ClaimsIQ
Admin — sign in to continue
ClaimsIQ / Overview
Admin
?
—
Dashboard
Claims
Overview
Claim Lookup
Live Pipeline
Intelligence
Financial Impact
AI Sense Check
Organisation
Teams
People
Compliance
Account
Settings
CostIQ
Rate Management
Contractors
Disputes
Rate Feedback
Claim Lookup
Search any CIQ reference — see every tool run on that claim, handler, timestamps, and outcomes
Recent team claims
Loading…
Claim reference
—
Tools run on this claim
Live Pipeline
Active claim references updated in the last 7 days — tool completion status across the suite
Reference Cause Severity FNOL Route Cost AA BI Last updated
Loading…
Financial Impact
How each tool is protecting your organisation's money
Platform ROI — all time
—
return on subscription
CostIQ savings ÷ annual subscription · other tools pending logging
CostIQ savings
—
Value assessed
—
Avg saving rate
—
Assessments
—
CostIQ
Cost benchmarking — invoice leakage recovery
Total savings
—
Total assessed
—
Dispute rate
—
flagged assessments
AI scrutiny
—
Savings over time
Savings by cause of loss
RouteIQ
Routing decisions — loss adjuster fee avoidance & leakage prevention
HIH decisions
—
claims retained in-house
Implied fees avoided
—
£1,400 × HIH count
Leakage via CostIQ
—
15% of avg contractor total
Combined protection
—
fees + leakage
Figures populate when RouteIQ server-side logging is configured. Fee avoidance based on mid-range loss adjuster instruction fee (UK loss adjuster industry data 2025). Leakage based on 15% of £8,200 average property contractor total.
FNOLIQ
First notification — early BI identification & AA cost containment
BI identified early
BI exposure identified at FNOL reduces indemnity period spend. Industry data indicates BI claims with early identification settle significantly faster with measurably lower total payouts.
AA costs contained
AA costs committed before AAIQ engagement are largely unrecoverable. FNOLIQ's AA flag triggers immediate AAIQ handoff — spend is capped before a single night is booked unguided.
Routing data quality
Cause, severity and habitability captured at FNOL feed RouteIQ directly. Incomplete first notification data forces RouteIQ to score on assumptions — increasing wrong routing risk and its downstream cost.
Quantified financial data populates when FNOLIQ server-side logging is configured.
AAIQ
Alternative accommodation — placement cost, limit protection, disturbance accuracy
AA cases managed
—
all time
Placement saving / case
£667
£29/night × 23 nights avg
Implied total saving
—
£667 × case count
Limit alerts
—
75%/90% threshold warnings
Case count and limit alerts populate when AAIQ server-side logging is configured. Placement saving based on UK hospitality market data 2025 (£29/night differential) × UK property claims industry average 23-night displacement.
BIQ
Business interruption — GP rate accuracy, indemnity period discipline, settlement integrity
BI assessments
—
Most common overstatement
8–14pp
above sector GP norm
At £200k revenue / 6mo
£10k
overpayment at 10pp over
AI sense check flags
—
GP outliers identified
Assessment counts and sense check data populate when BIQ server-side logging is configured. Overpayment figures use national business survey data 2024 sector GP benchmarks.
Subscription context
Annual subscription
—
based on your tier
Cost per assessment
—
subscription ÷ assessments
Saving per assessment
—
average recovery per run
Break-even at
—
assessments to cover cost
Subscription cost uses Team 30 (£18,000/year) as default. CostIQ savings are directly measured. RouteIQ, AAIQ, and BIQ figures are implied estimates based on industry benchmarks — they will be replaced with measured data once server-side logging is enabled for those tools.
AI Sense Check Intelligence
How the AI Sense Check is protecting your organisation
Sense Checks run
—
of all assessments
Found something to act on
—
caution or concern verdict
High-severity findings
—
must resolve before payment
Settlement position changed
—
after seeing findings
Total delta from Sense Check
—
settlement moved by AI findings
Sense Check verdict distribution
Clean
Caution
Concern
Verdict trend — last 6 months
Are claims getting cleaner as handlers learn?
What the Sense Check is catching — by category
Finding frequency across all assessments · click a row to see examples
Settlement impact — what changed because of the Sense Check
Assessments with settlement change
—
of those with Sense Check
Avg delta when changed
—
per assessment where position moved
Total moved by AI findings
—
on top of benchmark savings
Disputes after Sense Check
—
assessments where dispute followed
Documented grounds for challenge
Every high-severity finding gives the handler a documented, AI-generated reason to challenge before payment. Without the Sense Check running, these observations would not exist on the claim file — the challenge would never have been raised, and the claim would have settled at the original position.
High-severity findings raised
—
Led to a dispute
—
Assessments with override
—
Handler Sense Check adoption
Usage frequency and finding rate per handler
Overview
Loading…
Total savings identified
—
click for full breakdown
Total value assessed
—
Disputes requiring action
—
handler action needed
Active handlers
—
FNOLIQ
—
notifications this month
Capture · BI flags · AA flags
RouteIQ
—
decisions this month
HIH · Specialist · Escalate
CostIQ
—
assessments this month
Live data ↗
AAIQ
—
AA cases managed
Placement · Spend · Disturbance
BIQ
—
BI assessments
GP basis · Indemnity · Sense Check
Recent CostIQ assessments
Verdict breakdown
AI scrutiny used
—
Avg saving rate
—
of total claimed
Team performance
Assessments
Full CostIQ assessment history — click View to inspect any assessment in detail
Teams
Create and manage sub-teams within your organisation
Create a new team
People
Manage roles, team assignments and access
Invite someone
All members
Analytics
Performance data across your organisation
Assessments over time
Monthly savings identified (£)
Cause of loss breakdown
Savings by region
Handler performance
Compliance
Handler activity monitoring, audit trail, and claims authority oversight
Assessments in period
—
AI scrutiny adoption
—
handlers using Sense Check
Override rate
—
benchmark overridden without note
Dispute rate
—
assessments challenged
Handler compliance summary
Flags handlers below threshold on key compliance metrics
Audit log
Assessment saves, overrides, and scrutiny runs
Settings
Account and integration configuration
CMS data linking (Guidewire)
Subscription & billing

Manage your subscription, view invoices, or update payment details.

SSO configuration

Single sign-on via Microsoft Azure AD. Contact hello@costiq.co.uk to configure SSO.

Rate Management
Update benchmark rates and TPI index. Changes go live immediately for all users.
TPI Index (Quarterly Update)
Loading…
Bulk Rate Adjustment
Individual Rate Editor
ItemTradeUnitLow (£)High (£)
Contractor Registry
Factual record of contractors appearing on your claims — metrics only, no subjective flags
ContractorTypeRegionClaimsDispute rateAvg savingLast seen
Disputes & Overrides
Audit trail of disputed lines and handler overrides across CostIQ assessments
Rate Feedback
Flag benchmark rates that appear incorrect — reviewed before applying to the rate database
ItemTradeTypeCurrentSuggestedEvidenceSubmittedStatus
FNOLIQ
First notification intelligence — early identification of BI, AA, and vulnerability exposure
Open FNOLIQ →
Summary
Notifications
Financial Value
How FNOLIQ protects money
BI identified at FNOL
Business interruption identified at first notification — before a loss adjuster is instructed and before the indemnity period starts running unchecked. Industry data suggests BI claims settled with early identification close 30–40% faster, directly reducing indemnity period spend.
AA exposure contained from day one
Alternative accommodation costs are almost impossible to challenge once committed. Flagging AA need at FNOL and handing off to AAIQ immediately means a spend limit is set before a single night is booked — not after three weeks of receipts have accumulated.
Routing quality downstream
Cause, severity, habitability and welfare flags captured at FNOL feed directly into RouteIQ. A poor FNOL capture means RouteIQ scores on incomplete data — increasing the chance of a wrong routing decision and its cost consequences.
Notifications this month
—
live + written combined
BI flagged at FNOL
—
% of notifications with BI exposure identified
AA flagged at FNOL
—
% requiring alternative accommodation
Vulnerability flags
—
welfare concerns identified at first contact
Notification volume — last 12 months
Populates as handlers use the tool · server-side logging pending
Cause of loss distribution at FNOL
Distribution of peril types captured at first notification
Notification log
Notification log coming soon
Individual FNOLIQ sessions will appear here once server-side logging is enabled. Each entry will show cause captured, flags raised (BI, AA, vulnerability), handoffs initiated, and handler.
FNOLIQ financial value
Early BI identification
BI exposure identified at FNOL rather than during settlement reduces indemnity period spend. Industry data indicates BI claims with early identification settle significantly faster with measurably lower total payouts.
AA containment from day one
AA costs committed before AAIQ engagement are largely unrecoverable. FNOLIQ's AA flag triggers immediate AAIQ handoff — spend is capped before a single night is booked unguided.
Routing data quality
Cause, severity and habitability captured at FNOL feed RouteIQ directly. Incomplete data forces RouteIQ to score on assumptions — increasing wrong routing risk and its downstream cost consequences.
RouteIQ
Routing decision intelligence — defensible outcomes and loss adjuster fee avoidance
Open RouteIQ →
Summary
Decisions
Financial Value
How RouteIQ protects money
Loss adjuster fee avoidance
When a handler is unsure whether to handle a claim in-house or appoint a specialist, the default in most teams is to appoint — it feels safer. RouteIQ's 14-factor scoring provides a defensible Handle In-House recommendation, giving handlers the confidence to retain the claim. A loss adjuster instruction typically costs £800–£2,500 in fees alone, before any supplementary charges. Every justified HIH outcome is a fee avoided.
Correct escalation when it matters
The cost of under-routing is worse than over-routing. A complex claim handled in-house that should have been escalated risks poor settlement, increased leakage, and potential complaints or litigation. RouteIQ's hard overrides — fatality, fraud indicators, reserve above £100k — ensure these claims are never handled in-house regardless of handler confidence level.
Implied financial protection — Handle In-House decisions
HIH decisions (all time)
—
claims retained in-house
Loss adjuster fee avoided
£1,400
UK loss adjuster industry data 2025
Implied fees avoided
—
conservative · excludes supplementary charges
+ Contractor leakage prevented
—
15% of avg £8,200 contractor total via CostIQ
Loss adjuster fees · £850–£2,200
UK loss adjuster industry data 2025. Basic property instruction range £850–£2,200. Complex commercial attracts £300–£800 in supplementary charges. RouteIQ prevents the instruction on claims that do not need a specialist.
Contractor invoice leakage · 12–18%
Industry average overpricing on unscrutinised property invoices. In-house routing → CostIQ benchmarking is the full leakage prevention chain.
Settlement time · 47 vs 23 days
Specialist-handled claims average 47 days to settlement vs handler-retained 23 days. On claims with AA spend at £89/night average, each extra day costs the insurer directly.
Drying over-instruction · £3,200 vs £2,100
Drying companies appointed without routing guidance average £3,200/claim. Benchmarked via CostIQ: £1,800–£2,400. Routing determines whether drying is scrutinised at all.
HIH count populates when server-side logging is configured. Fee avoidance uses £1,400 mid-range loss adjuster instruction fee. Leakage uses 15% of £8,200 avg property contractor total (UK property claims data 2024).
Claims routed this month
—
routing decisions made
Handle in-house rate
—
% of claims retained internally
Specialist appointments
—
loss adjusters appointed
Hard escalations
—
fatality / fraud / £100k+ overrides
Routing outcome distribution
Populates as handlers use the tool · server-side logging pending
Handle In-House vs Appoint by cause of loss
Which perils are driving specialist appointment
Routing decision log
Decision log coming soon
Individual RouteIQ decisions will appear here once server-side logging is enabled. Each entry: outcome (HIH/Specialist/Escalate), all 14 factor scores, hard overrides triggered, handler.
RouteIQ financial value
HIH decisions
—
claims retained in-house
Implied fees avoided
—
£1,400 × HIH · mid-range fee
Leakage via CostIQ
—
15% of avg contractor total
Combined protection
—
fees + leakage prevention
Loss adjuster fees · £850–£2,200
UK loss adjuster industry data 2025 range. Complex commercial attracts £300–£800 supplementary. HIH recommendation prevents the instruction on claims that do not need a specialist.
Contractor leakage · 12–18%
Industry average overpricing on unscrutinised property invoices. In-house routing → CostIQ benchmarking is the full chain. Also prevents drying over-instruction (avg £3,200 vs £2,100 benchmarked).
Settlement time · 47 vs 23 days
Specialist-handled claims average 47 days to settlement vs handler-retained 23 days. On claims with active AA at £89/night average, each extra day costs the insurer directly.
Escalation accuracy
Hard overrides (fatality, fraud, £100k+) ensure high-risk claims are never handled in-house regardless of handler confidence level — preventing costly mishandled complex claims.
CostIQ
Cost benchmarking intelligence — leakage recovery, dispute patterns, and handler compliance
Open CostIQ →
Summary
Assessments
Analytics
Financial Value
Total savings identified
—
avg saving rate
Total value assessed
—
— assessments
Dispute rate
—
of all assessments flagged
AI scrutiny adoption
—
handlers using AI review
Savings identified over time
Verdict distribution
Savings by cause of loss
Recent high-value disputes
Handler performance
Assessments
Full CostIQ assessment history — click View to inspect any assessment in detail
Assessments over time
Monthly savings identified (£)
Cause of loss breakdown
Savings by region
Handler performance
CostIQ financial value — live data
Total savings identified
—
Total assessed
—
Dispute rate
—
of assessments
AI scrutiny adoption
—
Savings over time
Savings by cause of loss
AAIQ
Alternative accommodation intelligence — spend control, limit monitoring, and cost-effective placement
Open AAIQ →
Summary
Cases
Financial Value
How AAIQ protects money
Cost-effective placement from the first night
AAIQ scores accommodation options by cost-effectiveness, not just proximity. The AI fit score weights value-for-money against household requirements — a Premier Inn meeting all BSI criteria scores higher than a boutique hotel that costs three times as much. Over a 30-night displacement, the difference can easily be £1,500–£3,000 on a single claim.
Policy limit protection
AA spend approaching the policy limit triggers amber (75%) and red (90%) alerts before the limit is breached. Once a household is installed in accommodation, the practical and reputational cost of moving them again is high. Early warning gives the handler time to have the right conversation — and potentially source cheaper accommodation — before the limit is hit.
Disturbance allowance accuracy
Standard industry disturbance rates (£30/adult/day, £15/child/day) are auto-calculated from household composition and tracked separately from accommodation cost. Without this, disturbance is either forgotten entirely — creating a complaint risk — or over-claimed as a lump sum. AAIQ produces a defensible, itemised figure for every case.
Implied saving — AI-guided vs unguided placement
AA cases managed
—
Avg displacement
23 nights
UK property claims industry data 2024
Nightly saving vs unguided
£29/night
£89 AI-guided vs £118 unguided (UK hospitality market data 2025)
Implied saving per case
£667
£29 × 23 nights · conservative
Placement cost · £89 vs £118/night
UK hospitality market data 2025. AI-guided average £89/night vs unguided last-minute booking £118/night. Over 23 nights: £667 per case.
Limit breach prevention
Amber alert at 75%, red at 90% of policy AA limit. Moving a household mid-displacement costs 2–3× the nightly rate in disruption and complaint risk. Early warning prevents the breach.
Disturbance accuracy
Standard industry disturbance rates: £30/adult/day, £15/child/day. Auto-calculated from household composition. Prevents both under-payment (complaint risk) and over-claim as lump sum.
Case count populates when server-side logging is configured. Sources: UK hospitality market data 2025, UK property claims industry data 2024.
AA cases managed
—
all time
Avg displacement period
—
days per case
Limit alerts triggered
—
amber + red warnings
AI sense check verdicts
—
APPROVE / QUERY / DISPUTE
Displacement duration distribution
Populates as handlers use the tool · server-side logging pending
AA spend as % of policy limit
Distribution of how close cases get to the policy AA limit
AA case log
AA case log coming soon
Individual AAIQ cases will appear here once server-side logging is enabled. Each entry: household composition, displacement period, accommodation placed, spend vs limit, disturbance allowance, AI Sense Check verdict.
AAIQ financial value
AA cases managed
—
Saving per case
£667
£29/night × 23 nights avg
Implied total saving
—
£667 × case count
Limit alerts triggered
—
75%/90% threshold warnings
Placement cost · £89 vs £118/night
AI-guided average £89/night vs unguided last-minute booking £118/night (UK hospitality market data 2025). Over 23 nights: £667 per case.
Limit breach prevention
Amber at 75%, red at 90% of policy AA limit. Moving a household mid-displacement costs 2–3× the nightly rate in disruption. Early warning prevents the breach.
Disturbance accuracy
Standard industry disturbance rates: £30/adult/day, £15/child/day. Auto-calculated from household composition. Prevents both under-payment (complaint risk) and over-claim.
BIQ
Business interruption intelligence — GP rate accuracy, indemnity period control, and settlement integrity
Open BIQ →
Summary
Assessments
Financial Value
How BIQ protects money
GP rate accuracy
The gross profit rate used in a BI settlement determines everything. A retail business claiming 45% GP when the sector average is 28% represents a 17 percentage point overpayment — on a £100k annual revenue claim with a 6-month indemnity period, that is an £8,500 overpayment on a single line. BIQ's AI Sense Check benchmarks the claimed GP rate against sector norms and flags outliers immediately.
Indemnity period discipline
Indemnity period creep is the most common source of BI overpayment. Each week of unnecessary extension costs the weekly BI figure — for a business claiming £2,000/week, an extra 4 weeks is £8,000. BIQ tracks claimed period against the Maximum Indemnity Period and requires documented justification for any extension beyond the initial estimate.
Double-deduction prevention
The double-deduction trap occurs when variable cost savings are deducted twice — once within the GP calculation and again as a separate saving. BIQ's workings are transparent and the Sense Check flags this automatically. On a mid-size BI claim, this error can inflate the settlement by 5–15% of the total BI payment.
GP rate overpayment — sector benchmark data
National business survey data 2024 — sector GP benchmarks
Retail26–30%
Hospitality / Restaurant62–68%
Professional services72–78%
Manufacturing28–35%
Construction trades32–40%
Overpayment at 10pp overstatement
£100k revenue · 6 months indemnity
£5,000
10pp × £100k × 50%
£200k revenue · 6 months indemnity
£10,000
10pp × £200k × 50%
£500k revenue · 12 months indemnity
£50,000
10pp × £500k × 100%
Major insurer internal audit data (industry reported): most common BI overstatement is 8–14 percentage points above sector norm on GP rate. BIQ flags these immediately.
Sources: national business survey data 2024, major insurer internal audit data (industry reported). Overpayment formula: (claimed GP% − benchmark GP%) × annual revenue × (indemnity months / 12).
BI assessments
—
all time
GP basis proportion
—
% assessed on GP vs revenue basis
AI sense check flags
—
GP rate outliers identified
Avg indemnity period
—
months claimed
BI assessments by sector
Populates as handlers use the tool · server-side logging pending
Claimed GP rate vs sector benchmark
Outliers above the benchmark line trigger AI Sense Check flags
BI assessment log
BI assessment log coming soon
Individual BIQ assessments will appear here once server-side logging is enabled. Each entry: basis (revenue/GP), claimed GP rate vs sector benchmark, indemnity period, AI Sense Check verdict, handler.
BIQ financial value — GP rate protection
Sector GP benchmarks (national business survey data 2024)
Retail26–30%
Hospitality62–68%
Professional services72–78%
Manufacturing28–35%
Construction trades32–40%
Overpayment at 10pp overstatement
£100k revenue · 6 months
£5,000
£200k revenue · 6 months
£10,000
£500k revenue · 12 months
£50,000
Most common BI overstatement: 8–14pp above sector norm (major insurer internal audit data, industry reported).
Assessment
Edit team