CUE claim for enquiry increased premiums over £250

Fett132

I'm with Admiral Insurance. Last year, my new premium rates on comparison sites was noticeably higher than to renew with Admiral. Which was a first in my over 15 years of driving.

Now I've found out the cause.

In 2019, I drove past some roadworks that were outside my work. My car scraped the speed bump. So I got out, took measurements, took pictures etc to prove my point that it had been left too high. Then I called Admiral to ask what the next steps would be if I were to go ahead a make a claim. To keep it brief, they said I didn't have legal protection and the process didn't sound too attractive, so I just left it as there was no visible damage.

Now two years later, I'm finding that my premiums are still up from their original ~£350 to now over ~£630. I noticed this CUE claim in my Admiral account so called them about it and discovered the situation.

I will just say what I said to the guy in Admiral claims: This is completely unjust. I didn't make a claim, I wasn't looking to make a claim on my own policy, I wasn't at fault and yet that single enquiry has effected my premiums as if I had made a full claim. As Admiral are the ones who added this information, they're able to offer lower (but still increased) renewal prices knowing that this CUE claim is arbitrary. Comparison sites cannot take the details of a CUE claim into account, so Admiral now have a monopoly on my insurance because they added this inquiry into a central database.

I have a feeling this is going to be a long process if its even possible... but has anyone ever had a CUE claim removed from the central database?

[Deleted User]

You made a notification to the insurer that you drive in areas and in such a manner where your car could get damaged, so they increased your premium. Obviously they aren't going to remove this.

Why not shop around if your premium on renewal is higher? Admiral may be trying to get rid of you hence the higher price as a "please go away" thing

Fett132

@Deleted_User I dont think driving over temporary roadworks where the workers were at fault counts as driving "in such a manner where your car could get damaged". In that case, you may as well note on my account that I drive anywhere in the country where there are loose chippings on the road.

I've tried the comparison sites, but as mentioned they have the CUE logged which could be anything at all, as they dont interpret the reason for them being logged.

Sandtree

Insurers ask about any accidents or incidents irrespective of if you've claimed for them or not.  You have presumably therefore been declaring this incident anyway... there will be almost no difference between a non-fault closed claim and a not claimed incident.

If insurers have been seeing that you're making a false declaration by "forgetting" to mention the incident because you answer no on the quote but CUE has the details then the impact is likely to be much higher than a properly declared item as you are showing yourself to be untrustworthy 

[Deleted User]

Fett132 said:

@Deleted_User I dont think driving over temporary roadworks where the workers were at fault counts as driving "in such a manner where your car could get damaged". In that case, you may as well note on my account that I drive anywhere in the country where there are loose chippings on the road.

I've tried the comparison sites, but as mentioned they have the CUE logged which could be anything at all, as they dont interpret the reason for them being logged.

Please don't deliberately misquote me to try and make a counter argument, that wasn't what I said in full, was it?

Go on a comparison site, put your notification only case in for the "accidents in the last 3 years" bit and see what comes out. All the comparison sites I have used allow you to record it as no claim made.

Fett132

@Sandtree I didn't declare the incident, I simply asked them what the process would be if I were to claim against the third party. So there was no declaration or "forgetting" to mention a claim.

I understand why CUE may be used in circumstances, but I absolutely do not agree that it should have been used in this incident let alone cost me an extra £250+ on premiums. For an enquiry.

Fett132

Deleted_User said:

You made a notification to the insurer that you drive in areas and in such a manner where your car could get damaged, so they increased your premium. Obviously they aren't going to remove this.

Why not shop around if your premium on renewal is higher? Admiral may be trying to get rid of you hence the higher price as a "please go away" thing

Which part did I misquote? You are saying that I am notifying the insurers that I am driving recklessly in bad areas so obviously they wont remove this from my record... when this is not the case.

Sandtree

Fett132 said:

Sandtree I didn't declare the incident, I simply asked them what the process would be if I were to claim against the third party. So there was no declaration or "forgetting" to mention a claim.

I understand why CUE may be used in circumstances, but I absolutely do not agree that it should have been used in this incident let alone cost me an extra £250+ on premiums. For an enquiry.

The enquiry is a red herring... as an accident (I am assuming you didn't hit it intentionally) and as such needs to be declared. The fact its on CUE simply means you cannot get away with defrauding insurers by "forgetting" to declare it.  

Fett132

Sorry @Sandtree Im not sure Im understanding you correctly.

I didn't make any claim, I even told them I didn't know if there was any damage and just wanted to know if I could get someone to initially look under the car.

I don't understand why any insurers would need to know about that. No damages have been noted since then and it has passed all MOTs, I dont see why this CUE should be relevant to my future insurance searches.

Sandtree

So this is what is stated on Confused.com...

​Please list details of any incidents, accidents, losses, thef​ts or claims involving a motor vehicle in the last five years, regardless of fault or whether you claimed or not. 

As noted above, they want to know of all incidents irrespective of if you claimed or not. As you reported the incident to Admiral they have appropriately noted it. The fact its passed its MOT is nothing to do with if you have caused damage or not, my first car passed many MOTs with various dents, scratches, rust patches etc, the MOT is a safety test and cosmetic damage won't cause a failure.

Now many people dont bother mentioning anything they dont claim for, in a customer survey we did 15 years ago or so over 90% of people said they were comfortable defrauding their insurers, but because you did mention it to your insurers you'd be foolish to now not mention it. 

I would however be sceptical that it being on CUE and you not declaring is having the impact you think it is... certainly all insurers and brokers dont check CUE at the stage of doing quotes and so if CUE were to blame then you'd still be seeing many cheaper quotes. If you are talking just about Admiral's pricing... their renewals are always high and a quick conversation about other quotes elsewhere results in massive slices being cut out the premiums.

Fett132

Ok so I can understand what they're saying about the incidents in the last five years if you had claimed or not. I was 100% under the impression that only claims had to be listed, so thank you for that clarification. I think to say that this is considered "defrauding insurers" when we look at this particularly incident would be quite extreme - as there was no damage to be reported. If you had to tell your insurance company every time a stone hit your windscreen and left no damage our premiums would be massive by the sounds of it.

I can't see any other reason my premiums would have essentially doubled. This is the only thing on my record for about 8 years,  I havent moved or anything... so theres no other reason my premiums would have basically doubled over a two years. Admiral are the ones offering the cheaper prices in their renewal compared to the other now - hence my reasoning they know this is arbitrary. 

I don't think anyone would agree that this enquiry should reflect that level of increase.