Key Points
- A new UK‑wide survey by Moneypenny finds that 83% of homebuyers and sellers would still rather deal with a human estate agent than an AI‑based system when booking a valuation or making an offer.
- Only 6% of respondents said they would prefer to use AI for these core transactional moments, highlighting deep scepticism about handing over decision‑making power to machines.
- Around 31% of people said they would be comfortable using AI for general property queries, while 28% would accept it to book a viewing and 18% to book a valuation, suggesting AI is tolerated more in low‑stakes, informational stages.
- Comfort levels drop sharply on higher‑risk tasks: just 17% would be happy using AI to chase updates on a sale, 16% for a purchase, and only 8% for making or accepting an offer.
- Nearly 40% of respondents said they would not be comfortable using AI at any stage of the property‑buying or selling process, underscoring a persistent “human‑first” mindset.
- Baby Boomers were the most resistant, with nine in ten preferring a person and 53% saying they would not use AI anywhere in the process, compared with 75% of Millennials and just 16% of Gen Z rejecting AI entirely.
- Women were more wary than men, with 47% saying they would not be comfortable using AI at any point versus about one‑third of men.
- Regional differences emerged, with Scotland, Northern Ireland and the East of England showing the strongest preference for human interaction at 87%, compared with 79% in London and Wales.
- Separate research from Cotality suggests that although around three‑quarters of UK buyers expect AI to be present somewhere in the housing ecosystem, they still prefer human oversight for mortgage, legal and insurance advice.
- In that study, 71% of UK buyers said they would rely on a person rather than AI to find the right mortgage, 69% preferred humans for legal assistance, and half preferred them for home insurance.
- Around 48% of UK buyers in the Cotality survey said they would pay extra for a human expert to verify AI‑generated housing decisions, indicating a willingness to pay for critical thinking and risk‑management if AI is used.
Why are UK buyers still shunning AI in property deals?
As reported by Property Industry Eye, a new national survey by business‑communications provider Moneypenny reveals that the majority of UK homebuyers and sellers still want to speak to a real person, not a digital assistant, when it comes to key property‑market interactions. The poll, based on responses from 2,000 adults, indicates that 83% would rather deal with a human when booking a valuation or making an offer, with only 6% saying they would prefer an AI‑based system for these tasks.
This data suggests that while AI has started to permeate websites, search tools and chatbots, buyers remain wary of letting machines make or influence decisions that involve large sums of money and long‑term commitments. As Moneypenny notes, human agents are still seen as essential for negotiating, explaining complex terms and offering reassurance, particularly at emotionally charged moments such as offers, viewings and completion.
Market analysts interviewed by Property Industry Eye add that the reticence reflects broader public anxiety about data privacy, transparency and the risk of “algorithmic bias” creeping into property‑pricing and lending decisions. Buyers are increasingly aware that AI tools pull data from multiple sources, including historical prices, credit‑score models and local‑market analytics, yet many still feel that only a human can contextualise that information in a way that suits their individual circumstances.
Which parts of the property journey do people accept AI in?
While the survey shows clear resistance to AI in high‑stakes decisions, it also reveals that UK consumers are more open to its use in lower‑risk, administrative and information‑gathering tasks. According to the Moneypenny research, around 31% of respondents said they would be comfortable using AI for general property queries, such as location information, school catchment areas or local transport links.
Another 28% said they would be happy to use AI to book a viewing, and 18% would accept it to book a valuation, suggesting that consumers are willing to delegate routine scheduling and FAQ‑style support to automated systems. However, as the tasks become more consequential, comfort levels fall rapidly: only 17% would be comfortable using AI to chase updates on a sale, 16% on a purchase, and just 8% when it comes to making or accepting an offer.
These figures are echoed, in broader form, by Cotality’s recent global study on AI in the homebuying journey. In that report, researchers note that while roughly three‑quarters of UK buyers expect AI to be embedded somewhere in the housing ecosystem—most commonly on property portals, insurer platforms and lender systems—most still prefer human professionals for the final decision‑making steps.
How do age, gender and region affect comfort with AI?
The Moneypenny survey, as summarised by Property Industry Eye, highlights significant differences in comfort levels across age groups. Nine in ten Baby Boomers said they prefer speaking to a person, compared with 75% of Millennials, and more than half of Baby Boomers (53%) said they would not use AI at any stage of the property process, versus only 16% of Gen Z respondents rejecting it entirely.
This suggests that younger generations are more willing to experiment with AI tools, particularly for search, information‑gathering and initial research, but even among Gen Z there is a strong preference for human oversight once the transaction becomes concrete.
Gender also plays a role. Around 47% of women in the survey said they would not be comfortable using AI at any stage of the property journey, compared with roughly one‑third of men. Industry commentators quoted by Property Industry Eye suggest this may reflect women’s tendency to place greater emphasis on emotional reassurance, trust and face‑to‑face communication, especially when dealing with complex financial products.
Regionally, the preference for human interaction is strongest in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the East of England, where 87% of respondents said they would rather deal with a person, compared with 79% in London and Wales. This pattern may reflect different levels of digital‑service penetration, local‑market culture and the density of estate‑agent networks in each area.
AI in mortgages and legal advice: why human oversight still wins
Separate research from Cotality, covered by Mortgagesoup, shows that while AI is expected to play a growing role in the wider housing ecosystem, UK buyers still want human professionals to oversee critical decisions. In that study, 71% of UK buyers said they would rely on a person rather than AI to find the mortgage that best suits their needs, and 69% preferred a human for legal assistance.
About half of respondents also said they would prefer a human expert for home‑insurance choices, reflecting persistent concerns about the reliability of AI‑generated risk assessments and underwriting decisions. The report notes that three‑quarters of UK buyers expect AI to be present on property websites, insurer platforms, lender systems and broker portals, but many still assume that there should be a human “backstop” to review and approve any significant recommendation.
This tension between technological potential and human‑trust requirements is further underlined by data from MPA Magazine, which reports that 48% of UK buyers in Cotality’s survey indicated they would pay an additional fee for a human expert to verify AI‑generated housing decisions. That willingness to pay for risk‑management, compliance and critical‑thinking services suggests a market for hybrid models in which AI handles data‑heavy tasks while humans provide oversight, negotiation and ethical‑judgment layers.
What this means for estate agents, lenders and training providers
For estate agents, the Moneypenny findings, as outlined by Property Industry Eye, imply that AI should be treated as a support tool rather than a replacement for front‑line staff. Agents may increasingly use AI to draft listings, answer basic queries and schedule viewings, but buyers’ stated preference for human contact suggests that firms which invest in effective communication, emotional‑intelligence and customer‑service skills are likely to retain a competitive edge.
Mortgagesoup’s coverage of Cotality’s research adds that lenders and brokers need to be transparent about how AI is used in their decision‑making, and how human oversight is preserved. With 71% of UK buyers preferring a person for mortgage advice and 48% willing to pay extra for human review of AI outputs, there is a clear demand for staff who can explain complex financial products, interpret algorithmic recommendations and reassure nervous customers.
In this context, professionals seeking to stay ahead of the curve may benefit from focused training in digital‑literacy, data‑analysis, emotional‑intelligence and critical‑thinking—skills that align closely with the kinds of corporate and professional development courses offered by institutions that specialise in modern workplace competencies. For example, those working in property, finance or legal services can strengthen their ability to oversee AI‑assisted processes by deepening their understanding of risk‑management, compliance, communication and customer‑experience frameworks.
As the property market continues to experiment with AI‑powered search tools, chatbots and automated valuation models, the Moneypenny and Cotality studies together suggest one clear message: buyers may accept AI as a helper, but they still want a human on the other side of the table.