WG6 was set up to focus on the demand side of retrofit. While much of the national conversation centres on technology, standards, supply chains and funding, the role of this group is to focus on what actually helps people and organisations decide to act.
Earlier work explored the drivers and barriers shaping retrofit demand across the resident journey. From that, we developed the 4 A’s framework to help structure conversations about uptake:
• Awareness – recognising the need for change and knowing what support exists
• Attitude – how people feel about retrofit and those delivering it
• Ability – whether people have the financial, practical and emotional capacity to act
• Appropriate trigger point – the moments when action becomes possible or necessary
This workshop was timely, given the recent publication of the Warm Homes Plan and its reference to the proposed Warm Homes Agency, a new national body expected to begin operating in 2027. The Agency is expected to work at both national and local levels, streamlining and consolidating existing delivery functions across government and Ofgem. It is positioned as a central coordinating body for retrofit delivery.
Across the groups there was a shared view that this is a genuine window of influence, where thinking on demand and uptake can shape what happens next rather than respond to decisions already made.
An immediate next step for this working group will be a focused workshop to develop clear, practical feedback that can be fed into DESNZ as the Warm Homes Agency is shaped.
WORKSHOP APPROACH:
We revisited the 4 A’s to sense check whether it still stands up and to understand where the real pressure now sits.
The discussion explored uptake across three contexts:
• Macro – large-scale programmes, social landlords, combined authorities
• Micro – community and place-based delivery
• Solo – individual households and small portfolio landlords
Several themes ran consistently across all three.
1. TRUST UNDERPINS EVERYTHING
In awareness, trust determines which messages people believe.
In attitude, it shapes how retrofit and its providers are perceived.
In ability, it affects whether people feel comfortable committing time and money.
At appropriate trigger points, it influences whether someone goes ahead.
Across macro, micro and solo discussions, there was shared concern that:
• Previous scheme failures still linger in public memory
• Cold calling and poor installations have damaged confidence
• Quality assurance mechanisms exist, but are not widely understood
• Media and political volatility are increasing uncertainty
There was agreement that uptake will not scale without visible and credible trust infrastructure that people can understand. This is not just about better messaging. It is about designing a system that feels safe and dependable.
2. THE WRONG QUESTIONS ARE OFTEN BEING ASKED
At macro level in particular, there was thoughtful challenge around how programmes are framed.
Delivery bodies understandably focus on:
• EPC targets
• Funding eligibility
• Scheme compliance
• Carbon metrics
Households and communities tend to respond to:
• Comfort
• Health
• Cost
• Disruption
• Reliability
The phrase that came up more than once was: “Retrofit is largely meaningless to residents.” What matters is how homes feel, what it costs, how disruptive it will be, and whether it improves daily life.
This is not about stepping away from carbon goals, it is about recognising that carbon alone does not motivate most people. If we want uptake, outcomes that make sense in people’s own world need to sit at the centre of delivery design.
3. THE SYSTEM IS NOT DESIGNED AROUND THE CONSUMER
In the macro discussion, it was acknowledged that many primary stakeholders (local authorities, combined authorities and social landlords) are not structured around customer engagement. Time and budget for meaningful engagement are often constrained. Delivery can become scheme-led rather than resident-led.
In the solo discussion, individuals described navigating a fragmented landscape:
• Multiple advice sources
• Confusion about what EPCs and building control actually guarantee
• Unclear expectations around certification
• Inconsistent post-installation support
In the micro group, community delivery was seen as powerful and trusted. It also depends heavily on long-term relationship building, which is rarely funded as core infrastructure.
Across all three contexts, the same tension surfaced: households and communities are often expected to fit around programme design, rather than programmes being shaped around them.
4. QUALITY IS A DEMAND ISSUE, NOT JUST A DELIVERY ISSUE
In the solo discussion, quality and documentation gaps were described as a source of ongoing friction.
Examples included:
• Poor or incomplete home records
• Early adopters not documenting works in a transferable way
• EPC limitations being misunderstood as comprehensive diagnostics
• Building control being assumed to provide assurance beyond its remit
This undermines confidence and can create difficulty at resale or refinancing.
There was interest in better “home history” or logbook approaches, alongside realism about how these might work in practice. The core point was simple: people are more likely to act when they can see a clear and safe pathway through the process.
5. TRIGGER POINTS ARE BEING MISSED
Retrofit rarely happens on its own. Common trigger moments include:
• Renovation works
• Kitchen and bathroom replacements
• Extensions
• Home purchase
• Mortgage refinancing
• Landlord compliance cycles
If retrofit advice is not embedded at these moments, the opportunity may not return for years.
The solo discussion also highlighted the influence of people and organisations who sit outside the formal retrofit ecosystem:
• Tradespeople
• Retail and DIY environments
• Mortgage providers
• Estate agents
• Word-of-mouth networks
These relationships shape awareness and attitude in ways that policy announcements alone cannot.
6. THE WARM HOME AGENCY CHANGES THE CONTEXT
Although this was not a policy design session, the emerging Warm Homes Agency inevitably shaped the conversation.
Participants reflected that early design decisions will influence:
• What is prioritised
• How success is defined
• Which behaviours are incentivised
• Whether equity and justice are meaningfully embedded
There was a shared view that this is an important moment. Uptake thinking needs to inform policy architecture now, rather than being layered on afterwards.
WHAT NOW?
We will carry out detailed analysis of the Miro boards and session notes to identify the strongest patterns and pressure points.
From this, we will propose a small number of focused task-and-finish groups aimed at practical action and usable outputs.
We will also convene a dedicated session focused specifically on the Warm Homes Agency. The purpose will be to translate the insights from this workshop into clear, constructive input on design choices that influence uptake.
