'Churchill is sending us threats over a car accident we had nothing to do with'

I enclose copies of correspondence we received from Churchill Insurance, in which it accuses my wife of being responsible for an accident involving a car that she does not own and never has. 

Its threats have caused considerable stress and anxiety and, before taking legal action, we would welcome your help in getting Churchill Insurance off our backs.

Peter Wright, Leics

At the time of the accident your car had been in the drive of your holiday home and was not even on a public road.  A year after the incident Churchill sent a “final notice” declaring that it was owed £1,443 and that there would be consequences if this wasn’t paid within 14 days. 

It said: “It is unfortunate that it is now necessary to contact you directly. Despite corresponding with your insurance company requesting reimbursement of the cost of our claim, we have not received payment.”

It elaborated that, if the payment did not materialise it would pass the file to its nominated solicitor “in order to issue legal proceedings”. 

It said: “As we are holding you responsible for this accident, these proceedings will be issued in your name and served at the above address. “Such proceedings will include a claim for costs and statutory interest.”

As you had made it abundantly clear to Churchill, part of Direct Line Group, that your wife does not own the car with the registration in question, nor ever has, it is no wonder you were both upset.

It was only after I became involved that Churchill admitted: “We took down the incorrect registration number when logging our customer’s claim, using an N instead of an M and this caused us to reach out to the incorrect third party involved in the accident. 

“Your readers’ insurer advised us that this was a case of mistaken identity, however, we failed to update all of our records which led to us writing to your readers to chase payment for a claim that they were not responsible for. 

“Your readers sent us a further two letters to highlight our error and we failed to reply to this correspondence. These mistakes were due to human error and not in line with the service we aim to provide.” It assures me there is no record connecting this incident to you on any database. It has offered £150 as a goodwill gesture. 

You retort that, given the threats that were made, that caused considerable anxiety and stress and the nil response to your letters, this warrants a substantially greater compensation offer.    

Churchill Insurance says it has to look at situations of a similar detriment and that is the level of compensation it will pay in such circumstances.  You do not have a right to go to the Financial Ombudsman Service as you are not Churchill’s customer.  

It seems though that the figure it is paying chimes in with FOS awards, albeit it strikes me as inadequate.