Episode 10 Claimed and Shamed

Insurance fraud in the UK is reaching epidemic levels.

And it's costing us billions of pounds every year.

Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injury claims,

even phantom pets!

The fraudsters are risking more and more

to make a quick killing.

And every year, it's adding up to £50 to your insurance bill.

Insurers are fighting back, armed with covert surveillance systems...

'Subject out the vehicle.'

..sophisticated data analysis techniques.

And highly-skilled dedicated police units...

Police! Don't move! Stay where you are!

..they're catching the criminals red-handed.

All those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle,

now they're caught in the act and claimed and shamed.

Police!

A specialist police unit co-ordinates a swoop on three suspected fraudsters.

Open the door or it'll get forced open!

An angry road user tries to defraud his victim in Bristol.

He was stationary and a bus has hit him in the rear.

And a pillar of the community comes crashing down.

His reputation's gone, he's lost his career. It wasn't a risk worth taking.

This guy is having a bad day at the office.

Five minutes ago, he was driving this bus through the busy streets of Liverpool.

But now he's calling his employers to tell them he's just been involved in a crash.

His bus hit a parked white transit van.

The strike to the van was forceful enough to injure its occupants.

Unloading in the back of the van was Melvin Williams.

In the driver's seat was owner Nathan Montgomery.

Mr Montgomery alleged that an Arriva bus had hit his parked van

when he was sat in the driver's seat

and the passenger also in the van with him.

He said he'd been jolted sideways and backwards

and he'd also hit his head on the windscreen.

So he described quite a violent collision.

After exchanging details, the white van and its rattled occupants drive away.

Soon after the incident,

the bus company receive two personal injury claims

from Montgomery and Williams.

We then got two claims from the driver and the passenger

both saying that they were injured.

We got medical evidence from Mr Montgomery.

He had a whiplash-type injury and a contusion to the head.

We never got medical evidence for the passenger.

He just said he'd suffered a whiplash injury.

Often, whiplash injuries don't come cheap.

The reserve for both claims was £24,000 which included costs.

It was a big blow for the bus company.

Especially as they don't use an external insurer for incidents like this.

They self-insure, paying out of their own pockets.

As part of the claims process,

the bus driver who caused the collision

was asked to provide his version of events.

On receiving them, the bus company halted the case.

When we got the claim form from the driver,

he said it was a very minor collision.

He'd just misjudged it and caught the wing mirror of the parked van.

It certainly didn't sound like the kind of collision

that would lead to a bash to the head and a double whiplash claim.

Crucially, there was one last comment from the driver.

The driver also said he didn't think there was anybody in the vehicle.

He wasn't certain, but he didn't think there was.

It was a statement that suggested the whole claim was a lie.

So which account was true?

A white van containing a pair of blokes being violently jolted,

or an empty van getting a clipped wing mirror?

How could the bus company tell?

This is how.

Every Arriva bus has more eyes than a spider!

The bus that struck the white van was no exception.

Somewhere, on one of its nine CCTV camera angles, was the truth.

We interrogated the CCTV because the driver had said he didn't think there was anybody in the van.

The bus company cued up the tape...

..and took a look.

This is the footage from eight seconds before the crash.

The bus is approaching the white van.

This is the moment of impact.

On the CCTV, you couldn't tell whether there was anybody in the van.

It looked as though there wasn't, but it wouldn't have proved it conclusively.

The cameras didn't seem to have captured any images that could settle the case.

Before giving up and paying Montgomery and Williams,

the bus company took another look at the footage.

This time, they spotted something in the doorway of a nearby house.

We went through the whole of the CCTV and eventually spotted two gentlemen

coming out of the house straight after the collision.

Seen here, top left.

I believed it was both Mr Montgomery and Mr Williams

because we saw these two gentlemen then talking to the driver.

Three seconds after the incident,

the bus's side camera had caught two people emerging from a house

seen here top left.

Two seconds later, the rear camera captures Montgomery and Williams

walking up to the driver from the direction of the house.

Suspecting that the two people leaving the house were Montgomery and Williams,

the bus company challenged the claim.

Once I'd looked at the CCTV footage,

I wrote to the claimants' solicitors

and said that both claimants were trying to defraud Arriva

and told them to discontinue.

They then asked for the CCTV which I sent to them.

On receiving the footage, the solicitors representing Montgomery and Williams

agreed with the bus company.

It was just an opportunist claim. They saw the bus hit the van.

And obviously saw pound signs and decided to put in a fraudulent claim.

The bus company weren't going to let them off the hook.

They went after Montgomery and Williams.

We decided we wanted a prosecution.

We got in touch with Liverpool police.

We sent them the CCTV. They went out and arrested both claimants

and they were both charged

and both pleaded guilty.

Montgomery and Williams each received 150 hours of community service

and 12 months' probation.

Hopefully, it will deter these two claimants from trying anything again.

They've now got a criminal record

which may affect them in all sorts of ways through their life.

IFED roots out a suspect from under a bed.

Is there anything here that shouldn't be here?

A dishonest driver executes a reckless manoeuvre.

Look at the footage again and again, to see if you're missing something.

And some faulty plumbing flushes out a fraudster in Bolton.

Police officers are not above the law.

Insurance fraud is on the rise.

And if you have insurance of any kind,

you're footing the bill.

But fraudsters need to watch their back.

IFED is a 35-strong unit that works tirelessly

to hunt down and prosecute insurance fraudsters

wherever they may be throughout England and Wales.

Through a combination of investigation, industry connections and surprise...

..they've made over 300 arrests

and stopped millions of pounds from going to the criminals.

Money which ultimately goes back in our pockets.

It's highly likely now, if you commit any insurance fraud, you will get caught.

Police! Don't move! Stay where you are!

Today, IFED is out in force.

Two teams aim to make a total of three arrests

at three different locations.

They're aiming to arrest three people

for taking out bogus insurance policies.

And for staging crashes in order to make money from the claims.

A practice otherwise known as "crash for cash".

We're going to go to the address. We're going to execute a search warrant.

We're going to seize as much evidence as we can.

The team being led by DC Kate Sibley

has arrived at its first raid location.

From their research, the team expects to find the house crowded.

Police! Open the door!

Morning! Police officers.

Can we have a chat?

How many are upstairs?

With so many people in the house, DC Sibley is facing an impromptu identity parade.

She quickly flushes out her suspect.

Can I ask your name, please?

BEEP

The reason we're here, we're investigating a matter involving a staged car crash.

OK?

Where false insurance claims have been made.

You have made one of those false insurance claims

because you were a passenger in one of the alleged vehicles.

You're under arrest for conspiracy to defraud.

A few streets away, the IFED team being led by PS John Shickell

is hoping to find the second suspect at their raid address.

MAN: Who is it? It's the police!

Open the door or it'll get forced open!

Hello. Morning.

INDISTINCT

Police!

Open up. Police.

Police, mate. Morning!

City police.

Make your way downstairs. Go into the lounge, please.

The property has several bedrooms.

In one of them, PS Shickell finds a relative of the suspect.

Do you know BLEEP?

He's your brother. Where is your brother now?

We need to talk to him.

Because your brother keeps putting this address down as his home address,

the police are always going to come back here.

And we're going to keep coming back.

So you must have his phone number. Could you give him a call, please?

PS Shickell asks the other occupants of the house about the missing suspect.

Does anybody else know BLEEP?

I presume you must do.

Are you absolutely sure? Yeah.

Why haven't you got his number?

Why should we have his number after he puts us through all this?

Until we've talked to him, I'm afraid this is just going to keep happening.

So we need to get hold of him.

So if you do have his number or know where he is,

now is the time to tell us.

The man they came for is proving to be elusive.

We're now going to search the house looking for that.

Yeah.

IFED begins a search of the property.

They're looking for information about the suspect

and any potential evidence of fraudulent activity.

Within various rooms of the property, IFED finds thousands of pounds,

mostly in £50 notes.

John, there's about ten grand in one of these rooms.

I'm going to count this, but I want you to be here when I count it

cos I don't want someone saying there was 2,000 quid there and there wasn't.

Volumes of cash like this are suspicious, but not conclusive evidence of fraud.

PS Shickell hones in on a stash of driving licences

found in another room.

Part of what we've found in the wardrobe

is several licences pertaining to different people.

There's copies of the licences in different names and addresses.

Multiple driving licences are seen as one of the tools of the trade for a fraudster,

allowing them to obtain many insurance policies.

We suspect it's fraud related.

From information discovered in the property,

PS Shickell has a phone number for the suspect.

Is this BLEEP?

I am a City police officer.

We're currently executing a search warrant.

Your family aren't very happy with you.

We've...

You listen to me. You have put your family in this position.

We've gone to court and got a search warrant.

We are going to execute the search warrant

and we're going to take anything that we believe belongs to you.

Can you either get round here now

or I'll meet you at the police station.

But we need to talk to you.

You're causing your family too much stress.

He's actually living somewhere else and he's making his way to talk to us.

So we'll have to wait and see.

It's nothing for you to be worried about.

Just don't lie to us.

This is Inspector Mohammed Razaq,

a police officer who was known for spearheading a zero tolerance crime clampdown

in his neighbourhood in Bolton.

Even the strong arm of the law can't hold back flood waters.

In 2008, Razaq contacted his insurer, Allianz,

after his house had sprung a leak.

In May 2008, we received an escape of water claim from Mr Mohammed Razaq

related to a burst central heating pipe up in a bedroom

causing damage downstairs.

We sent assessors out

and they valued the damage at around £1,200.

Razaq disagreed with the insurer's estimate,

feeling they had massively undervalued the damage caused by the flood.

Mr Razaq disputed this,

and provided his own estimates, two of them,

in the region of £8,000.

We referred this back to the assessors

and they amended their report and said there were aspects to the damage which they hadn't accounted for

and they gave us authority to proceed towards settlement.

So Mr Razaq was paid the full sum of nearly £8,000.

With his estimate of £8,000 paid in full,

Razaq would be able to sort out his water-damaged home

and get back to keeping the riff-raff off the streets of Bolton.

It seemed that Mr Razaq was an unlucky man.

A while after the first incident,

he suffered another flood.

But Allianz, who had footed the recent £8,000 bill,

were unknowingly off the hook.

By this time, Razaq was using a different insurer.

He submitted his latest claim to them.

An unlucky series of events,

but that's what insurance is there for.

Unexpectedly, three years later,

Allianz found themselves digging out the details of Razaq's old £8,000 claim.

August 2011 we were contacted by Greater Manchester Police

who advised us that Mr Razaq was subject to an internal investigation

relating to a number of potential offences.

And they asked us for details of the claim.

How could there be a problem?

Allianz's own assessors had twice examined Razaq's claim.

And they'd been convinced of its validity.

Why were the police interested in the event?

They had made a very suspicious discovery

about Razaq's second flood claim.

It turns out that Mr Razaq had actually used the same estimates

and tried to make another claim for the same damage with another insurance company

Even if his original claim for £8,000 had been genuine,

it was deemed extremely unlikely

that the second flood would be created under identical circumstances

and lead to identical damage estimates.

Mohammed Razaq was under the spotlight.

We supported the police investigation by providing them with all relevant documentation

relating to the claim.

As a senior police officer, Mr Razaq's honesty and integrity

should be beyond reproach.

Sadly, in this instance, it wasn't.

His second carbon copy claim was found to be bogus.

It may well be that Mr Razaq did suffer a genuine incident

in regard to the original water leak.

But once he realised that he could obtain more money than he was entitled to

he probably thought it was a good idea.

It was just the tip of the iceberg.

Razaq was also scamming money from mortgage companies

and submitted other bogus claims to various insurers.

Greater Manchester Police were investigating Mr Razaq

for £46,000-worth of fraud.

It's not very common for us to see police officers committing insurance fraud.

But it does happen.

What we have to understand is that police officers are not above the law

and will be subject to the same treatment as the next person

if they commit insurance fraud.

When the case went to court, Mohammed Razaq was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

This case highlights the fact that insurance fraud

could be committed by anyone.

But likewise, it also demonstrates that insurance companies do work with the police

and you may get away with it once

but you try it again, there's a very high chance you're going to get caught.

Clearly, Mr Razaq thought at the time that he would get away with this.

He wouldn't have done this otherwise.

As a result, his reputation is gone

he's lost his career, his standing in the community which he worked hard for has gone.

It really wasn't a risk worth taking.

Today, IFED is executing a triple raid

looking for three suspects under investigation for allegedly selling illegal motor insurance.

One of the suspects has been arrested.

Another has been located but is still outstanding.

The third suspect is at an address yet to be visited.

At the first raid location, DC Sibley

has her suspect in cuffs

and a search of the premises is underway.

Do you know what room is his upstairs?

Yeah, it's straight in front of you up the stairs. OK.

In her search for evidence, she focuses on one of the bedrooms.

I found a pad of paper with various names in here.

I'm trying to work out what they are.

A lot of information relating to different vehicles.

And post-it notes.

I don't know whether it's to do with staged accidents

or ghost broking. Alex, what do you reckon on this lot?

We've got all this.

Money Supermarket, Confused.com,

AXA, Go Compare. Exactly.

You've got everything here. It's insurance related. Yeah, it is.

I'm having it. I'll be seizing this.

With potential evidence of fraud in the bag,

IFED takes its first suspect away for questioning.

We've effecting one arrest. He's currently at the police station.

Made a thorough search of the premises,

found a lot of documentation in relation to ghost broking and what we believe is staged accidents.

Seized a laptop and a number of mobile phones

all of which will have to be examined.

Hopefully, we'll find a bit more evidence on those.

We've left the premises and we're now heading to the next address.

IFED expects to find its third suspect in this property.

Can you open the door? Open the door for us.

We're police officers. Open the door. Or we'll kick the door in.

Morning!

Hello. Is this your house? Yes. Who lives here with you?

My husband, Khan. Khan? Not Alan?

No. Anybody else in the house with you at the moment?

No. Just you on your own, yeah? Yeah.

OK. I'm looking for BLEEP.

Why? I need to speak to him. Do you know him?

Why? Do you know him?

Not "why". Do you know him?

I need to speak to him. Does he live here?

No? No. Where does he live?

You don't know?

I need to speak to him. Do you know him?

The suspect is found hiding under a bed.

IFED's DC Cooley escorts the handcuffed suspect to the lounge.

I'm arresting you on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud. You do not have to say anything,

but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something you later rely on.

Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Understand?

OK. Where are all your documents and things?

Upstairs? Papers?

How long have you lived here?

Nearly two years. Is there anything here that shouldn't be here that we're going to find?

Drugs? Cash? Weapons?

Sure?

Yes. OK.

It's nothing for you to be worried about. Just don't lie to us.

With the suspect arrested,

IFED can begin the search for evidence of suspected fraudulent motor insurance claims.

We are going to be taking in that top.

Just to let you know.

I've found a Visa Debit card in our suspect's wallet.

Not in his name.

I believe it's linked to the other address, so I'll check it out.

It makes the case a lot stronger

that there is a link there.

We're not just coming to two separate addresses.

At PS Shickell's raid address,

the search is coming to an end.

It's been very successful. We have over 40 exhibits that we've seized.

That includes money, we think over £10,000.

We've received or seized numerous driving licences, vehicle documentation

insurance policies, claims, different crib sheets.

And the outstanding suspect PS Shickell phoned earlier has handed himself in.

We're just going to go now to a local police station

where the suspect has arrived, where I will arrest him and interview him and see what he has to say.

So we're extremely pleased.

A few streets away, DC Sibley sends her suspect away for further questioning.

Hi, John. All right? We've got number three as well.

He tried to hide beside the bed but we jumped on him

so we've got him.

So you've got a full house!

It's a good result. We weren't expecting to get three out of three, to be honest.

Possibly two. But we've got all three so it's a good result for us today.

What do you do when a 12-tonne bus slams into the back of you at 30 miles an hour?

The owner of this recently rear-ended car decided to have a stern word with the bus driver.

This is an incident that occurred in Bristol on 7 January 2012

about quarter past one in the afternoon.

The third party, in his statement,

advises that he was stationary when a bus has hit him in the rear.

After exchanging details, the bus and car driver continue their journeys.

The third party submitted a claim arising from this incident

for injuries to his neck and back, his leg and his foot.

He submitted a claim for the damage to his vehicle in the region of £2,600

and also a claim for alternative hire of a vehicle while his own was being repaired.

The total of the claim submitted was round about £3,700.

The bus company started to process the car owner's claim.

Pretty straightforward.

Bus hits much smaller car. Wallop! Hand over the cash.

But first, just a couple of things.

As you would do with all claims of this nature, we decided to thoroughly investigate this,

just to make sure we're paying the correct amount and the circumstances are as the third party is stating.

With the risk of a heavy financial blow,

the bus company took measures to fully investigate all aspects of the claim.

This included looking closely at the accident and medical reports submitted by the claimant.

When he's reported the circumstances to his medical expert,

he's actually advised that he was still in motion when he was hit in the rear by the bus.

The statement given by the third party to his medical expert

and the statement given to us initially

differ significantly in the version of events.

This left the bus company suspicious.

Before they could settle the claim,

they would have to straighten out the car owner's story.

They called upon the 360-degree coverage of the bus's exterior cameras.

The footage starts off innocently enough.

The bus driver sets off from Bristol Temple Meads train station.

The claimant first appears in view on a dual carriageway.

The CCTV footage shows the vehicle overtaking the bus

the stopping shortly ahead of the bus, straddling both lanes.

Possibly, due to the manoeuvre executed by the claimant,

the bus driver engages in a brief exchange with him.

The bus driver sounds his horn at this driver

and goes round him and continues.

The bus company were originally looking to see what happened

in the moments leading up to the crash.

But they were now watching a potential road rage incident.

Shortly, they were going to find out who was at fault for the collision.

The third party in his statement advises that he was stationary

when a bus has hit him in the rear.

But the third party has neglected to advise what's happened in the build-up to the incident

or what happened in the aftermath.

This is what happened.

Seconds after their first exchange,

the claimant overtakes and pulls in front of the 12-tonne bus.

What occurs next is incredible.

The claimant executes a triplet of hard-breaking manoeuvres.

One...

..two...

..three,

causing the crash.

The innocent bus driver had no chance of protecting himself, his vehicle and passengers

against the reckless actions of the claimant.

It's a case where you look at the footage again and again

just to see whether you're missing something.

You begin to second-guess whether you're viewing the footage properly

but looking at it, we could see no reason why he braked.

Guess what?

The bus company refused to pay the claimant.

What did happen was we alerted the police of our concerns regarding this matter.

And subsequently the third party was prosecuted,

fined £265 and received seven points on his licence.

Whenever a motorist deliberately carries out an action

whether it be out of anger or to commit a potentially fraudulent claim,

the key thing to remember is that it does put people at risk.

This is what has happened in this situation.

One day it could be injury, damage to property,

another day it could be you that's at risk.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd