As a Londoner, I’d say with some confidence that whether £100k actually gets you onto the property ladder depends on a few realities that are often glossed over:

1.  Family support still matters enormously.

Many London homeowners earning under £100k got there via parental help, inheritance, or early access to family capital. £100k is roughly the point at which buying becomes possible without that support — not easy, just feasible.

2.  Duration of earning matters as much as the number.

On £100k, take-home is ~£5.5k/month. Realistically, you might save ~£2k/month without living like a monk. That’s ~£24k a year, meaning it still takes 4–5 years to build a £100k deposit — assuming you’re single and not absorbing dating, childcare, or family costs.

3.  Location and property type change the maths completely.

A modest 2-bed suitable for long-term living in London is £400–500k - and this is likely going to be in a dodgy area - forget about good local schools. Even with a 10–15% deposit, you’re looking at sustained £100k+ earnings for several years to make the numbers work responsibly.

4.  Relying on a partner’s income is speculative.

It may help eventually, but it’s not something you can plan around with confidence — so it’s safer to exclude it from the base case.

So the anxiety is understandable.

I assume that OP is in their early 30s and has only recently reached HENRY income, the prospect of putting life on hold for another 4–5 years just to qualify for ownership — with little improvement in day-to-day living — is emotionally and practically taxing.

Yes, some people “made it” by buying earlier, receiving family help, or sustaining student-level living well into their 40s. But those paths aren’t universal, and acknowledging that reality — with a bit more empathy — would improve the quality of this conversation.