Original LockScout investigation · London 2026
The London locksmith search lottery
We changed the wording of an urgent local search. In most comparable London areas, the “near me” version returned an entirely different top five.
Five search phrasings · all 32 London boroughs and the City of London · captured 30 August 2026
[borough]
near me
comparable areas shared none of the same top-five listings
- Controlled searches
- 165
- Results captured
- 792
- Unique listings
- 338
- Market identities
- 845
825 result slots were requested. Nine query-area cells returned fewer than five results, leaving 792 captured appearances.
The controlled comparison
Five ways to ask. Five changing shortlists.
For each authority, the same borough-level location was supplied while only the search phrase changed. Select a phrase below to see what its result set looked like across London.
locksmith [borough]
of captured appearances were based in the authority searched
- Unique listings
- 152
- Top-five appearances
- 159
How much did each pair of searches share?
Median shared listings out of five- locksmith [borough]↔emergency locksmith [borough]3median shared results0 zero-overlap areas
- locksmith [borough]↔24 hour locksmith [borough]3median shared results2 zero-overlap areas
- locksmith [borough]↔locked out [borough]2.5median shared results3 zero-overlap areas
- locksmith [borough]↔locksmith near me0median shared results18 zero-overlap areas
- emergency locksmith [borough]↔24 hour locksmith [borough]3median shared results1 zero-overlap areas
- emergency locksmith [borough]↔locked out [borough]3median shared results3 zero-overlap areas
- emergency locksmith [borough]↔locksmith near me0median shared results18 zero-overlap areas
- 24 hour locksmith [borough]↔locked out [borough]2median shared results6 zero-overlap areas
- 24 hour locksmith [borough]↔locksmith near me0median shared results19 zero-overlap areas
- locked out [borough]↔locksmith near me0median shared results20 zero-overlap areas
Explore all 33 authorities
Where the shortlist changed most
Every dot is one London authority. Move right for more distinct listings across the five searches; move up for a higher share of appearances based in that authority. Choose an area to see the exact result.
Named-borough searches had 61.0% of appearances based in the authority searched. “Near me” had 27.7%. It also carried published-price evidence on 21 of 151 resolved appearances, compared with 32 of 152 for the generic named-borough query.
See all 33 London authorities Query variation—not a quality league table
| Authority | Distinct listings across five searches | In all five | Generic vs near me shared top five | Locally based appearances |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richmond upon Thames | 19 | 0 | None | 40.0% |
| Westminster | 19 | 0 | None | 48.0% |
| Camden | 17 | 0 | None | 48.0% |
| Redbridge | 17 | 0 | None | 40.0% |
| Havering | 16 | 0 | None | 16.0% |
| Kingston upon Thames | 16 | 0 | None | 60.0% |
| Ealing | 15 | 0 | None | 24.0% |
| Greenwich | 15 | 0 | None | 36.0% |
| Harrow | 15 | 0 | None | 32.0% |
| Lambeth | 15 | 0 | None | 48.0% |
| Barking and Dagenham | 14 | 0 | None | 57.1% |
| Barnet | 14 | 0 | None | 68.0% |
| City of London | 14 | 0 | None | 0.0% |
| Hackney | 14 | 0 | None | 21.7% |
| Hillingdon | 14 | 0 | None | 48.0% |
| Croydon | 13 | 0 | None | 32.0% |
| Hounslow | 13 | 0 | None | 23.8% |
| Bromley | 12 | 0 | None | 44.0% |
| Brent | 16 | 0 | 1 | 38.1% |
| Haringey | 15 | 1 | 2 | 20.0% |
| Sutton | 13 | 0 | Not comparable | 30.0% |
| Islington | 12 | 1 | 2 | 56.0% |
| Hammersmith and Fulham | 11 | 0 | 1 | 76.2% |
| Merton | 11 | 0 | 4 | 52.0% |
| Newham | 11 | 0 | 3 | 40.0% |
| Southwark | 11 | 0 | Not comparable | 35.0% |
| Tower Hamlets | 11 | 2 | 3 | 88.0% |
| Enfield | 10 | 2 | 2 | 88.0% |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 10 | 1 | 2 | 36.0% |
| Waltham Forest | 10 | 2 | 3 | 88.0% |
| Lewisham | 9 | 2 | 4 | 60.0% |
| Wandsworth | 9 | 2 | 3 | 76.0% |
| Bexley | 7 | 0 | Not comparable | 40.0% |
Beyond the search results
Google surfaced 265 identities from a market of 845
Our London corpus contains 923 eligible provider records resolved to 845 commercial identities. The controlled experiment surfaced 265 of those identities in a top-five position at least once. The top ten identities took 16.5% of resolved appearances; four identities appeared in ten or more authorities.
Branches, repeated listings and trading labels were resolved before identities were counted.
Information found across the full London market
n=845 identitiesWhat 2026 reviews add
When almost everything is five-star, the stars stop helping
We deduplicated 6,256 London locksmith reviews dated in 2026. The distribution below shows why the text, recency and response behaviour provide more useful comparison signals than the headline rating alone.
Rating distribution across 6,256 reviews
1 January–30 August 2026Who received an owner response?
Arrival times mentioned in reviews
The middle half of 265 usable reports fell between 15 and 30 minutes. Past reports are not arrival guarantees.
Only 2 exact long-text duplicate groups crossed commercial identities. That screen does not establish manipulation and is not used to label a business.
One more comparison problem
“24/7” was not one consistent signal
Website wording and all-week 24-hour listing hours often differed. This does not prove a business was unavailable: emergency lines can differ from shop hours, and listings can become stale. The practical answer is to ask for a live arrival estimate.
- Both signals133
- Wording only214
- Listing hours only153
- Neither found345
Use the data
Charts ready for articles and social posts
These graphics reproduce the report’s aggregate findings. Download the SVG for publication-quality output or use the underlying CSV files to make your own chart.
The practical answer
One search is a sample—not the whole local market.
- Change the wording onceCompare a named-area search with the job you actually need.
- Compare real identitiesBranches or multiple listings may belong to the same business.
- Check base and coverageA mobile business can serve you without being based in your borough.
- Confirm live detailsAsk for arrival time and the complete amount before dispatch.
Method and limits
A reproducible snapshot—not a permanent ranking
The searches used a third-party search-results API rather than a logged-in browser. Each of the five phrases for an authority received the same requested borough-level location string, UK country setting and English language setting. The first five Places results were compared using stable listing identifiers.
Exact search design
Five phrasings
- locksmith [borough]
- emergency locksmith [borough]
- 24 hour locksmith [borough]
- locked out [borough]
- locksmith near me, localised to the authority
What was compared
- First five Places results
- Shared stable listing identifiers
- Provider base relative to the authority
- Visible pricing, quote, identity and 24/7 evidence
Joined evidence
- 923 London provider records
- 845 commercial identities
- 6,256 deduplicated 2026 reviews
- Acquired first-party pages where available
Why 792 appearances—not 825
Requested depth
Thirty-three authorities multiplied by five phrases and five positions gives 825 possible appearances.
Returned depth
Nine query-area cells returned fewer than five raw Places results: three returned none, four returned one and two returned four.
Comparison denominator
Generic versus near-me overlap was therefore comparable in 30 authorities. Bexley, Southwark and Sutton lacked one of those two result sets.
What the findings do not mean
Not a quality ranking
Different or non-local results are not evidence that a business is unsuitable. Mobile locksmiths routinely serve beyond their base.
Not a daily average
All 330 API tasks were captured on 30 August 2026 within one short collection window. Results can vary by time, device, precise coordinates and personalisation.
Not a pixel-identical Local Pack
The study compares API-returned Places results. It does not reproduce every element, advertisement or treatment a person might see in Google Maps or Search.
Percentages by query family are appearance-weighted: a business shown in several authorities counts each time because the unit is what a searcher encountered. “Based in” is not the same as “serves”. Missing website information means “not found in acquired evidence”, not “the business does not have it”.