DRN-6303245

The complaint Mr S and Mrs S have complained about how Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd (‘Accredited’) recorded information when they filed out an online claim form for their home insurance. As Mr S mainly dealt with the issues, for ease, I will normally only refer to him. What happened Mr S filled out an online form to tell Accredited there was a possible leak on his central heating system. Mr S also spoke to Accredited and was advised to arrange his own engineer to investigate the issue. Mr S did this and no leak was found. So, he contacted Accredited to ask it to cancel the claim. Accredited replied and said it had closed the claim and the costs incurred were £0. Mr S asked Accredited to be more specific about whether the claim had been cancelled. Accredited said it would need to remain as a registered claim. Mr S complained because he didn’t think Accredited had made it clear that a record would be made if costs weren’t incurred. When Accredited replied to the complaint, it said the claim was registered through its online portal. At the end of that process, Mr S would have been presented with a statement that he needed to confirm before making the claim. This advised that Mr S’s information would be shared with the Claims and Underwriting Exchange (CUE) and had the potential to affect future premiums. Accredited said it was satisfied Mr S had been made aware of the circumstances by proceeding with the claim. When Mr S complained to this Service, our Investigator upheld the complaint. He said Accredited had made it clear both in its policy wording and on its online portal that any incidents would be recorded on CUE. However, Accredited had shown the claim costs were £0. In these circumstances, it was common insurance industry practice to record this as notification-only rather than as a withdrawn claim. He said Accredited should update CUE to show the incident was notification only, reinstate Mr S’s no claims discount, if this had been affected, and pay Mr S £100 compensation. As Accredited didn’t agree it had made an error in what it had recorded, the complaint was referred to me. I issued my provisional decision on 16 April 2026. In my provisional decision, I explained the reasons why I wasn’t planning to uphold the complaint. I said: “CUE is a database of insurance related incidents. If an insurer is signed up to CUE, it will make a record of any incidents it’s made aware of, whether it leads to a claim or not. Accredited is signed up to CUE. I’ve also looked at the policy booklet. This said: “Claims and Underwriting Exchange

-- 1 of 5 --

Insurers and their agents share information with each other through the Claims and Underwriting Exchange Register, run by MIB. When we deal with your request for insurance, we may search the register. When you tell us about an incident which may or may not lead to a claim, we will pass information about the incident to the register. The aim is to help us to check information provided and to prevent fraudulent claims.” So, I think it was clear that any incidents Mr S told Accredited about would be passed to CUE. I’ve also read the statement Mr S was shown on the online portal when he filled out the claim form. This said: “Thanks you for providing us with this information, if you wish to proceed with the claim then please press the button below. Now you have all the information about the cover available on your policy, please confirm if you would like to proceed with your claim? Making a claim does have the potential to affect your future premiums, but that information would not be available until you reach renewal. We also need to let you know that Insurers and their agents share information with each other through the Claims and Underwriting Exchange (CUE). If you proceed with your claim (by clicking the button below), we will pass information about the claim reported to the register. The aim is to help us check information provided and to prevent fraudulent claims.” At the end of the statement, Mr S had to mark a box that said “I understand” to confirm he wanted to proceed. So, I think Mr S was aware he was making a claim and agreed he wanted to proceed on that basis. Mr S should also have been aware that doing so might affect future premiums and that information would be shared with CUE. Following this, having spoken to Accredited, Mr S arranged for his own contractors to investigate whether there was a leak. No leak was found. Mr S then asked Accredited to cancel what he described as his “pre-emptive claim”. He didn’t think it should remain registered as a claim given he hadn’t made any claim for reimbursement. Based on what I’ve seen and the requirements on it, I think Accredited acted fairly by making a record on CUE of the incident Mr S reported. It was required to do this and had made it clear to Mr S before he submitted the claim form that it would do so. I’ve also thought about whether what Accredited recorded on CUE was reasonable, including whether it should have recorded it as “notification-only”. It recorded it as a withdrawn claim with £0 in costs. Having thought about this, I think that was fair. Mr S agreed he was submitting a claim and, a short while later, told Accredited he didn’t want, or need, to continue with it. This meant he was withdrawing the claim. So, from what I’ve seen, Accredited correctly recorded the circumstances of what happened. I also asked Accredited to confirm whether this had affected Mr S’s no claims discount. Accredited said it doesn’t offer a no claims discount on home insurance policies. I’m unable to comment on how another insurer might view what happened. However, they should be able to tell what happened by reviewing the CUE record as a whole, which indicates that the claim wasn’t pursued.

-- 2 of 5 --

Given I’m not persuaded that Accredited acted unfairly, I also don’t think it needs to pay any compensation. So, having looked at what happened, I don’t currently intend to uphold this complaint or to require it to do anything further.” I asked both parties to send me any more information or evidence they wanted me to look at by 30 April 2026. Both parties replied before that date. Accredited agreed with my decision. Mr S didn’t agree with it and, in summary, said: • He disagreed it should be recorded as a withdrawn claim. The central issue was whether the classification accurately reflected the substance of what happened, including the way a reasonable consumer would understand the interaction, rather than how it was labelled by the insurer internally. • The matter hadn’t progressed beyond initial investigation and did not result in any loss, repair or payment. It was a precautionary notification of a potential issue, rather than a claim progressing to indemnity stage. • He outlined the sequence of events. The matter concluded after investigation. Agreeing to “proceed with claim” on the online form was an administrative requirement to log and progress the enquiry, rather than a reflection that an indemnity claim was being pursued. • Although data sharing with CUE had been disclosed, he wasn’t informed that a precautionary report, where no loss or damage was ultimately found, would be recorded as a withdrawn claim. He had understood he was reporting a potential issue for investigation and inspection, not initiating an insurance claim. A fair assessment should reflect what a reasonable consumer would understand they were doing at the time, rather than how an internal process later categorised it. • Although Accredited did not apply a no-claims discount, Mr S had obtained some online quotes that showed the classification on CUE had real-world consequences. The financial impact was a 34% difference of around £83 a year. • A correction to “notification only” would align the record with the factual outcome. Recording it as a withdrawn claim didn’t reflect the substance of what happened. • His action were a direct fulfilment of his duties under the policy. The policy said he must report “incidents which may or may not lead to a claim”. He was also required to take reasonable steps to prevent or limit damage. He acted in accordance with this. • He believed he had acted as a responsible policyholder by investigating a potential risk and it was unfair to be penalised for diligence that ensured no claim arose. • He also asked for appropriate redress for the consequential detriment as a result of the current classification.

-- 3 of 5 --

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I don’t uphold this complaint and for the reasons given in my provisional decision. As part of that I’ve thought about Mr S’s comments, but these don’t change my view about the outcome of this complaint. When Mr S initially complained, he said it hadn’t been made clear to him that a record would be made of the issue he reported even if costs weren’t incurred. Mr S now seems to accept that it was reasonable for Accredited to have made a record. But now says it should be recorded as notification only, rather than a withdrawn claim. Mr S has also said that this should be considered in the context of what a reasonable consumer considered they were doing at the time. I already had this in mind when I made my provisional decision. But, I’ve looked again at what Mr S agreed to when he submitted the online form. This included: “Thanks you for providing us with this information, if you wish to proceed with the claim then please press the button below. Now you have all the information about the cover available on your policy, please confirm if you would like to proceed with your claim? Making a claim does have the potential to affect your future premiums, but that information would not be available until you reach renewal.” In my view, I think it’s fair for me to say a reasonable consumer would understand that by agreeing to the online statements, this meant they were making a claim. I think this also made clear that by submitting a claim this could affect future premiums. When Mr S replied to my provisional decision he said he had made a “precautionary notification” or “precautionary report”. I’m mindful that when Mr S complained to this Service, he described it as a “pre-emptive claim”, which suggests that at that time he considered it was a claim, but not one that he then needed to pursue. I’m unable to comment on how another insurer might consider the circumstances of what happened or the impact on quotes through a price comparison website, which was the source of the quotes he provided to show the impact on premiums. I’m also mindful that Accredited was required to make a record on CUE. The CUE record showed the claim costs were £0. This therefore would indicate to other insurers that no repairs were carried out and no payments were made. I remain of the view that it was reasonable for Accredited to record it as a withdrawn claim. In the circumstances, I also don’t think Accredited needs to pay Mr S any compensation.

-- 4 of 5 --

My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above and in my provisional decision, my final decision is that this complaint is not upheld. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S and Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Louise O'Sullivan Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --