Be very careful. They care more for pets than people

I have noted the reply, but it goes to the heart of MY point that Oakhurst Insurance does NOT care about its clients. I am spreading the word and everyone I have spoken to and in social media posts agrees that it is unreasonable for an insurance company to put its client in financial distress and permanently damage that client's insurance record because of an incident they did not cause. But to the point about "business use", the reply is also unreasonable in this manner: I do not have nor do I run a business. I am an office worker. In other words there was no expectation at the point of taking out the policy that I would have an ad hoc meeting to attend. Indeed, since the incident I have not been required to attend any meetings. Therefore, the question which you (and shortly the FSCA and the ombudsman) must answer is: how do you define business use? If I was on leave and went to exactly the same location to see exactly the same people, would that make it "private use", or "public use". From your perspective, the exposure is the same, especially in the context that I am not running or conducting business using my car. Second, why is OAKHURST so eager to avoid representing its clients to claim the money from the third party who caused the accident? In a police report a driver admits to driving into my vehicle, and OAKHURST won't pursue the matter. I find that very suspicious. Therefore, I plan to continue pursuing this matter, and to bring public attention to this practice.