Property related claims and evidence submissions span a wide range of risk profiles
At one end are high volume, low value claims such as damaged household goods, broken televisions and accidental loss. At the other are complex, high value submissions linked to insurance losses, repairs and government funded domestic retrofit and energy efficiency programmes.
We partnered with Guardian AI to tackle fraud in Net Zero.
Images, documents and supporting records are relied upon to validate damage, confirm eligibility, release funding and approve works.
As these processes become increasingly digital, the assumption that submitted evidence is genuine becomes harder to maintain.
In small property claims, insurers, retailers and landlords often rely on customer or tenant submitted images to assess damage to household contents. A cracked television, damaged appliance or broken furnishing may be resolved quickly to avoid dispute and reduce handling costs. However, the ease of creating convincing but false damage imagery has increased. Images can be reused from previous incidents, subtly edited or synthetically generated to simulate loss that has not occurred.
Individually, these claims may appear insignificant. At scale, they represent substantial cost leakage and place pressure on claims teams to either tighten controls or absorb rising losses. Customer experience expectations further complicate this balance, as friction in small claims handling can lead to dissatisfaction and reputational harm.
The second use case presents a different but equally important risk profile. Domestic retrofit and energy efficiency grant schemes rely heavily on photographic and documentary evidence to demonstrate eligibility, compliance and completion. Images of installed measures, property conditions and supporting documentation are submitted to justify funding release and audit compliance.
As funding volumes increase and delivery is distributed across multiple contractors and supply chains, the integrity of this evidence becomes critical. Manipulated or reused images, misrepresented property conditions or altered documentation can lead to incorrect funding decisions, audit failures and reputational damage for programme administrators.
Humanly’s Property Claims and Grant Evidence service is designed to support both scenarios. It analyses submitted images and documents to identify indicators of editing, manipulation or AI generation, providing an additional layer of assurance before decisions are made.
For insurers and property managers handling small claims, this enables proportional fraud controls that focus attention on higher risk submissions without delaying legitimate claims. For grant administrators, local authorities and delivery partners, it supports confidence that evidence used to release public funds reflects real world work and conditions.
Humanly does not replace surveyors, assessors or existing compliance frameworks. It complements them by strengthening trust in the digital evidence that underpins those processes. By helping organisations verify what is real, it supports fair outcomes, protects public and private funds and reduces the operational burden associated with disputes and remediation.
As property related workflows continue to digitise, and as AI generated content becomes more accessible, verifying evidence authenticity will become an essential control. Humanly supports organisations managing both everyday property claims and complex grant funded programmes in adapting to this evolving risk landscape.
Key Features
Interested in discussing further? Chat with our enterprise team.