty work, another reason, perhaps, why gazundering is considered completely unscrupulous. Yet while it is not illegal, its ‘last minute’ timing means it’s an unpleasant strategy designed to force the sellers into accepting the new, revised offer in order to avoid the transaction running aground.
Property sellers on the receiving end of gazundering must, of course, decide whether they’re prepared to walk away from the sale or to grudgingly accept the lower offer. Where the unscrupulous are involved, however, accepting a lower offer when the sellers believed they were home and dry could result in the buyer attempting this ploy again, this time making an even lower bid, usually delivered with an unwritten threat of withdrawing from the transaction altogether.
I saw such an instance unfold around 12 months ago after a couple my wife and I have known for years announced that they were taking the plunge and moving to the south of France where they could take advantage of a perfect climate, warmth and a completely different way of life.
“If we don’t do it now, we’re not going to do it in our eighties,” declared Tom, 67, husband of Karen for more than 40 years.
The apartment they had set their hearts on was in the Fabron district of Nice, where most residential buildings overlook the azure-coloured Mediterranean; it’s an ideal vantage point from which to watch planes landing or taking off at Nice airport, France’s second busiest.
It transpired that to effect the move, the couple needed to achieve what could be described as a ‘full’ price for their UK home. Nonetheless, within two months they received an acceptable offer, one with which they were delighted; everything appeared to be going swimmingly when I received a call from Tom who told me that he and Karen had been gazundered. The would-be buyer had given no reason for making a reduced offer .
Attempting to negotiate, Tom highlighted the costs both parties had already incurred and explained to his would-be buyer that this unexpected last minute move risked the whole property chain’s integrity, impacting upon at least four other transactions. Frustratingly, the gazunderer didn’t budge.
At this juncture, it appeared that the only remaining option was to reluctantly accept the lower offer. Initially, Tom was prepared to take it just to get the deal over the line, but that, apparently, had financial implications for their French purchase. Without achieving the previously agreed asking price, their French dream would disappear. Ultimately, an extremely disappointed couple agreed to walk away and try to find a different way of living la bonne vie.
Ultimately, the apartment in Fabron proved a stretch too far, financially-speaking. However, Karen and Tom’s understandable frustration evaporated once they released equity from their existing home. This ensured the pair were able to use the fresh (tax-free) capital to buy a smaller apartment in Cagnes sur Mer, a town to the west of Nice, and keep their own home in the UK.
In practical terms, this is one way equity release can sometimes support a second-home purchase. Rather than selling the main residence, or accepting a reduced offer simply to keep another transaction alive, homeowners may be able to release tax-free funds from their existing property and use some, or all, of that money towards the purchase of another home.
This can be particularly useful where the intended purchase is lower in value than the main residence, or where the buyer wants to avoid the disruption of selling in a difficult or uncertain market. In Karen and Tom’s case, the original French apartment proved too expensive once their UK sale fell through, but equity release gave them the flexibility to rethink the plan rather than abandon it altogether.
The money released through a lifetime mortgage is not restricted to one particular purpose. Subject to lender criteria and professional advice, it can be used for a wide range of reasons, including home improvements, supplementing retirement income, helping family, or, as in this case, contributing towards the purchase of another property.
There are, of course, important considerations. A second-home purchase may involve additional costs, including legal fees, maintenance, insurance and, depending on the circumstances, additional property taxes. Releasing equity will also reduce the value of the estate and may affect entitlement to means-tested benefits. That is why equity release advice is so important: the question is not simply whether the money can be released, but whether doing so is suitable, affordable in the broader sense, and aligned with the homeowner’s long-term plans.
For some people, the ability to retain their main home while buying a smaller holiday property, retirement bolt-hole or family retreat can be hugely appealing. It may not be the conventional route, but in the right circumstances, equity release can provide a level of flexibility that a traditional property sale cannot.
Gazundering is virtually impossible to stop, but property sellers can often circumvent this unpleasant tactic by establishing a realistic selling price.
Alternatively, they can be selective with would-be buyers. Opting for one who is chain-free or part of a transaction with a relatively small chain could prove beneficial.
Moving rapidly, communicating with your estate agency and solicitor can also pay dividends as it lessens the chances of paperwork being overlooked, or even ‘misplaced’.
Karen and Tom’s experience also shows how equity release can deliver a satisfying result for some homeowners. “We’ve never owned two homes,” Tom explained to me over a beer recently. The couple head down to their pied-à-terre in the south of France as often as they can and plan to spend most of the forthcoming summer months exploring the area.
It’s great to finish with a happy ending, but equity release products are not a panacea. It requires careful thought, proper advice and a clear understanding of the long-term implications. Yet, on occasions such as this, it can work to the advantage of people who thought their second-home dream had collapsed — not by forcing them to sell, but by helping them make better use of the property wealth they already own.
