Spurious insurance claim has to be declared?
Discussion
Advice on car insurance renewal and an 'incident' requested here, long version first.
My father is knocking on (he doesn't do internet, and is very hard of hearing) so I've done his insurance for several years now, the last 2 with the same company. In early September 2022, he was notified of a claim against him due to an 'incident' in a supermarket car park. He maintains still that he wasn't even in that car park on that day (although he does go to it often). He's the type of old fella who, even if he hit a parked car, he'd wait until they came out and own up. The report form was returned in mid Sept 2022 insisting this with 'no damage' marked all over the question areas.
After 6 months of nothing, I pursue with emails and complaints of no response or updates ('under investigation' supposedly in online area of a company) and nothing for another 2 months (ombudsman intervened on his / my behalf at my request, had an apology and small recompense
) - renewal is July.
They have now closed the claim due to no evidence of any damages being submitted by the 3rd party (they never once mentioned this as a reason for the delay) BUT have marked it as an 'incident' on his file, in case evidence is later submitted. So, I will have to declare this on renewal quotes, or do I.
In response to the comparison website questions, some of them don' t have the 'incident - no claim made' as an option. Meerkat for example only has 'accident' and somebody has to be to blame too.
I'm annoyed that possibly some spurious claim / chancer will mean having to declare an 'incident' for 5 years that he maintains didn't happen. Some wally could find out who you're insured with, contact them and make something up, submit no evidence and it blights your record for 5 years.
How can this be right? If it were me, I'd risk just stating 'No' but for a relation at 80 yrs old, I'm not sure. There's a lot of database information sharing these days between insurers I expect, despite GPDR regs.
There are things like misrepresentation and reasonable care on answering questions; I'm advised with a bit of research that they could cancel ab initio, or charge the extra premium they would have asked for in the event of claim. It makes a difference of about £50 despite 15 yrs NCD, but protection of said NCD goes from £21 last year to over £60! Which wouldn't really be worth it. (It's a 2008 Honda Accord, not a valuable item)
It won't be with same company, last year was £460, renewal is £794! Customer service was appalling too. Even declaring said so-called 'incident,' it's £675 elsewhere. The renewal letter with no claims on it doesn't mention an incident or claim, but would it?
TL;DR - Spurious claim that was closed but retained 'on file,' should it be declared?
My father is knocking on (he doesn't do internet, and is very hard of hearing) so I've done his insurance for several years now, the last 2 with the same company. In early September 2022, he was notified of a claim against him due to an 'incident' in a supermarket car park. He maintains still that he wasn't even in that car park on that day (although he does go to it often). He's the type of old fella who, even if he hit a parked car, he'd wait until they came out and own up. The report form was returned in mid Sept 2022 insisting this with 'no damage' marked all over the question areas.
After 6 months of nothing, I pursue with emails and complaints of no response or updates ('under investigation' supposedly in online area of a company) and nothing for another 2 months (ombudsman intervened on his / my behalf at my request, had an apology and small recompense
) - renewal is July.They have now closed the claim due to no evidence of any damages being submitted by the 3rd party (they never once mentioned this as a reason for the delay) BUT have marked it as an 'incident' on his file, in case evidence is later submitted. So, I will have to declare this on renewal quotes, or do I.
In response to the comparison website questions, some of them don' t have the 'incident - no claim made' as an option. Meerkat for example only has 'accident' and somebody has to be to blame too.I'm annoyed that possibly some spurious claim / chancer will mean having to declare an 'incident' for 5 years that he maintains didn't happen. Some wally could find out who you're insured with, contact them and make something up, submit no evidence and it blights your record for 5 years.
How can this be right? If it were me, I'd risk just stating 'No' but for a relation at 80 yrs old, I'm not sure. There's a lot of database information sharing these days between insurers I expect, despite GPDR regs.There are things like misrepresentation and reasonable care on answering questions; I'm advised with a bit of research that they could cancel ab initio, or charge the extra premium they would have asked for in the event of claim. It makes a difference of about £50 despite 15 yrs NCD, but protection of said NCD goes from £21 last year to over £60! Which wouldn't really be worth it. (It's a 2008 Honda Accord, not a valuable item)
It won't be with same company, last year was £460, renewal is £794! Customer service was appalling too. Even declaring said so-called 'incident,' it's £675 elsewhere. The renewal letter with no claims on it doesn't mention an incident or claim, but would it?
TL;DR - Spurious claim that was closed but retained 'on file,' should it be declared?
Worth writing to the CUE who keep records of all claims, and it’s the database insurers check when you tell them you’ve had no claims.
I successfully argued with Admiral that they were unfairly charging for an ‘incident’ when I’d rung up their sister company Bell for advice two years previously.
Basically a guy hit my car in a car park and was very sketchy about providing details, so wanted to check if he was insured before I left the scene. Damage was minor and didn’t make any claims but Bell logged it as non fault incident. Come renewal time 18 months later, moved to Admiral, didn’t declare it (as no claims made) but when switching to they flagged it and billed me an extra £120 on top of the yearly cost after the product had started. The incident was logged on their internal system but not on CUE, so I argued with no central record I could be insured with anyone else and not have to declare it as it’s not recorded anywhere and thus no way of proving it, and no claim was made.
They fought back but threats of a small claims court and they rolled over. This was 10+ years ago so don’t know if things have changed. Have never used admiral/bell again, so their attempt to squeeze extra cash out of me probably means in the long run they missed out on many years of premiums… not that they’d care in the slightest.
I successfully argued with Admiral that they were unfairly charging for an ‘incident’ when I’d rung up their sister company Bell for advice two years previously.
Basically a guy hit my car in a car park and was very sketchy about providing details, so wanted to check if he was insured before I left the scene. Damage was minor and didn’t make any claims but Bell logged it as non fault incident. Come renewal time 18 months later, moved to Admiral, didn’t declare it (as no claims made) but when switching to they flagged it and billed me an extra £120 on top of the yearly cost after the product had started. The incident was logged on their internal system but not on CUE, so I argued with no central record I could be insured with anyone else and not have to declare it as it’s not recorded anywhere and thus no way of proving it, and no claim was made.
They fought back but threats of a small claims court and they rolled over. This was 10+ years ago so don’t know if things have changed. Have never used admiral/bell again, so their attempt to squeeze extra cash out of me probably means in the long run they missed out on many years of premiums… not that they’d care in the slightest.
Assuming no claim was ever filed or indeed paid on your Fathers' policy and whilst I can see why his Insurance company might well mark his file as " incident but no claim paid " - I think its perfectly reasonable to answer the meerkats as no claim if you were seeking a new policy.
That said it is only 8 months since the incident and circumstances unknown but I think technically anyone can wait until a year before claiming -strange as that might appear.
The use of the word incident is debatable though especially as you don't know 100% whether or not he did or didn't actually have one ?!
Insurance premium increasing is also perhaps a red herring given tales of how many people are experiencing this and whether or not claims dependent on their own policies.
Maybe try and get the Insurance company to give you something in writing that might give you some comfort when ticking the no accidents box etc but I imagine a might therefore be a bit premature to ask /expect this ?
That said it is only 8 months since the incident and circumstances unknown but I think technically anyone can wait until a year before claiming -strange as that might appear.
The use of the word incident is debatable though especially as you don't know 100% whether or not he did or didn't actually have one ?!
Insurance premium increasing is also perhaps a red herring given tales of how many people are experiencing this and whether or not claims dependent on their own policies.
Maybe try and get the Insurance company to give you something in writing that might give you some comfort when ticking the no accidents box etc but I imagine a might therefore be a bit premature to ask /expect this ?
Surely if the current insurer hasn’t listed it on the renewal then it isn’t a “claim” as such and they aren’t treating it as one. Particularly in the section where you could check all the details and claims and convictions are listed rather than NCB.
Them noting it as an incident is presumably so if the third party does then come along and give evidence they know what it’s about and have your version you returned?
Them noting it as an incident is presumably so if the third party does then come along and give evidence they know what it’s about and have your version you returned?
Personally:
1) Check with the current insurer to see if it has been logged by them and whether it is on CUE. Sadly, I now presume an incident has been logged the moment they log it on any internal system now, remember CUE is a record of incidents and incidents that could give rise to a claim.
It might take some effort to get some CS reps to know what CUE is though....but once you do you tend to get the right answers. The reason I flag this bit is I have been through the same pain about whether I needed to disclose an incident of vandalism (which came up with the most bizarre answer of no if I stayed with the insurer involved, but I did if going elsewhere due to fundamentally CUE).
2) You could do a SAR request on MIB for the CUE (and all the other databases they run)
3) Go ahead and risk it, but personally I would seek answers from the current insurer first to avoid any possibility of non disclosure. Some insurers now do "pre flight checks" live prior to giving a quote, others are post it going live.
Equally, don't be tempted to do a quote with and without said incident then there could be potential issues surrounding trying to get a lower price by non disclosure (even if well intentioned, proving it was innocent could be frustrating).
Regarding where your personal data goes then the basics even at quote will be usually a credit reference agency check, possibly a CUE check, possibly a licence check (via mylicence) and possibly now an NCD check.
Post quote and it being live anything not done at quote stage, but less well known household names dedicated to anti fraud like National Hunter and Synectics Solutions now get involved.
1) Check with the current insurer to see if it has been logged by them and whether it is on CUE. Sadly, I now presume an incident has been logged the moment they log it on any internal system now, remember CUE is a record of incidents and incidents that could give rise to a claim.
It might take some effort to get some CS reps to know what CUE is though....but once you do you tend to get the right answers. The reason I flag this bit is I have been through the same pain about whether I needed to disclose an incident of vandalism (which came up with the most bizarre answer of no if I stayed with the insurer involved, but I did if going elsewhere due to fundamentally CUE).
2) You could do a SAR request on MIB for the CUE (and all the other databases they run)
3) Go ahead and risk it, but personally I would seek answers from the current insurer first to avoid any possibility of non disclosure. Some insurers now do "pre flight checks" live prior to giving a quote, others are post it going live.
Equally, don't be tempted to do a quote with and without said incident then there could be potential issues surrounding trying to get a lower price by non disclosure (even if well intentioned, proving it was innocent could be frustrating).
=============================
Regarding where your personal data goes then the basics even at quote will be usually a credit reference agency check, possibly a CUE check, possibly a licence check (via mylicence) and possibly now an NCD check.
Post quote and it being live anything not done at quote stage, but less well known household names dedicated to anti fraud like National Hunter and Synectics Solutions now get involved.
Edited by Ninja59 on Tuesday 13th June 15:17
I've looked at a CUE enquiry here, but the answer can take up to a month.
https://www.mib.org.uk/managing-insurance-data/req...
https://www.mib.org.uk/managing-insurance-data/req...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff