I have been asked to look at this for you.
There appeared to be 2 issues apart from the circumstances surrounding the accident.
The first issue is the address.
It depends what the question which is asked is.
The question would normally be, whereas the vehicle parked overnight to which there can only be one answer and that would be where the vehicle is parked overnight ordinarily.
What you say, he travels 4/5 days per week and contrary to what he said, he appears not to be living away from home. I don’t know how often these days at the camp and how often he is away. Either way, he should have told the insurer.
The second is his occupation. Is he in the RAF being trained or is he a student? Once again, because of the potential honourably to the answer you should have disclosed exactly that to the insurance company.
If he had done both of those declarations, we would not now be having this conversation because there would be nothing to worry about.
With regard to the request for an interview, I attended one of these recently although it wasn’t actually for a client’s for a family friend rang and asked whether she should have legal representation. I told her that if she preferred me to be there, I would. I went along and just sat in the corner and to be honest it was no big deal, it was just a fact-finding exercise in this case, purely about the accident.
It could well be what you are looking at here with this request is exactly the same. One I attended was done by 1/3 party on behalf of the insurance company because they cannot have total national coverage so they subcontract.
If at any stage he doesn’t like the way the interview is going he is quite a liberty to terminate it and ask the person to leave.
Although it’s rude to just turn up, it may be that the interviewer just happened to be in the locality although with these days of mobile phones, I can’t see why they couldn’t have rung very briefly first.
At this stage in time, I probably wouldn’t bother with the expense of a solicitor but would see how the interview goes on I don’t like the weights going, terminate it as I said earlier and simply refused to answer any more questions.
From what you have said, I cannot see any suggestion of fraud. He may not have answered the questions correctly, for whatever reason, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not obliged to pay out. A lot would depend on whether they have known the they would have not taken the risk in the first place and also whether they are convinced that this was not an innocent misrepresentation or indeed the was any misrepresentation at all.
If they don’t pay out, he grows refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service who will look at the matter independently.
I can tell you now but none of these investigations are going to be quick.