- 4 hours ago
tele: https://t.me/TopFilmUSA1
#film#shows#usa#usashows#hot#filmhot
#film#shows#usa#usashows#hot#filmhot
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:06insurance fraud has reached epidemic levels in the UK it's costing us more
00:10than 1.3 billion pounds every year that's almost 3.6 million pounds every
00:16day deliberate crashes bogus personal injuries even phantom pets the fraudsters
00:24are risking more and more to make a quick killing and every year it's adding
00:29around 50 pounds to your insurance bill but insurers are fighting back exposing just under
00:3415 fake claims every hour armed with the latest fraud busting technology it's a subject out the
00:41vehicle including covert surveillance systems sophisticated data analysis techniques and
00:47specially trained fraud investigators oh they're catching these chances red-handed
00:54instead of getting away with it even more of these fraudsters are getting caught out this is road
01:02claimers today secret surveillance I've asked the truth about a man claiming more than 340
01:13thousand pounds the surveillance footage was really quite astonishing we found that he wasn't being
01:20a hundred percent truthful to us a rogue roof tile and a hefty injury claim the CCTV puts a dent
01:29in
01:29their story my first reaction to when when I first viewed the CCTV footage was just of complete shock
01:37that people they think they can get away with it and a mobile phone scammer puts on a convincing performance
01:58the UK workforce carries out a huge range of jobs from nine to five office work to those on
02:03construction sites and cafes bars and restaurants trips slips and falls are commonplace whilst most
02:11of us are glad of the insurance cover provided by those who pay our wages some take it a step
02:16too far the
02:18insurance firm travelers discovered this in the following case we're committed to making sure legitimate
02:24claims are paid quickly and fairly however we also have a duty to investigate fraud to help our customers
02:31not having to be exposed to unnecessary costs or fees my team has access to over 200 investigators across
02:40our company as well as access to state-of-the-art investigation tools and the company needed its full
02:47armory on this occasion to deal with an audacious personal injury claim the claim came to travelers
02:54because he was working one of our customers factories and he allegedly injured his wrist he had a manual
03:01handling task and he injured his right hand which also caused soft tissue injury to his wrist this
03:08caused him not to be able to continue with working for our customer and therefore they dismissed him after
03:15around two years of being off work this must have been a huge blow for the injured man who decided
03:21to
03:21recoup some compensation the claim then came to us and for ongoing injury and the fact that he was saying
03:29that he couldn't go back to work taking into account his loss of earnings and future rehabilitation costs
03:35this claim was worth a staggering sum if we were on for full liability we're looking at around three
03:41hundred and forty thousand pounds a three hundred and forty thousand pound claim is substantial to
03:47us we would consider that as a high value large loss matter travelers took a close look into the
03:54history of the case including the early medical checks undertaken to assess the injury the medical
04:00report had noted within it that he had suffered a soft tissue injury to his right hand in his wrist
04:06they expected that that injury would take around three months to recover um but he had claimed that
04:13he was still suffering with ongoing issues which um raised a lot of red flags for us but according to
04:20the
04:20claimant the work accident had caused a significant impact on his life and what he was able to do
04:25he claimed um that he wasn't able to drive um he wouldn't be able to um lift very light objects
04:32um like
04:33shopping uh a pen um knife and fork a cup that sort of thing um which was a lot of
04:41um injury for
04:42something that seemed quite minor while a broken leg can be easily monitored injuries like those
04:48sustained by the claimant are more difficult to judge but now into its third year this injury needed
04:54further investigation we got two other experts to have a look at his um injuries so we had an orthopedic
05:02surgeon um who is looking at the soft tissue injury seeing whether there is any issues and ongoing
05:09injuries and also we had a pain expert look at whether that ongoing pain that he was claiming to
05:15be there was actually still a factor and we also instructed for a pain expert to consider what the
05:22psychological issues that he was suffering with a pretty rigorous checkup then when we had the reports
05:30back um they did assign to us that there was still some questions around his injuries so we decided
05:38that we needed to go and take further action and investigate through covert surveillance this would
05:45give some insight into how the injury was affecting the claimants day-to-day activities and there was some
05:50anecdotal evidence to arouse suspicions further we found that um a colleague of his at his work a senior
05:58colleague a manager had actually seen him out and about while he was meant to be off work due to
06:05his
06:05injuries she'd actually seen him carrying a crate of beer from a supermarket which was totally
06:12contradictory to everything he stated to them as a as his employment on its own this information was not
06:19enough to prove fraud and those affected by soft tissue injuries can have ups and downs in their
06:25recovery this could have just been a good day the way that we use surveillance as a resource is to
06:31make sure that we capture the best information we can on a claimant to do that we need to make
06:39sure that we
06:40consider good and bad days so if somebody's having a good day and they could quite well be able to
06:45lift
06:46um items and it could be stated within their medical evidence that they are able to do that in this
06:52case he
06:53didn't um outline that he had any good days um he stated to the experts that he wasn't able to
06:59use his right
07:01hand at all so no ambiguity there and cameras were ready to find out the truth the surveillance footage was
07:08really
07:08quite astonishing we found that he wasn't being 100 truthful to us when we conducted the first series
07:17of um surveillance we actually instructed for our agents to um follow him to his medical examination
07:24one being because he had claimed that he was um having to be driven by a companion um because he
07:32wasn't able to drive himself however when we got the footage through and we actually found he was
07:38driving alone in his own vehicle this was quite shocking because he had claimed all along he wasn't
07:45able to drive in the first um period of footage and we find that he was actually wearing um a
07:52wrist
07:52support on his right hand um that later then comes off after he's um seen the medical expert
07:58um the expert does refer to this in his report um and actually outlines that he doesn't need
08:05the support on so we believe that's why he then is discarded it after um driving himself to the medical
08:12examination
08:13he is holding his arm rather gingerly though perhaps he's aware he might be being watched
08:20he closes the van door with his left hand what about the next morning how will he feel then
08:29much better he's using his right hand to open the door on this period of surveillance um he
08:35claimed to us that he was required to get a train and a taxi to um travel to this medical
08:42expert the
08:43expert is around 130 miles away from where he's living and we get him driving that whole distance which
08:50takes him around two hours 20 minutes this goes against everything that he's told us
08:55um and also he stops at services we see him get out of the vehicle he uses his right hand
09:02with no issues
09:05so the second day after we proceeded to take the surveillance um on the medical examination
09:12you can see in this third day that he's really showing himself we've actually got him again driving
09:18and he's going to a builder's merchants and at the builder's merchants he's decided to purchase two
09:25paint carriers the paint carriers themselves the 10 liter paint carriers and they weigh around 16 kilograms
09:31each this is a massive red flag for us um and a big sting into his claim
09:41the surveillance certainly cast new light on the claimant and his assertion
09:45the whole evidence around the surveillance um was so damning on his case the net was closing in on
09:53this fraud star who claimed he couldn't drive lift a cup or a knife and fork and he had no
09:59idea evidence
10:00to contradict his lies was mounting it's ridiculous almost that he believes that he could get away with
10:07stating these injuries were so catastrophic to his life
10:12that we're seeing him being able to then perform other activities and lift really heavy objects
10:21we'd presented the surveillance and our further medical evidence to his solicitors and they
10:28withdrew the claim we felt at that point that it was right thing to do to send this over to
10:33the police
10:34and get them to have a look and see whether there was any potential for prosecution
10:39and it was decided there was a case to answer so the claimant's actions would be laid bare
10:45it was agreed that he would actually be charged with fraud by false representation
10:50and be seen at crown court he pleaded guilty the camera evidence spoke for itself
10:56and did him no favors at all the claimant was convicted for fraud by false representation
11:02and sentenced to jail for 12 months
11:04i think he might have thought um initially that he might get a slap on the wrist rather than um
11:13what
11:14he did actually end up getting delivered by the judge he probably wasn't expecting that he tried to
11:21try it on and exaggerate his claims i think it's tough to live a lie having to keep up that
11:26pretense for
11:26such a period of time traveler's instinct to track his movements with the surveillance was spot on
11:33i would say to anybody that's thinking about uh exaggerating the claim or bringing a false claim
11:39that we're committed to protecting our customers we have the time we have the resource and we have the
11:45energy to get to the truth later pause for thought as a pet owner refuses to believe her furry friend
11:57was not covered we're entitled to recover that money back from you oh right you better try that then
12:17for many people the smartphone is our lifeline and it's too much to bear when this is cut off
12:24insurer assurant deals with this trauma on a regular basis the initial claim that we received was for
12:31a high-end smartphone to the value in excess of 400 pounds we had a customer who was very emotionally
12:39upset and was claiming that they'd lost their phone okay so can i state how will you lost your phone
13:02please i don't know what was the last time you had your phone saturday yeah and what time was that
13:20i'm not sure what time it was i don't know what time it was so what do you think happened
13:26i don't know what
13:30my mind is where were you when you realized you've lost your phone okay and what have you tried to
13:40do to
13:41look for the phone i think i've been trying to call i've been trying to 100 fully i can found
13:46it
13:48was the sim card in there at the time was the pin in the phone when you lost it
14:03so what was strange is despite the fact that this customer was in floods of tears claiming that
14:10they'd lost the phone claiming that they couldn't uh get through when they were trying to dial the
14:16number uh potentially that somebody had found it um our industry records demonstrated that a third
14:22party telephone number was actually using this device this was the second phone the man had lost and
14:31claimed for in less than two weeks that wouldn't be uncommon we speak to over 25 000 customers per day
14:40and occasionally our consumers lose more than one device what was suspicious about this claim is when we
14:47initially investigated the information provided by the claimant we identified through our industry
14:54sources and the processes we used that this device was actually being used by a different telephone number
15:03upon further investigation of this evidence around the original telephone number we identified that that
15:11tied back directly to this claimant's previously successful claim there was a clear link between the first
15:19claim and the second claim once we had confirmed and validated that there was a a new telephone number
15:29which was a different number than the one the claimant was using we decided our fraud team decided to
15:35to contact and and call that telephone number so imagine our surprise when uh our fraud team
15:42telephoned this number uh and somebody answered
15:49it was a third party who willingly told us that the claimant had sold them uh the original phone for
15:58100
15:58um and that when it had actually stopped working which undoubtedly was due to the fact that that device
16:05was blacklisted the claimant had offered this particular phone as payment of that original debt
16:15two lost phones lost at different times have ended up in the same hands an astonishing coincidence
16:23once we'd identified um this new evidence around this third party and the claimant was effectively using
16:31these phones as currency it was extremely clear to our investigations team that this was a potential
16:39fraudulent claim we actually presented that information to the claimant
16:47so just with your claim it's just been passed to my department to do some further investigations on
16:51the claim yeah so just have some sort of additional questions just to ask you yeah you could
16:56ask me yeah you could ask me then you want it so obviously this would be the second claim that
17:02you've
17:02made sort of yeah yeah that's my phone you've lost sort of both of the phones in a short period
17:07of time so
17:07yeah yeah with the the phones that you're claiming for um on both of them phones i can see
17:14another customer has been using the phones that you were claiming for i don't know so with the
17:21two phones that you claim for i can see another customer has been using both of them phones
17:26i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure right because maybe there's been those
17:30empowerment someone using it right because you need to block your something or yeah so so what what's
17:36happened is i've actually contacted that person to see what's happened and how they've come into
17:41possession of the phone is by saying they've used both of your phones so they've used the very
17:47first phone that you claimed again and then i've found the phone then somebody's on the phone
17:52right but what i've been told is in fact that you've sold that phone to them
17:57no i'm not sure the phone i'm not sure the phone at all right well i've got confirmation that someone
18:04bought that phone from you for a hundred pounds no no no no because that wasn't working
18:13right so please explain to me how somebody has managed to find both of your phones in that same
18:20person i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm
18:26not right
18:55the information i've got at the moment sir okay it doesn't look too good because
19:04i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure right well what i'm just
19:11making
19:11aware is that with regards to this claim we wouldn't be providing a replacement phone for you
19:18and your phone claim will be declined all right okay thank you thank you
19:24bye-bye with regards to your contract
19:27and with that he's gone realizing his plan has been foiled no matter how far-fetched a first
19:36notification of loss may appear our responsibility is to make sure the facts and the evidence
19:43of that claim actually support the story what's really pleasing in this case is the collaborations
19:51that we have across the industry allow us to identify potential fraudsters and stop them at source
20:09millions of people are out and about shopping every day if you're a shop owner you have a duty to
20:16make it
20:16safe for your customers both inside and out poorly maintained floors can cause trips slips and falls
20:24and if a customer is hurt they could be looking for compensation
20:31injuries do happen and sometimes in the most unexpected ways which was the case for one customer
20:39who put in a claim because of an accident outside the shop's premises
20:43and it was for the shop's insurer alliance to deal with it
20:52on the day of the incident the claimant stood outside the insured property and a roof
20:58tile fell off the roof onto a parked car ricocheting near the claimants
21:05alliance received two claim notification forms from the solicitors advising that their clients
21:11had sustained personal injury they claimed that they were hit by parts of the roof tile
21:16they believed the store was at fault because it had a dangerous roof
21:21the claimants then proceeded to go into the store to tell the owner that a roof tile had fallen off
21:27the roof and hit them and caused them injury
21:31at the time they'd both been there getting cash from a hole in the wall and now they were seeking
21:39compensation both claimants were claiming up to 10 000 pounds for their injuries each the first claimant
21:45had a soft tissue injury to their back and the second uh claimant had an injury to her ankle
21:53even a small object falling from a height could have caused the kind of injuries described it was
21:59sounding very plausible accidents do happen and for the for the version of events that occurred here
22:07um taking out an insurance policy would be um would be fundamental to our insured to to help protect them
22:16an alliance was there in its customers time of need
22:21in personal injury cases like this our experienced handlers would seek clarification of any allegations
22:27along with any medical evidence or medical reports that are available for the claimant
22:34when the reports came in the version of events seemed to have changed and now someone else was involved
22:42another customer weighing over 17 stone over six foot tall had shoved them out of the way causing the
22:50injuries that they sustained
22:53the introduction of a mystery stranger was unexpected this was the first time that either claimant made
23:01reference to another individual involved in the incident it certainly raises our suspicion when someone
23:07changes their story plus the price had gone up they were now looking for 15 000 pounds in addition to
23:15a back
23:15injury one of the claimants said they'd injured their neck as well james needed to see if there were any
23:21witnesses to this roof tile trauma there was cctv available and we requested copies
23:30a very reliable witness but would the footage support the events
23:36the footage showed that the claimants were at the cash point
23:42so here we've got the footage of the of the alleged incident you can see um sort of two or
23:48three
23:48individuals hovering around the cash points clearly one of them is on the phone one of them is perhaps
23:53having a cigarette when suddenly there's a bit of commotion where individuals look up um still
23:59walking around clearly you can see that um no one is injured um in this footage at all um and
24:06they're
24:07still still trying to get money out of the machine uh while other others now are just talking to each
24:14other
24:17and the mysterious six foot 17 stone man considerably lighter and shorter and in no way coming to the
24:26rescue my first reaction to when when i first viewed the cct footage was just of complete shock
24:34that um that that people think they can get away with it at no stage did the footage show that
24:40the
24:40claimants were hit by by any falling debris and it certainly didn't show that the claimants were injured in any
24:47in any way
24:49of course legal proceedings had been issued so the cctv was sent to the claimant solicitors
24:58they offered to discontinue the claim but because of the clear discrepancies between the allegations
25:04and the cctv footage allianz declined their offer the claimant solicitors then came off record meaning
25:11that the claimants were left to defend themselves both would have their day in court at the hearing both
25:21claimants were unrepresented by any solicitor but still believe that the cctv footage backed up their
25:28versions of the versions of events events that had changed twice and at court yet a third version of
25:36events the claimants were trying to defend themselves by um suggesting that as they turned after hearing
25:44the tile fall that that was what caused their injury it was curious that a severe turn of their head
25:51could cause whiplash symptoms it was time to present the footage the judge then reviewed the cctv evidence
26:00and clearly did not believe the both claimants version of events and therefore deemed both claimants
26:06um fundamentally dishonest both payments were then ordered to pay back the cost incurred in uh defending
26:12the claim a crushing defeat as the costs were eight thousand pounds and with a county court
26:21judgment ordering them to pay a hundred and fifty pounds a month they'll be making regular trips
26:25to the cash point now this is a great result for for allianz and of course our customer who we
26:33defended
26:34right throughout the uh the claim still to come a cheeky claimant involved in a minor shunt tries to cash
26:47in
26:47he claimed that he had had to spend money on a personal trainer to try to get over the injuries
26:53he alleged to have sustained he claimed over two thousand pounds for that
27:08many households have pet insurance policies which can cushion the blow in the event of an emergency
27:14around two million pounds each day is paid out by pet insurers in the uk agria deals with all manner
27:21of claims including those from people who may not actually be covered the policy was set up by the
27:27customer's breeder on the 19th of may 2014 the breeders set the policy up online and going through the
27:34activation process they would have been asked a number of questions one of which was to confirm that
27:40the puppy was fit and healthy at the point at which it was purchased which the breeder confirmed
27:46they'd gone on to extend that initial period of cover into a full annual policy we then heard from
27:52the customer about two months later and they were submitting a claim for dry eye which is isn't is known
27:59in the breed and it was a claim for just under 300 pounds the usual checks were made and everything
28:05seemed valid we went back to the owner and we checked that apart from the vet they'd been to for
28:12this condition the puppy hadn't been seen by any other vets and we went back to the breeder and confirmed
28:18the same thing with them both confirmed that there'd been nothing wrong with the puppy and this was the
28:23first condition the puppy had had sadly dry eye is a long-lasting condition that would affect the dog for
28:29the rest of its life so the ongoing claims of this condition and that's borne out by a claims experience
28:36so from july 2014 we've been paying ongoing claims for this condition which has been chronic
28:44and the animal will never be rid of to date over those three years we've paid well over 4 000
28:50pounds
28:50to treat that eye problem sounds like that are enough to make your eyes water but the puppy's eyes
28:56weren't its only problem and this is where the policyholder came a bit unstuck and then earlier
29:03this year in may this year we received a claim from the policyholder for a different condition
29:08it was for a skin condition but interestingly it was from a different vets and when we looked at the
29:14claim form the vet had included the full veterinary history for the animal and when we looked at that
29:20closely some very interesting points came to light we have him registered there since 24th of april 2014
29:31yeah under your name and address uh your policy started on the 19th of may 2014 that is where it's
29:42then
29:43come to light that the puppy was in your care under well under your name and address and event on
29:51the 24th of
29:52april 2014 so that is prior your insurance policy starting back at the full week three because that
30:00started on the 19th of may 2014. yeah so the puppy was in the policyholder's possession a month before the
30:09purchase date this was very odd and there were more revelations in the vet's paperwork so they submitted
30:16full clinical history since he was registered with them and it starts on the 25th of april 2014
30:25where he has gone in for his second vaccination so he had his first in vaccination with the breeder
30:33and then as a puppy they then have their second injection a few weeks later and he has had that
30:38in your care it's okay so on this date on the 24th of april again this is a prior the
30:47start of your policy
30:48it's got he's in good health but conjunctivitis on the right hand side with ocular discharge is raised
30:56pink swelling around the eye possible cherry eye type but more difficult in face of inflammation
31:04so they're hard to determine if there's a cherry eye or if it's just inflammation
31:10so those clinical signs are consistent with the same clinical signs that he had when you made that first
31:15claim that meant that dry eye was pre-existing pre-existing the start date of the policy and so
31:22not covered the puppy had been treated for the condition for some time so how had this been
31:28possible without adequate insurance cover the very first consultation where the symptoms of dry eye
31:35were recognized the vet would have advised the owner that this was like to be a lifetime condition
31:41and that the owner will be paying bills for dry eye probably for the rest of that puppy's life
31:45um so it's very conceivable that at that point that the uh breeder had retrospectively set up a piece
31:53of cover they fabricated the purchase date of the puppy in fact after the point at which the owner had
32:00taken taken ownership of the puppy and the owner had then taken the puppy to a different vet a vet
32:07that
32:07didn't have any of the veterinary history of the dry eye and so the vet uh in all good faith
32:12treated it
32:13as a start for new condition the evidence was very clear in that the owner did not have insurance
32:19cover but trying to explain this to her proved very difficult when we asked you back in 2014
32:27if the puppy been reading any other vets you said no when this history confirms that he had
32:34right what what is it we're getting out here so what i'm saying is the condition for the eye
32:41is pre-existing because the clinical signs of this eye problem started on the 25th of april 2014
32:49but he was insured with you then no that's what i've just said the policy started on the 19th of
32:54may
32:562014. that's the case then what are you saying so what i'm saying is from the facts that we've got
33:01at
33:01the moment the eye problem is pre-existing to your policy and we've been paying out for a condition that
33:08we shouldn't have been paying for because it's pre-existing well i don't agree with that because
33:12i know that the puppy was was it insured when i got it so anyway what what so the situation
33:19is
33:21we're entitled to recover that money back from you oh right you better try that then she would need to
33:28repay 4 100 pounds we'd paid for the dry eye condition over the intervening three years
33:35a costly mistake and there were further implications
33:40we also advised her that we would be cancelling down her policies and she had a policy for another
33:45pet as well which we would cancel so neither of my dogs were insured at the moment what you're saying
33:50at the moment the policies are still live we haven't handled them we haven't you're not gonna
33:53you're not gonna pay up are you they've got they've both got skin condition at the moment what i'm
33:59saying is you're not gonna pay up on those are you so essentially they're not insured am i right
34:05in that yes the policies will have to be radicals okay then well i've got it going now but um
34:11i'll you
34:13you know you can write to me and i'll have to talk something out for my god okay okay but
34:19you will
34:19me because obviously there is a recovery okay okay she was shocked she soon got over the fact of
34:28being shocked and she agreed a repayment plan with us and she's repaying the money uh in installments
34:37over a period of time i don't think she felt that uh records will go back that far or that
34:43we go back
34:43and check records or the vets would keep that level of detailed uh record whatever had happened
34:49in this case the fact she wasn't covered and yet claimed for more than four thousand pounds worth of
34:55vet fees resulted in more than financial loss for the puppy owner she was reported to the insurance
35:01fraud investigators group so other insurers would be aware of her actions this case is an important
35:07one just because there's a passage of time just because somebody gets away with fraud
35:12for a number of months or a number of years uh it doesn't excuse the fraud it doesn't make the
35:17fraud go away and in instances like this where we have additional information and evidence that
35:24highlights a fraud in the past we will trace it down
35:37minor shunts in busy traffic are commonplace inconvenient but easily fixed but there are
35:44motorists who exaggerate the damage to themselves and their vehicles to make a fast buck as aviva
35:51highlights with the next case if disingenuous claimers realize the implications of their actions
35:56they may think twice the claim that came in um was for a uh a whiplash injury so an injury
36:03to the back
36:04and to the neck at the dartford toll booth the claim was worth in the region of 13 000 pounds
36:12the claimant described the accident as a very severe collision
36:18aaron short had driven into the back of the claimant's vehicle at about 30 to 40 miles an hour
36:25and shunted the claimant's vehicle forward when it was at the hotel booth
36:31he said that it suffered over a thousand pounds worth of damage to his bumper as a result of the
36:36collision it sounded like a nasty accident but the claimant's story was at odds with aviva's policy
36:42holder our customer explained that when stationary at the toll booth behind the claimant's vehicle he'd
36:49reached into his pockets to get some money and had inadvertently taken his foot off the footbrake
36:55and rolled slowly forward into the back of the claimant's vehicle
37:02not quite the 30 to 40 miles per hour impact described by the claimant clearly given such a
37:09discrepancy in the two versions of events this was a claim we would need to investigate further
37:14also given that we had awareness of the extent of the physical damage to the vehicles that suggested
37:21to us that our customer's version of events was closer to the actual in fact a report submitted by
37:28the customer contradicts this in it the accident is described as being minor with only cosmetic paint
37:34work required aviva inspected its customers vehicle and found no parts were needed for repairs
37:40a paint job was all that was necessary overall there was nothing indicative of injuries so aviva sought
37:47medical information about the effects of the accident on the claimant
37:53we obtained the general practitioner records of the claimant which is standard uh investigation
37:59um and we discovered in there that the claimant had been attending the gym regularly both immediately
38:06prior to and subsequent to the accident we also discovered that he'd in fact injured his back
38:13at the gym in the weeks immediately prior to the accident with evidence mounting against the claimant's
38:20story aviva turned to solicitors horrich farrelly to investigate further and defend the case in court if
38:27necessary the claimant's secrecy around his physical health was suspect so digging around to obtain hard
38:34facts was essential five days after the accident he did in fact attend his gp but didn't mention
38:40the accident at all all he mentioned was the previous gym injury gymnasium records showed that
38:48in fact he was back at the gym within one week of the accident occurring one final piece of evidence
38:53that we obtained in the case was that he had in fact called his own insurers just one day after
38:58the
38:58accident and confirmed that nobody had sustained any injury in his vehicle conflicting medical reports
39:05contradictions over his gym visits the damage to his car and himself this case was not stacking up
39:14the claimant worked in i.t for the big banks faced with the evidence against him surely an educated
39:21and astute operator like him would back off still decided to take his chances and proceed to trial
39:28he would live to regret that decision on the morning of trial he was invited on to stand
39:35and under oath then began to give his evidence during the cross-examination process he quickly
39:42became unstuck he changed his evidence to say that in fact his vehicle was only rocked as opposed to
39:49being shunted forwards and claimed that he was confused when asked about the speed of the accident
39:54it was inconsistent throughout the course of his evidence for example when trying to explain why
39:59he had told his own insurance company that he wasn't injured he falsely claimed that he believed they
40:05had asked whether he had sustained any serious injury as opposed to any injury at all his performance on
40:10the stand was hardly convincing he had claimed that he was unable to drive for six months after the
40:17accident but during the course of cross-examination he clarified that to say in fact he was actually
40:22only unable to drive long distances for that period the claimant's account was riddled with holes but
40:28when it came to his seven thousand pounds for loss of earnings he surpassed himself he was caught
40:33out during cross-examination being unable to explain the inconsistencies between varying accounts of
40:39having no time off work 16 days off work 10 days off work or just a few days off work
40:44nothing he said
40:46was concrete and his exercise regime post-accident was negligible too he claimed during cross-examination
40:54that in fact he was able to attend but purely that he couldn't do the same kind of exercises as
40:58he used
40:59to do many claims for fitness expenditure are based on being unable to attend prepaid classes
41:05but this chancer had a priceless alternative he claimed that he had had to spend money on a personal
41:11trainer to try to get over the injuries he alleged to have sustained he claimed over two thousand pounds
41:17for that there was no end to his boldness he had the personal trainer turn up at trial to give
41:23evidence
41:27it seems this entertaining trial and the cross-examination by aviva's barrister proved too much for this chancer
41:34and he discontinued he wanted to end the litigation this was not a great outcome for aviva who would
41:41have to foot the bill if the claimant wasn't found to be fundamentally dishonest so it stepped up the
41:47pressure we asked the judge to nevertheless make a finding that the claim was dishonest in this world
41:54of claim and counterclaim a glimmer of light the judge found that the claim was fundamentally
41:59dishonest and ordered to pay aviva's costs of over 8 000 pounds which have now been paid but aviva
42:05wasn't going to let his blatant lies go unpunished they wanted to say it matters further he had clearly
42:12lied throughout the course of the claim and under oath during cross-examination we recommended to aviva
42:17that they commence an action for contempt of court this process took almost three years during which this
42:24fraudster made more false claims stretching out the proceedings when the trial finally started he
42:30pleaded guilty and received a four-month sentence suspended for one year
42:37to add to his woes the man who'd lied about a simple shunt was hit hard financially
42:43after such lengthy legal proceedings he had to pay all of aviva's costs which amounted to 40 000 pounds
42:53he has to repay to aviva is in addition to the 8 000 pounds that he had already had to
42:58pay as a
42:58result of the civil action this was an extreme example of exaggerating what was in essence a very
43:05very minor accident he was a highly paid i.t consultant but this was certainly going to make a
43:11dent in his personal trainer fund it was absolutely clear to me that he was not in need of the
43:17money
43:17and this was purely a case of greed
43:47so
43:47so
43:47so
43:47so
43:47so
43:47so
43:47so
43:47so
43:47You
Comments