How to prove I wasn't commuting.

Dibbers99

2 years ago I had an at-fault RTA.  The insurance company paid out appx £8000.  Last month I received a letter from the insurance company to tell me they were seeking full reimbursement of the money they paid out, because I was driving outside of the terms of my insurance.  I issued them with an SAR, which was partially responded to (I asked for all records going back to the start of the policy, they actually provided all records going back about a month).  Their internal notes on this SAR response indicated that they were denying my claim, because there was no evidence I was not commuting.  I was not commuting, I was going for a meal in the evening in a completely different town to where I work. During the day I have a company car, and I use this car to go to and from work.  My employer wrote to them to confirm this but their internal notes say this does not prove I was not commuting. This is now where I'm coming stuck.  How do I prove a negative.

Keep_pedalling

Well if they take you to court for this it is for them to prove you were commuting. 

tacpot12

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses insurance. If you do, you need to call them to put them on notice that you might receive a claim against you.

As Keep_peddling say, if they want to go to court, they have to prove that you were using your car outside of the terms of your insurance. You seem to have evidence that they you weren't. Keep all your evidence and notes about what happened. They could, in theory, start a case at any point within six years of them having paid the claim. 

If you are are still insured with them, I would suggest you consider cancelling your insurance, so that they cannot cancel it. If they do, you will have to declare that this when applying for insurance, and it could put the premiums up, or even mean you can't get cover.  

TheNorthStar

If you have a bank or credit card statement with your restaurant bill for that date that should help your case 

MyRealNameToo

Dibbers99 said:

2 years ago I had an at-fault RTA.  The insurance company paid out appx £8000.  Last month I received a letter from the insurance company to tell me they were seeking full reimbursement of the money they paid out, because I was driving outside of the terms of my insurance.  I issued them with an SAR, which was partially responded to (I asked for all records going back to the start of the policy, they actually provided all records going back about a month).  Their internal notes on this SAR response indicated that they were denying my claim, because there was no evidence I was not commuting.  I was not commuting, I was going for a meal in the evening in a completely different town to where I work. During the day I have a company car, and I use this car to go to and from work.  My employer wrote to them to confirm this but their internal notes say this does not prove I was not commuting. This is now where I'm coming stuck.  How do I prove a negative.

You prove what you were doing... was the meal with someone? If so get a statement from them. Did you make it to the restaurant? If so show the bank statement where you paid for the meal.  

What hours do you normally work and how does this evening mean compare? 

Did your employer confirm you weren't working at the time of the incident or just that you have a company car for commuting?

Ultimately register a complaint and if you arent happy with their response then take the mater to the Financial Ombudsman. They need some form of evidence that you were committing and can't rely solely on the fact you can't prove you weren't. 

Lorian

Did you have cover for commuting? Because you seem to have confirmed to the insurance co you used the car for commuting at times other than when you had the accident.

user1977

Lorian said:

Did you have cover for commuting? Because you seem to have confirmed to the insurance co you used the car for commuting at times other than when you had the accident.

It's not very clear but I read "During the day I have a company car, and I use this car to go to and from work" as meaning that they use the company car for commuting.

Isthisforreal99

Seems strange that they would assert this without anything to support it. Was there anything at all work related about the restaurant visit? Do you still have a copy of your claim/statement - was there any possibility anything you said could be construed as work related?

As an aside, you are paying more tax for your company car, why weren't you using it?