TH-2026-WHDCOG · Calder Electrical Services Ltd · tool theft · opened 2 days ago, through an agent

Waiting on 2 answers before this can be decided

Outstanding: Was there any sign of forced entry, for example a broken lock or window; Have you reported it to the police, and do you have a crime reference. The 5 items and the proof of ownership are already here, so what is left is the account rather than the evidence.

5 items attached4 with a purchase record1 with a serial number1 on the customer's word2 outstanding

What this one turns on

The 2 answers that decide whether the policy responds, before the account rather than inside it. A person still decides what they mean.

Was there any sign of forced entry, for example a broken lock or window?

Not answered. This one has to be established before the case can move.

This is one of the two answers that most often decides a van tool theft claim, because theft from an unattended vehicle with no sign of forced entry is commonly excluded. Answering it now rather than in a letter next week is the difference between days and a fortnight.

Have you reported it to the police, and do you have a crime reference?

Not answered. This one has to be established before the case can move.

The other one. Insurers require the loss to have been reported, and "reported, waiting on the number" is a perfectly good answer here.

The account, as the policyholder gave it

Their words, not a summary of them. The tool call is shown because it is the answer to the question any handler has about a claim that arrives already populated: the items came off a register that existed before the loss, not out of the conversation.

Policyholder

Container opened over the weekend and the test gear and the SDS taken

Engine

Attached 5 items from the register held before the loss, £7,469 at replacement value. Nothing here was described at claim time.

{ "tool": "get_asset_register", "args": { "profile_id": "audit_60u17a" }, "result": { "items_matching_the_loss": 5, "replacement_value": 7469, "with_purchase_record": 4, "with_serial_number": 1, "oldest_line_dated": "2021-06-09" } }

Everything else asked

When did it happen, as near as you know?: Sometime on Saturday
Where was the van or the tools at the time?: Site compound on the Marshfield job

The position at the date of loss

What is held against what is on the claim. The two numbers, side by side, and no third number worked out from them.

Tools & Materials

Calder Electrical Services Ltd

Line	Figure	Source
Cover recorded	£2,500	Set on 1 Oct 2018 and not revisited since.
On this claim	£7,469	Replacement values from the register, derived from each item's category and age.

A person decides this claim. Nothing on this screen computes a settlement, applies a policy term or expresses a view on whether the policy responds.

Flagged before the loss: Tools & Materials is insured for £2,500 against an indicated £7,500

That is a shortfall of £5,000, about 67%, and the sum insured was last set in October 2018. Where a policy carries an average clause, a shortfall of this size can reduce every settlement by the same proportion, including partial losses well below the sum insured.

The 5 items on this claim

£7,469 at replacement value

Item	Claimed	Bought	How it is evidenced
Power tools from Screwfix Direct Leeds no serial number	£966	27 Jan 2026	Bank record2026-01-27 · SCREWFIX DIRECT LEEDS · £940.00
Power tools from Milwaukee M18 KIT no serial number	£1,440	8 Nov 2024	Bank record2024-11-08 · MILWAUKEE M18 KIT · £1320.00
Power tools from Screwfix Direct no serial number	£925	21 Feb 2023	Bank record2023-02-21 · SCREWFIX DIRECT · £780.00
Power tools from Makita UK no serial number	£1,869	9 Jun 2021	Bank record2021-06-09 · MAKITA UK · £1450.00
Fluke 1664FC multifunction tester serial FLK-1664-77213	£2,269	14 Jul 2025	DeclaredPut on the register by the business, before the loss.

Every line here was on the register before the loss. None of it was described at claim time, which is what removes the two requests that add days to a theft claim: what did you own, and can you prove it.

What this needs next

2 requests to raise

Was there any sign of forced entry, for example a broken lock or window? Have you reported it to the police, and do you have a crime reference? In a live system this is one message to the policyholder rather than 2 separate ones, and the case sits here until it comes back.

This screen assembles, it does not decide

No step here accepts a claim, declines one, sets a reserve, values anything for settlement or pays. Those are a person's, and the engine has no route to any of them by design rather than because they have not been built yet.

Where the evidence came from

Every attached line was on the policyholder's register before the loss, most of it put there by a bank statement rather than typed. That is what a handler is being asked to rely on, so the register says per line whether a purchase record exists and this screen repeats it rather than flattening both into "evidenced".

Demo case against a fictional business with synthetic transactions. Nothing here is a real claim and no part of this prototype agrees, values or pays anything.