Episode 6 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...

The subject is 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.

A hard-braking bus takes the blame for a dislocated knee...

The eventual outcome was decided by the CCTV footage.

..a vigilante road user gets tough on fraud...

With Mr Parker they definitely picked on the wrong individual.

..and a specialist fraud-busting team is on the hunt

for a crash-for-cash suspect.

It's the police so can you open the door?

Bendy ones, tall ones, short ones and sometimes late ones,

buses are a varied bunch but they have one thing in common.

If you're not holding on tight, they can knock you off your feet.

That's exactly what happened to this stricken man

on the 427 bus in West London. He's just dislocated his knee.

A passenger stood up, pressed the bell.

As he stood up and pressed the bell,

the driver had braked very hard, forcibly,

causing him to plough into the seat in front of him and hit his knee on the seat.

After the passenger's dislocated his knee, he's clearly in some pain.

He then stands up and limps to the stairwell of the bus,

trying to figure out how he's going to get down the stairs

as he can now no longer bend his leg because he's dislocated his knee.

He then realises he can't do this so he decides just to sit down in the stairwell.

Blocking the stairwell, unable to move, and in a lot of pain,

the injured passenger alerted the driver.

The bus driver stopped to let some passengers get off

and after he closed the doors he heard a voice, a male voice,

saying, "Please can you stop the bus? Hold on a second."

So the bus driver waited.

Due to the severity of his injury,

an ambulance was called for the lame passenger.

That wasn't the last the bus company was going to hear of the incident.

The gentleman later on presented a claim for personal injury,

compensation for the injuries that he sustained to his knee.

He's also stated that he has suffered a loss of earnings.

Two months after the incident, he's claiming that he's still unable to work.

Although he didn't qualify his claim,

I would suspect it would be in the region of £10,000-£20,000

including legal fees, so a not insubstantial amount.

For incidents like this, First Group self-insure.

So they pay out for claims from their own pocket.

The supposedly hard-braking bus driver had potentially

exposed the bus company to a serious financial blow.

But before the passenger could be paid,

the bus company had to complete its standard claims process.

When the claim was submitted to us we decided to investigate,

as we do with all claims, using all the evidence available to us.

Evidence like this.

CCTV coverage on buses tends to be good in all areas.

On this particular bus, we've got 12 cameras fitted.

They will include cameras showing the upstairs deck, front and back,

the stairwell, also downstairs will have cameras

looking at the passengers at the front and the back.

We'll have cameras showing people boarding the bus.

There's a camera in the driver's cab so we can see

what attention the driver is paying to what he's doing.

We've also got cameras on the outside of the bus looking forwards,

backwards and along both sides forwards and backwards.

So it's a pretty good overall view of all areas on the bus.

If the bus driver had dislocated the passenger's knee

with some hard braking, his bosses were about to find out.

This is the 427 bus on the evening of the incident.

Here comes our passenger now.

He originally got on the bus, he stood at the bottom of the stairs,

and then as the bus moved away, he decided to join the upper deck.

He went to the back of the bus and sat straight in the middle seat.

Soon, according to his claim,

we should expect to see the passenger's knee dislocated

after the bus driver slams on his brakes.

If you're squeamish, look away now.

When we looked at the footage, we realised a very different story

to the one the gentleman had informed us was coming to light.

What the bus company saw was bizarre.

The passenger engages in a session of martial arts

with a much bigger opponent - the 427 bus.

He starts throwing the occasional martial art block and punch into the air.

It's an intimidating sight, one that drives his fellow passengers

away from the battle zone.

Some of the passengers start moving away from him.

He stands up and becomes a lot more animated.

He starts throwing elbow blocks and knee strikes

and kicks at the seats and the metal stanchions on the bus

and he really looks like he's trying to take down an invisible opponent.

Far from invisible, the 12-tonne enemy was getting the upper hand.

He hugs onto the post and he becomes imbalanced

and spins from the post, and it's at this point

that he gets his right leg caught between his left leg and the seat

and you can see the twist of his knee

which is where the dislocation then occurs.

The passenger's version of events was a complete lie.

His knee hadn't been dislocated due to the bus driver braking sharply.

He had dislocated his own knee scrapping with a metal pole.

You can then see he's in some visible discomfort.

He rolls up his trouser leg and starts to hold his knee.

Meanwhile, unaware of events unfolding upstairs,

the driver brings the bus to a gentle halt for the next stop.

To be honest, the CCTV footage is probably all we needed

to discredit this person's version of events.

He's told us what happened in his words,

we've looked at the footage. It clearly is very different to what he stated.

It couldn't be any clearer.

The passenger's phoney claim had been exposed.

The eventual outcome was decided by the CCTV footage.

We sent that on to the claimant's solicitors

and suggested they view the footage and decide

whether they still wanted to progress with their claim.

We have not heard back from them since.

Claims like this are ultimately paid for by the consumer

from the money they've handed over for their tickets.

The bus company doesn't take it lightly.

In the event that this claim was pursued further

and they decided that our repudiation was not accepted,

we would have brought this case to trial, definitely, through the civil courts

and we probably would have sent our information on to the police,

and asked them if they would consider prosecuting the claimant in this occasion.

An eagle-eyed road user disputes the facts.

Why are you saying three injured parties?

There were only two people in the other car.

And IFED sees potentially case-closing evidence.

We seized a number of handwritten documents which are basically

an outline of the accident.

Look at this mess.

Mr Parker, on the left,

has just ploughed his vehicle into the back of the red car.

He came out the car. I got out the car,

looked at the back of his car to see the damage,

looked at the front of my car to see the damage.

It was a classic rear-end shunt

that left the smaller red car with some damage.

I did ask him if he was OK. He said yes. I said sorry.

What else can you do when you hit someone in the back of the car?

Mr Parker was happy to take full responsibility for the damage

so handed his details over to the driver of the red car.

The claims that we received totalled about £30,000.

That was made up of claims for the solicitors' costs

and a very large credit hire claim.

The vehicle that was involved in the accident was unroadworthy,

couldn't be driven,

and they wanted to claim over £8,000 for a replacement vehicle.

A 30 grand wallop.

Mr Parker's insurer was facing a very large outlay.

They decided to contact Mr Parker for more details about the incident.

I got a phone call from my insurance company

asking me had I been involved in a traffic accident.

I said yes. I was at fault because I hit the back of this other car that was stationary.

The insurer had some bad news.

Mr Parker was readily taking the blame

for a much bigger claim than he realised.

They said, "We don't think this is a straightforward case.

"They're claiming whiplash injuries against the insurance."

So I said, "They seemed all right at the time

"but these things can probably come into effect later."

Mr Parker took the news well but then the conversation took a turn.

They said, "Well, it's going to be three injured parties.

"Are you sure you're not at all injured?

I said, "I'm not injured but why are you saying three injured parties?

"There's only two people in the other car."

"No, no, there was three."

I said, "There was a driver and his passenger and nobody else in the car."

A whiplash claim from three people could substantially add

to the size of the claim.

Mr Parker's premium was in danger of rocketing.

It could have been Mr Parker's word against that of the red car driver

but Mr Parker had an ace up his sleeve.

"Well, I'm sorry they put a claim in for three people."

I said, "Well, I'm sorry, it's not."

"Well, it's your decision, your argument against theirs."

"No, it's them against my on-board camera."

To which they replied, "You had it filmed?!"

Two years earlier, Mr Parker had a small crash.

Despite no serious dispute as to liability,

he felt an on-board camera would have provided useful evidence.

It had recorded his latest crash.

Understandably, the insurance company were keen to get hold of the footage.

It would easily solve the dispute about how many people

had been in the red car at the time of the collision.

So we contacted him and arranged to collect the footage from him

which we then viewed when it got back to our offices.

I was pleasantly surprised to see how clear the footage was.

Perfectly positioned in the middle of the dashboard,

the camera was ready to settle the case.

After the collision, the occupants of the red car emerge.

One, two.

Just as Mr Parker had stated,

there were only two people in the car at the time of the incident.

And that's really interesting because when the claims were presented to us,

we actually get claims from three people, including a person

that was allegedly in the back of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

So after the driver of the red car had taken a wallop in the rear and driven away,

he had deviously decided to inflate his insurance claim by inventing an extra passenger.

But was it that simple?

Something in the footage suggested to the insurer that the truth was far more sinister.

They watched the video again.

When I saw this footage I was quite shocked.

We could see very clearly then exactly what had happened in the accident.

This is the footage from Mr Parker's car 40 seconds before impact.

So what we see in the footage is two vehicles on the roundabout

very close to each other, unusually close to each other.

Mr Parker pulls in behind the two cars.

All three vehicles enter the slip road leading to the dual carriageway.

20 seconds to impact.

As the cars approach the dual carriageway,

the lane they're trying to join is clear of traffic

so why did this happen?

As they are all going towards the point where the slip road

joins the dual carriageway, all of a sudden the car in front,

the silver car, brakes for absolutely no reason,

causing the car directly in front of Mr Parker to brake very aggressively

and Mr Parker went into the rear of that car.

The insurance company knew what they were looking at.

It looked like a crash-for-cash attempt.

It appears the drivers of the silver and red cars

had been working together in an attempt to make money from the innocent Mr Parker.

It seemed they'd been using a standard trick of the fraudster,

the three-car slam-on.

This is how it works. Two gang cars will drive in tandem.

After choosing a victim, they move into position.

Then car 1, the decoy, will slam on its brakes for no reason,

causing car 2 to react.

This makes car 2 look innocent to the victim at the rear.

It seemed Mr Parker had just driven into such a trap.

I was shocked when we actually saw the footage

that these people had the audacity to try and target

an innocent motorist who was just going about his daily business

and try and cause an accident where he could have been hurt or badly injured.

I think it's wrong that they should go down this road

and I think they don't look at the wider picture

where they actually could cause serious injury. We were both lucky.

All three of us were lucky in this instance.

Because of the evidence that Mr Parker had obtained, we were able

to very quickly, very clearly, reject those claims that had been made.

Instead of making off with £30,000 for their efforts,

the driver of the car was given a police caution and didn't receive a penny.

In Mr Parker, they definitely picked on the wrong individual.

Insurance fraud is on the rise and if you have insurance of any kind,

you're footing the bill, but the fraudsters have an ominous enemy.

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.

It seems the business of crash-for-cash is booming.

Working closely with the insurers,

IFED regularly take down these dangerous organised gangs.

Today IFED has one target, a man suspected of masterminding

hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of fraudulent motor vehicle claims.

The subject we're hopefully going to arrest this morning

appears to have opened up five different policies

with the same insurance company

and then shortly thereafter he's made various claims.

There is a potential loss of over £200,000,

when you take into account personal injury claims, etc, etc.

DC Sibley and the IFED team arrive at the home address of the suspect.

It's the police. Can you open up?

Police. Can you open the door, please?

He can't find the key to open the door!

Hey. Good morning, sir. You found the keys? My name is DCI...

The IFED team is granted access to the property

but the man who has opened the door is not the suspect.

All right. They were your tenants? And when did those tenants move out?

The man IFED is talking to owns the house.

He used to rent the property out to the suspects but has now moved back in.

Thank you very much. Thanks for your time.

It wasn't a wasted visit.

Information found inside the house has provided IFED

with a new address to visit in their hunt for the suspect.

What's the postcode for the next address?

Police officers.

It's bonus time for IFED.

I came here looking for one. We've come away with two.

INDIAN MUSIC PLAYS

This is the sound of a taus,

a bow stringed instrument from central and northern India.

One of the most renowned players of the taus lives in Britain, Ranbir Singh.

The highly regarded Ranbir is internationally recognised

for his traditional Indian folk music.

Like a lot of world-famous musicians, he had a smart car.

Frustratingly in March 2010,

the talented Mr Singh had his car stolen.

The claim was for the theft of his new Audi A5 motorcar.

Ranbir Singh alleged he was visiting friends down in Southall in Middlesex

and had been away overnight and had parked the car

and when he returned, the car had gone.

An Audi A5 is not the kind of car you want to have nicked.

An average spec A5 fresh off the forecourt will set you back roughly £30,000.

The police completed their standard enquiries and they concluded

it was a genuine claim and therefore we were proceeding toward settlement.

Singh had only owned the car for four months before it was pinched

but he was fully insured so he would be back on the road

as soon as the insurer had checked out the claim.

On receiving the claim,

the insurer needed to clear up a couple of things.

There were some discrepancies in terms of circumstances

and as often is standard process,

we sent out an investigator to take a statement from Mr Singh.

There were some discrepancies between the version that he gave to our investigators

and the version he gave to us when he actually made the claim

and they revolved around where the car was parked

and what he did immediately on discovering the car had been stolen.

The main discrepancy being in terms of what street he had actually parked the car in.

An understandable mistake, especially if you don't live in the area.

There were some concerns, but after doing the initial checks,

we thought the claim did occur in the manner it was reported,

so we started to proceed towards settlement.

A few weeks of paperwork followed,

by which point the insurer was on the brink of the payout to Singh,

when out of the blue they got a phone call

informing them that the stolen Audi had been located.

Four months after the claim was submitted,

in August 2010 we received a call from the police, which was unusual.

The car was stopped in Germany by the border police.

Great. Ranbir Singh could have his car back. Not yet.

Something inside the car caused the UK police

to look more closely into the disappearance of the vehicle.

There were two guys from Cyprus driving the car

and they were stopped and they had a handwritten note

alleging that they had permission to take the car.

Having learned of the note, the UK police gave the insurer a warning.

They basically told us to not proceed with payment,

that Mr Ranbir Singh was under investigation.

That's because the handwritten note in the car was from Ranbir Singh.

They took about three months to investigate circumstances

and in October 2010 Mr Ranbir Singh was arrested.

Upon his arrest, Singh revealed all.

Mr Ranbir Singh purchased the vehicle in December 2009

and almost immediately started to experience financial difficulties,

was having trouble paying back the finance he had on the car,

and he alleges that he met somebody that said to him,

"We can start to help you pay your debts off."

He paid this unknown individual £7,000,

the deal being that the individual would arrange for a couple of guys

to take the car across borders into Europe and make the car vanish.

Ranbir Singh the musician

was now Ranbir Singh the insurance fraudster.

The fallen musician was facing a tough day in court.

In December 2011, Ranbir Singh was convicted of fraud

and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.

The unusual twist in the story is that Ranbir Singh

was a very prominent figure in his local community.

He's a very highly acclaimed Indian musician.

For somebody of that standing to attempt insurance fraud is unusual

but it really does demonstrate that actually it's a lot more prevalent than perhaps people think.

Today IFED is tracking down a man suspected of making hundreds of thousands of pounds

out of fraudulent motor insurance claims.

There is a potential loss of £200,000

when you take into account personal injury claims, etc, etc.

IFED found that the suspect no longer lives at the first location visited

so is following a lead to a new address.

They have no idea who or what they will find in the house.

Hello. Good morning.

Hello. Is your mummy around or daddy?

IFED can find no sign of an adult presence in the house.

Hello? Hello. Is your mummy or daddy around? Don't be scared.

It's the police. Can you open up, please?

It's the police so can you open the door?

The minutes tick by.

The team are still waiting to be given access to the property.

It's the police. I can see one. She's gone upstairs.

There are three kids. It's a little girl.

The longer they wait, the more likely it is that the suspect could destroy potential evidence.

The sound of a toilet being flushed.

There's a baby, a toddler and a little girl.

Hiya. Police officers.

Hello, there. Good morning, sir.

From their extensive research,

IFED know they have found their suspect.

I'm from the City Police. I'm looking for you.

I would like to step in and talk to you. Oh! OK.

I'm going to arrest you, OK?

You're under arrest in connection with fraudulent insurance policies

for motor vehicles and subsequent claims made on them.

I'm arresting you for the prompt and effective investigation of these offences.

'The suspect has been arrested'

so we'll do a search now of the property to see

if we can find any more documentation relevant to the offences.

He was not particularly happy with me there

but that's all we can do. We'll see what we can find.

The suspect wasn't where IFED expected to find him,

but DC Sibley's team search the house they've been led to.

Filming access is restricted to the planned raid location.

Within minutes, the search yields potential evidence.

We're in one of the main bedrooms at the moment

and it's just sackfuls of paperwork, documentation,

quite a lot of it relating to what we're investigating.

We've seized a number of notebooks with handwritten notes in them

showing names, addresses of possible claimants.

We've seized a large number of certificates for motor insurance

all linked to the index numbers

and names of the people that have made the claims.

The search of the main bedroom has become red-hot.

DC Sibley has some potentially incriminating exhibits in her hands.

We've seized a number of handwritten documents which are basically an outline of the accident.

This would be a map of the collision, the roads

and where the collision took place, showing obviously the roundabout,

the vehicles involved and the street names

and actually how the accident happened. This is quite common.

We find this quite a lot.

We've found a number of those. Three I've got here.

The driver details of the third party vehicle, victims' details,

insurance company details and obviously a full description

of how the accident happened with a nice little diagram.

The search of the main bedroom is complete.

The suspect IFED came for is taken away for further questioning.

Out of the blue,

DC Sibley's attention is drawn to another occupant of the house.

We came here looking for one person

but during the search, the other male in the premises stated to me

that the documentation is his, it's in his bag, in his bedroom.

So because of what we've found, he's been arrested as well

on suspicion of fraud by false representation.

We came here looking for one and we've come away with two

and a lot of information and evidence.

There is a lot of documentation in there relating to fraud,

in my opinion, so they'll have a lot of questions to answer.

IFED has more than the suspect it came for.

It could be driving away with the evidence it needs

to seal another case against the menace of insurance fraud.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd