Working with the Big Window and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, we recently completed in-depth research on the barriers and needs of social renters regarding contents insurance.

Our customer hypothesis testing comprised of interviews with social housing tenants, and workshops testing our hypotheses of what would need to be true for these tenants for a pilot to be successful.  

A clear theme coming through from participants was in the juxtaposition of product specific protection products like gadget insurance or extended warranty, and contents insurance.

Gadget insurance was associated with specialist expertise, a streamlined process, speedy results and tangible outcomes – a ‘does what it says on the tin’ approach. On contents insurance however, participants found it hard to quantify the value of the insurance. They found it unclear what was covered and were sceptical about how long claims would take to be paid, or if they would be at all.

Participants saw the value in maintenance and support, while a fire or flood felt unlikely.

Overcoming the barriers

As well as appropriate, attractive insurance that is designed for social hosing tenants, improving take up requires increasing awareness of suitable products and their value, along with reducing the inertia and friction in the process which puts many people off in the first place. This has also been recognised in the Government’s recent Financial Inclusion Strategy.

To support with increasing awareness and overcoming inertia, our participants welcomed the idea of having a key person ‘on the ground’ providing information and ongoing support.

For understanding the relevance and value of contents insurance, it felt important for tenants to see case studies of those who had experienced claims events and been supported by their insurance, along with statistics on the percentage of claims paid out on average.

An overarching idea that proved popular with attendees was the inclusion of home contents insurance cover within a tenancy agreement. Even against a backdrop of scepticism and uncertainty, the inclusion of the insurance within a tenancy agreement was seen as preferable to having no cover.