What stale CRM data costs a UK insurance broker
- Leif Skogberg
- May 6
- 4 min read
There was a phrase we used constantly in the contact centre. Not written policy, just practice. Every time you picked up the phone, you reviewed the file.
Not when the renewal came up. Not when the client called about something specific. Every time.
Phone number still current? Email address still the same? Any new household members? Any changes in the household since we last spoke? Any new vehicles, new purchases, new business activities? Is the house still insured where it was insured before?
It sounds like a lot. In practice it took ninety seconds and became automatic within a few weeks. But the habit was drilled in because the people who trained us understood something that is easy to miss when you're running a brokerage on your own: for a UK insurance broker, stale CRM data doesn't just sit there being untidy. It costs you.
Every call is a file review — or it isn't
There are two things happening every time a broker speaks with a client. The first is the obvious one — handling whatever they called about. The second is quieter and most brokers don't do it consistently: updating the picture.
Life changes. Businesses change. A client who had three employees two years ago might have eight now. The vehicle on the commercial policy might have been replaced. The key person might have changed. A new location might have opened. None of these things will show up in your CRM unless someone asks the question and records the answer.
In a founder-led brokerage with a book of three hundred commercial clients, you are not going to catch all of that at renewal. By renewal, the information is already stale. The question was asked twelve months ago. A lot has happened since.
The renewal conversation starts from incomplete data, the premium is calculated on incomplete data, and the suitability evidence — if challenged — is based on incomplete data.
That is an underwriting problem. It is a compliance problem. And if the claim comes in and the risk was underinsured because nobody asked the right question at the right time, it is a client relationship problem as well.
What brokers miss when the data goes stale
The obvious cost is the one above — exposure that isn't correctly assessed or priced.
The less obvious cost is the growth opportunity that quietly disappears.
A client with only one policy line insured with you is a client who will shop the market at renewal. There is no friction keeping them. If they have their commercial combined with you and their fleet somewhere else and their PI somewhere else again, they will stay with whoever is easiest to deal with when renewal rolls around — and easy to deal with is not the same as you. Unless you know the full picture, you cannot make the case for why consolidating makes sense.
I used to open calls with accounts I knew were thin and work through the file before we even got to why the client had called. Not aggressively. Just curious. It usually took three or four questions. Where is your fleet insured at the moment? Have you picked up any new contracts this year? Any changes to the work you're doing that we should know about?
Sometimes nothing came of it. Sometimes it opened a conversation that led somewhere useful — for the client and for the broker. Either way, the file was better at the end of the call than it was at the start.
The completionist discipline, explained
I am aware this sounds like extra work on top of everything else. A solopreneur broker managing their own book, handling renewals, chasing underwriters, keeping on top of Consumer Duty obligations and file documentation — the last thing they need is a lecture about asking more questions.
The point is not more work. It is different work.
A five-minute file review at the start of each client interaction prevents a forty-minute scramble at renewal when the information is missing and the client is unreachable and the insurer is waiting. It prevents the conversation where you have to explain to an underwriter that you're not sure whether the business activities have changed. It prevents the moment when a claim comes in and the documentation doesn't support the decision.
Data hygiene is not a project. It is a habit. The contact centre enforced it because volume made the cost visible — when you are handling three hundred calls a day across a hundred and fifty agents, stale data compounds visibly and fast. In a smaller book the same thing is happening, more slowly and less visibly.
When I open a client file that hasn't been properly reviewed in two years, I don't find that frustrating. I find it interesting. Here is a person whose circumstances I know very little about. There is a conversation to have here. There are probably things to update, risks to reassess, coverage gaps to think about. The file is a starting point for a better client relationship, not a record of the last transaction.
What this looks like in practice
If you have a client base you're carrying largely in your own head, or a CRM that hasn't had a systematic review in longer than you'd like to admit — that is a reasonable place to start the conversation.
Not because it is urgent in the way a compliance deadline is urgent. Because left alone, it accumulates quietly. And at some point the gap between what your CRM says and what is actually true about your clients will matter — for a renewal, a claim, or an audit.
If that is a project you have been putting off because it feels large, I would be glad to talk through what it actually involves.
Leif Skogberg is the founder of UK Broker Support Services Ltd, providing remote operational and back-office support to founder-led UK insurance brokers. He holds a Chartered Insurance Professional (CIP) designation from the Insurance Institute of Canada and eleven years of experience across Canada, Germany and the UK.
Comments