- 18 hours ago
Rogue Claimers - Season 2 Episode 12
Category
🎥
Short filmTranscript
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
00:25are 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 subject out the vehicle
00:42including covert surveillance systems sophisticated data analysis techniques
00:47and specially 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
01:00this is rogue claimers
01:08today secret surveillance unearthed the truth about a man claiming more than 340 000 pounds
01:15the surveillance footage was really quite astonishing we found that he wasn't being 100
01:20percent truthful to us a rogue roof tile and a hefty injury claim
01:27the cctv puts a dent in their story
01:31my first reaction to when when i first viewed the cct 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
01:57performance the uk workforce carries out a huge range of jobs from nine to five office work to those on
02:04construction sites and cafes bars and restaurants trips slips and falls are commonplace whilst most of
02:11us are glad of the insurance cover provided by those who pay our wages some take it a step too
02:16far
02:17the insurance firm travelers discovered this in the following case
02:21we're committed we're committed to making sure legitimate claims are paid quickly and fairly however
02:27we also have a duty to investigate fraud to help our customers not having to be exposed to unnecessary
02:34costs or fees my team has access to over 200 investigators across our company as well as access to
02:43state-of-the-art investigation tools and the company needed its full armory on this occasion to deal with
02:49an audacious personal injury claim the claim came to travelers because he was working one of our
02:55customers factories and he allegedly injured his wrist he had a manual handling task and he injured his right
03:03hand which also caused soft tissue injury to his wrist this caused him not to be able to continue with
03:10working for our customer and therefore they dismissed him after around two years of being off work this
03:18must have been a huge blow for the injured man who decided to recoup some compensation the claim then
03:24came to us and for ongoing injury and the fact that he was saying that he couldn't go back to
03:30work
03:31taking into account his loss of earnings and future rehabilitation costs this claim was worth a
03:36staggering sum if we were on for full liability we're looking at around 340 000 pounds a 340 000
03:45pound claim is substantial to us we would consider that as a high value large loss matter travelers took
03:53a close look into the history of the case including the early medical checks undertaken to assess the injury
03:59the medical report um had noted within it that he had suffered a soft tissue injury to his right hand
04:05in his wrist they expected that that injury would take around three months to recover
04:11but he would claimed that he was still suffering with ongoing issues which raised a lot of red flags for
04:18us but according to the claimant the work accident had caused a significant impact on his life and what
04:24he was able to do he claimed that he wasn't able to drive and he wouldn't be able to lift
04:31very light
04:32objects um like shopping a pen a knife and fork a cup that sort of thing um which was a
04:41lot of um
04:42injury for something that seemed quite minor while a broken leg can be easily monitored injuries like
04:48those sustained by the claimant are more difficult to judge but now into its third year this injury
04:54needed further investigation we got two other experts to have a look at his um injuries so we had an
05:02orthopedic surgeon um who is looking at the soft tissue injury seeing whether there is any issues and
05:08and ongoing injuries and also we had a pain expert look at whether that ongoing pain that he was claiming
05:15to be there was actually still a factor and we also instructed for a pain expert to consider
05:22what the psychological issues that he was suffering with a pretty rigorous checkup then when we
05:29had the reports back um they did assign to us that there was still some questions around his injuries
05:37so we decided that we needed to go and take further action and investigate through covert surveillance
05:45this would give some insight into how the injury was affecting the claimants day-to-day activities
05:49and there was some anecdotal evidence to arouse suspicions further we found that um a colleague of
05:57his at his work a senior colleague a manager had actually seen him out and about while he was meant
06:03to
06:04be off work due to his injuries she'd actually seen him carrying a crate of beer from a supermarket which
06:11was totally contradictory to everything he stated to them as as his employment on its own this information
06:19was not enough to prove fraud and those affected by soft tissue injuries can have ups and downs in
06:25their recovery this could have just been a good day the way that we use surveillance as a resource is
06:31to
06:32make 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 didn't um outline that he had any good days and he stated to the experts that he wasn't
06:59able to use
07:00his right hand at all so no ambiguity there and cameras were ready to find out the truth the surveillance
07:07footage was really quite astonishing we found that he wasn't being 100 truthful to us
07:15when we conducted the first series of surveillance we actually instructed for our agents to follow him
07:22to his medical examination one being because he'd claimed that he was having to be driven by a
07:29companion because he wasn't able to drive himself however when we got the footage through and we actually
07:37found he was driving alone in his own vehicle this was quite shocking because he had claimed all along
07:45he wasn't able to drive in the first period of footage and we find that he was actually wearing
07:52a wrist support on his right hand and that later then comes off after he's seen the medical expert
07:59um the expert does refer to this in his report and actually outlines that he doesn't need the support
08:06on so we believe that's why he then is discarded it after um driving himself to the medical examination
08:14he is holding his arm rather gingerly though perhaps he's aware he might be being watched he closes the
08:21van 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 and 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
08:44expert 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 um and also
08:57he stops at services we see him get out of the vehicle he uses his right hand with no issues
09:05so the second day after we proceeded to take the surveillance um on the medical examination you can
09:13see in this third day that he's really showing himself we've actually got him again driving and he's
09:19going to a builder's merchant and at the builder's merchants he's decided to purchase two paint
09:25carriers the paint carriers themselves are 10 litre paint carriers and they weigh around 16 kilograms each
09:33this is a massive red flag for us and and a big sting into his claim the surveillance certainly
09:42cast new light on the claimant and his assertion the whole evidence around the surveillance and was
09:49so damning on his case the net was closing in on this fraudster who claimed he couldn't drive lift
09:56a cup or a knife and fork and he had no idea evidence to contradict his lies was mounting it's
10:03ridiculous
10:04almost that he believes that he could get away with stating these injuries were so catastrophic to
10:11his life that 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 withdrew the
10:28claim we felt at that point that it was right thing to do to send this over to the police
10:33and get
10:34them to have a look and see whether there was any potential for prosecution and it was decided there was
10:41a case to answer so the claimant's actions would be laid bare it was agreed that he would actually be
10:47charged with fraud by false representation and be seen at crown court he pleaded guilty the camera evidence
10:55spoke for himself and did him no favors at all the claimant was convicted for fraud by false representation
11:02and sentenced to jail for 12 months
11:07i think he may 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
11:20he tried to try it on and exaggerate his claims i think it's tough to live a lie
11:25having to keep up that pretense for such a period of time traveler's instinct to track his movements
11:30with the surveillance was spot on i would say to anybody that's thinking about uh exaggerating the
11:37claim or bringing a false claim that we're committed to protecting our customers we have the time we have
11:43the resource and we have the energy to get to the truth
11:53later pause for thought as a pet owner refuses to believe her furry friend was not covered we're
12:00entitled to recover that money back from you oh right you set a slide up then
12:17for many people the smartphone is our lifeline and it's too much to bear when this is cut off
12:28the initial claim that we received was for a high-end smartphone to the value in excess of 400 pounds
12:36we had a customer who was very emotionally upset and was claiming that they'd lost their phone
12:42sorry to hear that you've lost your phone
12:44i've been to check on three because it's hundreds of years and i don't know what to do with it
12:47anymore
12:49because you need money and insurance i don't get any money out of anything do i
12:54pardon because i don't insurance am i
12:56you've got insurance checked all right okay so can i state how will you lost your phone please
13:03i don't know if i knew where last time we found it i don't know what i've been looking everywhere
13:06but i've been looking in gold i've been looking everywhere so when was the last time you had your
13:10phone huh when was the last time you had your phone saturday saturday i had my phone saturday
13:18yeah and what time was that i'm not sure what time it was i don't know what time it was
13:25okay so what do you think tafford i don't know what's happened i don't remember why i'm losing my
13:29plot i'm losing my mind where were you when you realized you've lost your phone okay and what
13:40have you tried to do to look for the phone i don't know i've been trying to call i've been
13:45trying to
13:45order fully i can found it was the sim card in there at the time wasn't him in the phone
13:54when you lost it
13:55were you saying to me i said acceleration darling your contract sim
14:00he was in the phone because my contract was in the phone thank you so what was strange is despite
14:06the fact that this customer was in floods of tears claiming that they'd lost the phone claiming
14:12that they couldn't uh get through when they were trying to dial the number uh potentially that
14:18somebody had found it um our industry records demonstrated that a third-party telephone number
14:24was actually using this device this was the second phone the man had lost and claimed for in less than
14:32two weeks that wouldn't be uncommon we speak to over 25 000 customers per day and occasionally
14:42our consumers lose more than one device what was suspicious about this claim is when we initially
14:48investigated the information provided by the claimant we identified through our industry sources
14:55and 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
15:11that that tied back directly to this claimant's previously successful claim there was a clear link between
15:19the first claim and the second claim once we had confirmed and validated that there was a a new telephone
15:28number um which was a different number than the one the claimant was using uh we decided our fraud team
15:34decided to contact and and call that telephone number so imagine our surprise when uh our fraud team
15:43telephoned 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 pounds um and that when it had actually stopped working which undoubtedly was due to the fact that
16:05that device was 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
16:31using these phones as currency it was extremely clear to our investigations team that this was
16:38a potential fraudulent 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
16:51on the claim yeah so does that have some sort of additional questions just to ask you yeah you
16:56could yeah you could actually yeah you could ask me and then you want it so obviously this would be
17:01the second claim that you've made sort of yeah yeah you've lost sort of both of the phones in a
17:06short period of time so yeah with the the phones that you're claiming for um on both of them
17:13phones i can see another customer has been using the phones that you were claiming for
17:18i don't know so with the two phones that you claim for i can see another customer has been using
17:25both of them phones i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure right because maybe there's been
17:30no retirement someone using it right because you need to look or something or yeah so so 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 because i said they've used both of your phones so they've used the very
17:47first phone that you claimed again and then i don't find the phone to them somebody's on the
17:52phone right but what i've been told is in fact that you sold that phone to them no i haven't
17:58tried the phone at all right well i've got confirmation that someone bought that phone from you for a
18:06hundred pounds no no no no no because that thing wasn't working when you bought it it still
18:12it's not like right there's no way right so please explain to me how somebody has managed to find
18:18both of your phones in that same person i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure
18:23i'm not
18:23the numbers they're not to be honest right i don't know they're good they're not to be honest
18:28quite clearly that response from the claimant had to be false because we had records to show this third
18:36party was using the phone before the actual loss had been claimed for
18:45he had been successful with his first claim uh it appeared that he was simply attempting to repeat
18:53the process with his second claim it was clear that this was fraudulent claim the information i've got
19:00by the moment sir okay it doesn't look too good because i don't know i don't know you're assuming
19:06because you didn't push all the air i don't know what that sounds great right well what i'm just
19:11making aware 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 for simplifying them thank you
19:24okay with regards to your contract and with that he's gone realizing his plan has been foiled no matter
19:33how far-fetched a first notification of loss may appear our responsibility is to make sure the facts
19:42and the evidence of that claim actually support the story what's really pleasing in this case
19:49is the collaborations that we have across the industry allow us to identify potential fraudsters
19:58and 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
20:16it safe 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
20:32injuries 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 a shop's premises
20:44and it was for the shop's insurer allianz to deal with it
20:52on the day of the incident the claimant stood outside the insured property and a roof towel fell
20:59off the roof onto a parked car ricocheting near the claimants
21:05allianz 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 an 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
22:15them an alliance was there in its customers time of need in personal injury cases like this our
22:23experienced handlers would seek clarification of any allegations along with any medical evidence or
22:29medical reports that are available for the claimant when the reports came in the version of events seemed
22:37to have changed and now someone else was involved another customer weighing over 17 stone over six foot tall
22:46had shoved them out of the way causing the injuries that they sustained
22:53the introduction of a mystery stranger was unexpected
22:58this was the first time that either claimant made reference to another individual involved in the
23:03incident it certainly raises our suspicion when someone changes their story plus the price had gone up
23:11they were now looking for 15 000 pounds in addition to a back injury one of the claimants said they'd
23:18injured
23:18their neck as well james needed to see if there were any witnesses to this roof tile trauma there was
23:26cctv
23:26available and we requested copies a 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 walking
23:59around clearly you can see that um no one is injured um in this footage at all um and they're
24:07still
24:07still trying to get money out of the machine uh while other others now are just talking to each other
24:18and the mysterious six foot 17 stone man considerably lighter and shorter and in no way coming to the
24:28rescue 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
24:41claimants were hit by by any falling debris and it certainly didn't show that the claimants were injured
24:47in any in any way of course legal proceedings had been issued so the cctv was sent to the claimant
24:55solicitors
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
25:11meaning that the claimants were left to defend themselves both would have their day in court
25:19at the hearing both claimants were unrepresented by any solicitor but still believed that the cctv
25:26footage backed up their versions of events events that had changed twice and at court
25:34yet a third version of events the claimants were trying to defend themselves by um suggesting that
25:42as they turned after hearing the tile fall that that was what caused their injury
25:48it was curious that a severe turn of their head could cause whiplash symptoms
25:54it was time to present the footage
25:57the judge then reviewed the cctv evidence and clearly did not believe that both claimants version
26:03of events and therefore deemed both claimants um fundamentally dishonest both payments were then
26:09ordered to pay back the cost incurred in defending the claim a crushing defeat as the costs were 8 000
26:18pounds and with the county court judgment ordering them to pay 150 pounds a month
26:24they'll be making regular trips to the cash point now
26:28this is a great result for allianz and of course our customer who we defended right throughout the claim
26:42still to come a cheeky claimant involved in the minor shunt tries to cash in he claimed that he had
26:49had
26:49to spend money on a personal trainer to try to get over the injuries he alleged to have sustained
26:55he claimed over 2 000 pounds for that
27:08many households have pet insurance policies which can cushion the blow in the event of an emergency
27:14around 2 million pounds each day is paid out by pet insurers in the uk
27:19agria deals with all manner of claims including those from people who may not
27:24actually be covered the policy was set up by the customer's breeder on the 19th of may 2014. the
27:31breeders set the policy up online and going through the activation process they would have been asked
27:37a number of questions one of which was to confirm that the puppy was fit and healthy at the point
27:43at
27:43which it was purchased which the breeder confirmed they'd gone on to extend that initial period of cover
27:49into a full annual policy we then heard from the customer about two months later and they were
27:55submitting a claim for dry eye which is is known in the breed and it was a claim for just
28:01under 300
28:02pounds the usual checks were made and everything seemed valid we went back to the owner and we checked
28:10that apart from the vet they'd been to for this condition the puppy hadn't been seen by any other vets
28:16and we went back to the breeder and confirmed the same thing with them both confirmed that there
28:21had been nothing wrong with the puppy and this was the first condition the puppy had had sadly dry eye
28:27is a long-lasting condition that would affect the dog for the rest of its life so the ongoing claims
28:33of
28:33this condition and that's borne out by a claims experience so from july 2014 we've been paying ongoing
28:40claims for this condition which has been chronic um and the animal will never be rid of to date over
28:47those three years we've paid well over four thousand pounds uh to treat that eye problem
28:52sounds like that are enough to make your eyes water but the puppy's eyes weren't its only problem
28:58and this is where the policyholder came a bit unstuck and then earlier this year in may this year
29:04we received a claim from the policyholder for a different condition uh it was for a skin condition
29:10but interestingly it was from a different vet and when we looked at the claim form the vet had included
29:16the full veterinary history for the animal um and when we looked at that closely some very interesting
29:22points came to light we have him registered there since 24th of april 2014 yeah under your name and address
29:35uh your policy started on the 19th of may 2014 that is where it's then come to light that the
29:45puppy was
29:46in your care under well under your name and address and event on the 24th of april 2014 so that
29:55is prior
29:56your insurance policy starting back at the four weeks three because that started on the 19th of may
30:022014. yeah so the puppy was in the policyholder's possession a month before the purchase date this was
30:11very odd and there were more revelations in the vet's paperwork so they submitted full clinical history
30:18since he was registered with them and it starts on the 25th of april 2014 where he has gone in
30:27for his
30:28second vaccination so he had his first in vaccination with the breeder and then as a puppy they then have
30:35their second injection a few weeks later and he has had that in your care that's okay so on this
30:42date
30:43on the 24th of april again this is a prior the start of your policy it's got he's in good
30:50health but
30:51conjunctivitis on the right hand side with ocular discharge is raised pink swelling around the eye
30:59possible cherry eye type but more difficult in face of inflammation so they're hard to determine if
31:05there's a cherry eye or if it's just inflammation so those clinical signs are consistent with the
31:13same clinical signs that he had when you made that first claim that meant that dry eye was pre-existing
31:19pre-existing the start date of the policy and so not covered the puppy had been treated for the
31:25condition for some time so how had this been possible without adequate insurance cover the
31:32very first consultation where the symptoms of dry eye were recognized the vet would have advised the
31:38owner that this was like to be a lifetime condition and that the owner will be paying bills for dry
31:43eye
31:43probably for the rest of that puppy's life so it's very conceivable that at that point that the
31:51breeder had retrospectively set up a piece of cover they fabricated the purchase date of the puppy
31:57in fact after the point at which the owner had taken taken ownership of the puppy
32:02and the owner had then taken the puppy to a different vet a vet that didn't have any of the
32:08veterinary history of the dry eye and so the vet uh in all good faith treated it as a start
32:14of a new
32:14condition the evidence was very clear in that the owner did not have insurance cover
32:20but 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 at 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. what are you saying so what i'm saying is from the facts that we've got at the moment
33:02the eye problem is pre-existing to your policy and we've been paying out for condition that we
33:08shouldn't have been paying for because it's pre-existing well i don't agree with that because
33:13i know that that the puppy was was insured when i got it so anyway what what so the situation
33:20am i
33:21we're entitled to recover that money back from you
33:24oh right you better try that then she would need to repay
33:28for 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 canceled them we haven't you're not gonna
33:54you're not gonna pay up are you they've got they've both got skin condition at the moment
33:58what i'm saying is you're not going to pay up on those are you so essentially they're not insured
34:04am i right in that yes the policies will have to be canceled okay then well i've got it going
34:11now
34:11but um i'll you know you can write to me and i'll have to talk something out for my god
34:17okay okay but
34:19you will need because obviously there is a recovery okay okay you write to me and and uh we'll see
34:24what
34:25she was shocked she soon got over the fact of being shocked and she agreed a repayment plan
34:32with us and she's repaying the money uh in installments over a period of time i don't think
34:39she felt that uh records will go back that far or that we go back and check records or the
34:45vets would
34:46keep that level of detailed uh record whatever had happened in this case the fact she wasn't covered
34:52and yet claimed for more than 4 000 pounds worth of vet fees resulted in more than financial loss for
34:58the puppy owner she was reported to the insurance fraud investigators group so other insurers would
35:04be aware of her actions this case is an important one just because there's a passage of time just
35:10because somebody gets away with fraud for a number of months or a number of years uh it doesn't excuse
35:16a fraud it doesn't make the fraud go away and in instances like this where we have additional
35:22information and evidence that highlights a fraud in the past we will trace it down
35:37minor shunts in busy traffic are commonplace inconvenient but easily fixed
35:44but there are motorists who exaggerate the damage to themselves and their vehicles to make a fast buck
35:50as aviva highlights with the next case if disingenuous claimers realize the implications
35:55of their actions they may think twice the claim that came in um was for a a whiplash injury so
36:03an injury
36:03to the back and to the neck at the dartford toll booth the claim was worth in the region of
36:0913 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 toll 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
36:48he'd reached into his pocket to get some money and had inadvertently taken his foot off the foot brake
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 discrepancy
37:10in the two versions of events this was a claim we would need to investigate further also given that we
37:16had awareness of the extent of the physical damage to the vehicles that suggested to us that our customers
37:23version of events was closer to the actual in fact a report submitted by the customer contradicts this
37:30in it the accident is described as being minor with only cosmetic paint work required aviva inspected
37:37its customers vehicle and found no parts were needed for repairs a paint job was all that was necessary
37:43overall there was nothing indicative of injuries so aviva sought medical information about the effects of
37:49the accident on the claimant we obtained the general practitioner records of the claimant which is
37:57standard uh investigation um and we discovered in there that the claimant had been attending the gym
38:04regularly both immediately prior to and subsequent to the accident we also discovered that he in fact
38:12injured his back at the gym in the weeks immediately prior to the accident
38:18with evidence mounting against the claimant's story aviva turned to solicitors horrich farrelly
38:23to investigate further and defend the case in court if necessary the claimant's secrecy around his
38:31physical health was suspect so digging around to obtain hard facts was essential five days after the
38:38accident he did in fact attend his gp but didn't mention the accident at all all he mentioned was the
38:43previous gym injury gymnasium records showed that in fact he was back at the gym within one week of the
38:50accident occurring
38:52one final piece of evidence that we obtained in the case was that he had in fact called his own
38:56insurers
38:57just one day after the accident and confirmed that nobody had sustained any injury in his vehicle
39:04conflicting medical reports contradictions over his gym visits the damage to his car and himself
39:11this case was not stacking up the claimant worked in it for the big banks faced with the evidence against
39:19him surely an educated and astute operator like him would back off still decided to take his chances
39:26and proceed to trial he would live to regret that decision
39:32on the morning of trial he was invited on to stand and under oath then began to give his evidence
39:40during the cross-examination process he quickly became unstuck
39:45he changed his evidence to say that in fact his vehicle was only rocked as opposed to being shunted
39:50forwards and claimed that he was confused when asked about the speed of the accident
39:53it 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
40:09his performance on the stand was hardly convincing
40:13he had claimed that he was unable to drive for six months after the accident but during the course of
40:19cross-examination he clarified that to say in fact he was actually only unable to drive long distances
40:24for that period the claimant's account was riddled with holes but when it came to his 7 000 pounds for
40:30loss of earnings he surpassed himself he was caught out during cross-examination being unable to explain
40:36the inconsistencies between varying accounts of having no time off work 16 days off work 10 days off work
40:43or just a few days off work nothing he said was concrete and his exercise regime post-accident was
40:50negligible too he claimed during cross-examination that in fact he was able to attend but purely that he
40:57couldn't do the same kind of exercises as he used to do many claims for fitness expenditure are based on
41:02being unable to attend prepaid classes but this chancer had a priceless alternative he claimed that he had
41:10to spend money on a personal trainer to try to get over the injuries he alleged to have sustained
41:15he claimed over 2 000 pounds for that there was no end to his boldness he had the personal trainer
41:23turn up at trial to give evidence it seems this entertaining trial and the cross-examination by aviva's
41:32barrister proved too much for this chancer and he discontinued he wanted to end the litigation
41:39this was not a great outcome for aviva who would have to foot the bill if the claimant wasn't found
41:44to be fundamentally dishonest so it stepped up the pressure we asked the judge to nevertheless make
41:50a finding that the claim was dishonest in this world of claim and counterclaim a glimmer of light
41:57the judge found that the claim was fundamentally dishonest and ordered to pay aviva's costs of over
42:028 000 pounds which have now been paid but aviva wasn't going to let his blatant lies go unpunished
42:09they wanted to say it matters further he had clearly lied throughout the course of the claim
42:13and under oath during cross-examination we recommended to aviva that they commence an action for content of
42:19court this process took almost three years during which this fraudster made more false claims stretching
42:26out the proceedings when the trial finally started he pleaded guilty and received a four-month sentence
42:33suspended 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
42:52the 40 000 pounds he has to repay to aviva is in addition to the 8 000 pounds that he
42:57had already
42:58had to pay as a result of the civil action this was an extreme example of exaggerating what was
43:04in essence a very very minor accident he was a highly paid i.t consultant but this was certainly
43:11going to make a dent in his personal trainer fund it was absolutely clear to me that he was not
43:16in need
43:17of the money and this was purely a case of greed
43:19and this is
43:49You
Comments