New data showing that nearly half of UK homeowners have not insured their most valued possession has been published by Uswitch - a price comparison platform that competes directly with insurance brokers for home insurance customers. The findings are worth examining, but so is where they come from.
Uswitch found that 48% of survey respondents had not insured the item they considered their most prized possession, and that a further 24% did not know its current value. The publication did not disclose the sample size or recruitment methodology. That omission matters: a survey drawn from people already browsing a price comparison site is likely to over-represent consumers who are disengaged from their existing cover and under-represent those in an advised broker relationship who have already had these conversations.
With that caveat noted, the underlying problem the data points to is real and independently corroborated - and it raises a question that goes directly to the value of advice in a market where comparison sites encourage customers to focus almost entirely on price.
The standard home insurance journey on a price comparison site asks about property type, security features, excess preference and approximate contents value. It may not, however, ask what the single most valuable item in the home is. It may not make it clear that the customer should consider whether their engagement ring, vintage watch, musical instrument or artwork requires separate listing. The customer who completes that journey in four minutes and pays £191 for a combined buildings and contents policy - the current average, according to Uswitch's own price index - may well have left their most valuable possession entirely uninsured without knowing it.
Most standard contents policies in 2026 cap individual items at between £1,000 and £2,000. High-value or listed item cover requires a separate conversation and, in most cases, a separate endorsement or policy. Price comparison sites surface neither. The Uswitch data itself acknowledges this in its own consumer guidance: "Check your single item limit. Most contents policies only cover individual items up to a certain value. If you have an expensive engagement ring or a high-end bike, you'll need to list these separately." That advice sits on Uswitch's own website. It does not appear in the purchase journey.
The 30% of respondents aged 18 to 24 who were unaware that standard policies do not typically cover high-value items above a single-item limit are not ignorant - they are uninformed, and the channel through which many of them purchased their cover did not inform them.
The Uswitch sample is one data point. The independent evidence base is considerably stronger. Research cited alongside a recent specialist MGA launch found that 76% of UK households may be underinsured. Data from RebuildCostASSESSMENT.com found that 71% of brokers reported claims reduced due to underinsurance in 2025. The average property claim in the first quarter of 2026 was £6,340, up 20% year-on-year, according to the ABI. Claims that run into underinsurance at that value create real financial damage for policyholders who believed they were covered.
The sentimental value dimension also matters commercially. Among respondents aged 55 to 64, 57% said their most valued item was uninsured because its worth was purely sentimental. That reasoning does not hold at claim stage. A Georgian writing desk or a grandfather's watch may have low market value and high emotional value, but an heirloom piece of jewellery or a vintage instrument may have both - and the policyholder who has never been asked the question will not know which applies until it is too late.
Underinsurance has moved from a technical concern to a conduct issue. Accurate valuation and clear communication of policy limits are now central to evidencing good outcomes under FCA Consumer Duty. The broker who can demonstrate they asked about high-value items, communicated the single-item limit clearly, and documented the client's decision - whether to list the item separately or accept the risk - is in a materially different regulatory position than a comparison site that processed the same customer in four minutes and presented only price.
That distinction is not only a compliance argument. It is a client retention argument. A client who discovers at claim stage that their most valued possession was uninsured because nobody asked them about it will not renew through the same channel. The broker who had that conversation at inception - and documented it - has both protected the client and demonstrated the value of advice that a comparison site cannot replicate.
It is worth being clear about what a Uswitch survey actually captures. The platform's commercial model depends on convincing homeowners that they may be inadequately covered and should therefore shop around. A finding that nearly half of respondents have an uninsured prized possession serves that commercial purpose whether or not it accurately reflects the broader UK homeowning population. That is not a reason to dismiss the data - the independent evidence base is consistent with a genuine underinsurance problem - but it is a reason to read it alongside sources that have no stake in the conclusion.
The more useful framing for brokers is not whether 48% is the right number. It is whether any of their existing clients, reviewed on renewal this year, were asked what their most valuable possession is and whether it is listed. The answer to that question is the one that matters for Consumer Duty, for claims outcomes, and for the demonstrable value of the advice relationship that comparison sites cannot provide.
