DRN-6105840

The complaint Mr N has complained about his motor insurer, First Central Underwriting Limited. He says that, despite being assured that an incident he ultimately chose not to claim for would not be recorded on the Claims and Underwriting Exchange (CUE), this did not happen. He wants the record removed. Mr N has also complained that First Central provided him with incorrect information about his excess. What happened In July 2025 Mr N was involved in an accident after he hit an animal on the road. He contacted First Central to make some inquiries before deciding whether to claim on his policy. Mr N asked what his excess was and was initially told it was £900 instead of £1,300. Mr N ultimately decided not to claim on his policy and carried out his car repairs privately. He said he was assured by First Central that the claim wouldn’t be added to his record. Mr N says he became aware of the fact that a claim had been recorded on CUE (an external database insurers use for, among other things, fraud prevention) when insuring another car. He said he hadn’t informed the other insurer about this incident and was accused by the other insurer of providing misleading information. Mr N wasn’t happy about this and complained. He said he wanted the claim to be removed from CUE. First Central considered the complaint but didn’t uphold it. It said when Mr N took the policy out in July 2024, he was correctly informed there was a £600 compulsory excess and a £700 voluntary one. It added that when he made a claim almost a year later, he was initially informed, erroneously, that the total excess was £900. First Central said that a week later it clarified that the total excess was £1,300 which Mr N was surprised by and said this hadn’t been clearly communicated to him when taking the policy out. First Central said though the claim had been withdrawn, it could still be recorded as a notification on external databases. Mr N was unhappy with First Central’s response and brought his complaint to our service. One of our investigators reviewed the complaint and thought First Central should pay Mr N £400 for the distress and inconvenience it caused him. But our investigator didn’t think it had to remove the claim from CUE. Mr N accepted our investigator’s view but First Central didn’t respond. As there was no resolution, the matter was passed to me to decide. 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr N is unhappy that he wasn’t given the correct excess figure when he took the policy out. From what I can see from his online chat with First Central in July 2024, he was told his excess was £1,300 in total so I don’t think he was misinformed at that stage. He was originally only given the voluntary excess figure of £700 but it was later clarified within the same chat that a £600 compulsory excess also applied. First Central says that when he contacted it in July 2025 to report the claim he queried whether his excess was £700 plus £200 and was referred to the claims department. When he logged his claim on 10 July 2025, it became apparent that there was a £400 endorsement which also applied so Mr N queried why his excess was so high and said he wanted the claim withdrawn. Though I appreciate First Central confirmed the £1,300 excess online in 2024 this isn’t something I would necessarily expect Mr N to remember. I would also expect First Central’s documents to set the excess out clearly. I have considered Mr N’s policy schedule and I don’t think it is clear that the total excess is £1,300. There is a standard £200 excess and a voluntary excess of £700. There also appears to be a £400 vehicle endorsement marked “O” but there is no explanation on the schedule as to what this endorsement is for and when it applies. The explanation that this endorsement applies in the event of accidental damage, fire and theft and that it applies in addition to the standard excess, appears in a separate document. So, one would have to read that document with the policy schedule in order to conclude that the correct excess was £1,300. I don’t think that’s helpful or clear. This lack of clarity contributed to the confusion when the claim was later discussed. After Mr N reported the accident, First Central proceeded to validate the claim which included conducting an interview with Mr N and also inspecting his vehicle. Nevertheless, it isn’t clear why this was carried out bearing in mind Mr N had already said he wanted the claim withdrawn. First Central said it had some credibility concerns bearing in mind Mr N didn’t appear to report the matter to the police. This meant the claim wasn’t withdrawn for a further five weeks which, in my view, put Mr N through unnecessary stress and inconvenience. Ultimately First Central concluded there were no concerns but by that point the claim was withdrawn. When Mr N reconfirmed in August 2025 that he wanted his claim to be withdrawn, First Central said this would not have any effect on his premiums or no claims discount. I am not sure this is particularly clear or necessarily accurate as I don’t think there is any way First Central can guarantee there will be no impact on Mr N’s future premiums, even if his current premium may not have been impacted. I can also understand why this letter would give Mr N the impression that this was an incident he didn’t need to make other insurers aware of, though I appreciate the letter doesn’t state this. Overall, I don’t think First Central handled this matter well. Its actions caused Mr N unnecessary stress and prolonged the process, despite his clear intention from the outset to repair the car privately. First Central was also unclear in its documentation about the level of excess payable and about the impact the incident would have on Mr N’s insurance record. As a result, Mr N went on to provide incorrect information to his other insurer, which he says was upsetting for him. For these reasons, I agree that First Central should pay Mr N compensation. I consider the £400 amount suggested by our investigator to be fair and

-- 2 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances. Mr N was also unhappy that the incident was logged on the CUE database despite it being withdrawn. He said he was given assurances by First Central that this wouldn’t happen. I have considered the CUE entry and the incident is recorded as “notification only” which is what we would expect in the circumstances, bearing in mind Mr N didn’t proceed with his claim. So I don’t think First Central has acted inappropriately in this regard. As our investigator explained, First Central as Mr N’s insurer is obliged to record the incident on the database even if Mr N didn’t claim. My final decision For the reasons above, I have decided to uphold this complaint. First Central Underwriting Limited must pay Mr N £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused him. First Central Underwriting Limited must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Mr N accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on it from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment at 8% a year simple. If First Central Underwriting Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr N how much it’s taken off. It should also give Mr N a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Anastasia Serdari Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --