For many thatched homeowners, the shock does not come from fire risk, it comes from valuation. A cottage bought for £500,000 can carry a £1 million rebuild cost once listing requirements, conservation officers approval and specialist labour and materials are factored in. That disconnect, more than roof construction alone, is where pressure in the market is building.
Matthew Betts (pictured), head of personal underwriting, household schemes at County Insurance Services Ltd., believes underinsurance sits at the heart of recent strain in the class.
“It is not actually that thatched homeowners have been targeted,” he said. “It is that they have potentially not had the correct levels of cover in the past.”
Betts brings perspective from both sides of the market. After 23 years at a large insurer setting underwriting rules for thatched schemes, he moved into the specialist broker space, where he now leads County’s thatch and non-standard propositions for direct clients and agents.
The defining issue, he said, is not how often claims happen, but how large they are when they do. “It is the size and scale of the loss,” he said. “If there is a fire that does occur, then the thatch roof means that there is a much greater chance of there being a total loss.”
While fire claims on standard homes may average £30,000 to £40,000, losses on thatched properties can reach into the hundreds of thousands. Around 80% of thatched homes are listed buildings, introducing further cost through specialist labour, heritage materials and council consents.
That severity profile places thatch firmly outside mass-market pricing models. Most insurers will not write it within a standard household product, and such properties rarely appear on aggregator platforms. In practice, they are already treated as a distinct risk class.
Where the market has tightened is on sums insured. “The biggest one being market value and the rebuild cost,” Betts said. “A lot of customers think those are related… or they do not realise there is nothing in relation between them at all.”
Underinsurance has been present in thatched and listed properties for years. But inflation has accelerated the problem. Labour and material costs have surged due to price inflation, influenced by Brexit, the war in Ukraine and Covid-related disruption.
Reed supply, historically sourced heavily from Eastern Europe, has shifted. Imports have become more complex and more expensive. Re-thatching costs have climbed accordingly. Roof lifespans vary between 25 and 50–60 years depending on material, with ridges typically replaced every 15 years and inspections recommended every five.
“If it was a £300,000 property and you are underinsured by 20%, you are talking £60,000,” Betts said. “But when values are jumping up more and more… it just snowballs.”
When formal rebuild assessments are commissioned, the results can be stark. Some valuations return figures two, three or even four times higher than a homeowner’s original estimate. That inevitably drives premiums higher, and forces difficult conversations.
Because thatched risks are generally manually underwritten, brokers have greater visibility, and responsibility, at placement. Online sale histories, imagery and listing status can all flag whether a declared sum insured is realistic before a formal valuation is required.
The friction point comes when rebuild value overtakes market value by a wide margin. For clients, it can feel counterintuitive. For underwriters, it is non-negotiable.
“That is the most important thing - making sure they have the right level of cover,” Betts said. “And then, based on that, they are having to pay the price based on that sum insured.”
Risk management discussions form part of that reset. Conversations around chimney use, alternative heating, voluntary excess levels, electrical checks and chimney sweeps are no longer peripheral. Where built into policy conditions, they actively shape the risk rather than simply price it.
Insurers committed to the class typically assess performance over a five- to ten-year horizon, recognising volatility without reacting to isolated fire claims. That long-term view underpins sustainable capacity – but only when exposure is accurately measured.
The pressure currently visible in parts of the heritage homes segment is less about withdrawal and more about recalibration. Thatched homes remain insurable. What is disappearing is tolerance for imprecise sums insured and passive underwriting.
In a high-severity class where rebuild inflation continues to bite, valuation discipline is not a compliance exercise; it is the difference between a viable risk and an unplaceable one.
