Episode 7 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...

There's a 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.

Today, CCTV catches out a fraudster trying to claim a huge payout

for an accident that never happened.

It just makes you think, "Well, this is a clear fabrication."

There is nothing to suggest this gentleman's injuries have been sustained,

especially not in the way he has stated.

A conman who goes on the run is caught by the elite police unit IFED.

Mr Begum then skipped bail but was later found at his mother's property, hiding in the loft.

And the Met Traffic Unit challenges a suspect.

It's not negotiable. You have been arrested

and you are going to be taken to a police station, OK?

We Brits love a bus ride.

We take around five billion bus journeys every year.

But occasionally a ride down the High Street can turn into a tragedy.

Lee Ingram of the Transportation Claims Division of the First Group

worked on the case of a minor collision which had been filmed by the outward-looking onboard camera.

The bus approaches a stationary Land Rover,

and as it's passing it manages to catch the driver's side wing mirror with the side of the bus

and continue on, bending the wing mirror back.

It doesn't actually cause any damage to the wing mirror.

The glass comes out of the housing,

but neither the glass or the housing are damaged and it's just a case of snapping the glass back in.

There is no damage to the bus at all.

You will see that the driver of the Land Rover as the bus is passing notices what's happening,

and he can be seen clearly to be banging on the side of the bus.

Then someone gets out of the Land Rover and goes to the front of the bus as he stops a bit further up

and just lets him know what's happened.

Not long afterwards, the company was presented with a claim for an injury caused by the accident.

But, rather than coming from the driver of the car,

the claim was from an unexpected source...

this passenger on the top floor of the bus.

His version of events was very different as his phone call to the insurers shows.

So what happened was the bus driver was driving fine.

There was a car parked on the double yellow which caused the bus driver to...

and from what I see he just opened the door, like, you know,

and he caused the bus driver to brake very sharp, causing me to hit my head and falling down.

After 45 minutes I was having a lot of back and neck pain.

I called a cab to hospital where I was advised by the doctor

that it would be muscle injury.

The pain has got a lot worse. I can't do anything apart from going to the toilet.

I'm having difficulty getting dressed, I can't lift my son up, hard to walk up the stairs,

I can't play sport, I can't do much...

I have made an appointment with my doctor for stronger painkillers.

I'm really upset and feel hopeless and depressed

as I am in a lot of pain and can't do nothing at all.

In his opinion he has sustained what he considers to be life-changing injuries.

This meant that the company could be liable for a potentially huge payout.

He was looking to build a substantial claim for future care,

care of personal hygiene,

maybe a future element of childcare and child support.

A minor prang causing life-changing injuries to one passenger just didn't ring true.

A full-scale investigation was launched by Lee's team,

and the CCTV from inside the bus was reviewed.

It proved to be the killer piece of evidence.

The claimant can be seen sitting on the top floor of the bus on the left-hand side.

When I first saw this footage of the passenger in question,

I did review the footage on several occasions

because I thought I must have missed the incident he's referring to.

But he hadn't.

The reaction of the passengers looking out of the windows shows the exact moment of impact.

At the same time, the other camera shows exactly what happened to the claimant.

Nothing.

The gentleman who is making this claim does not at any stage fall to the floor.

He stands up, after having travelled to his destination, goes to the top of the stairwell.

goes down the stairs,

speaks to the driver as he gets off the bus and then leaves the bus.

There is no suggestion or any indication of a fall as he is alleging.

The pictures confirm what they'd suspected all along,

that he'd never been injured and his claim was a work of fiction.

It just makes you think, "Well, this is a clear fabrication."

There is nothing to suggest this gentleman's injuries have been sustained,

especially not in the way he has stated.

The video evidence revealed that his story was a complete lie,

but, as it turned out, the passenger would have found it difficult to pursue his claim.

As the damage to the Range Rover was negligible and the damage to the bus was non-existent,

neither the Range Rover's insurers or First Group were claiming off of each other,

so you had a case where no-one was admitting liability.

The gentleman in question wasn't sure who he could make a claim off of,

and I expect when he thought about whether his injuries were genuine or not,

he decided there was really no-one to pursue this claim against and he wasn't prepared to risk it.

It was clear that there was no case to answer and the claimant was never heard from again.

The Met Traffic Unit

are executing a raid on an accident management company

where not everything is as it seems.

You don't work here, do you?

OK, well, that's not what you said earlier,

so do you want to wait outside?

All right.

And an attempted motor insurance fraud is stopped in its tracks.

When it's so clear, as on these particular occasions,

it makes our job very, very easy.

The Met Traffic Unit

is headed up by DI Dave Hindmarsh.

With a growing number of organised gangs using London's roads as their hunting ground,

DI Hindmarsh and his team are committed to slashing car crime.

We search for people who are wanted for serious offences.

My team have made 300 arrests in the last two-and-a-half years

which is around about 50 operations.

Every one of those operations will result in a prosecution.

Their aim is to make our roads as safe as possible.

You have the most serious type of cash-for-crash which is the induced collision.

And this is primarily where gang members, because it is organised criminal gangs involved in this,

will go out on to the roads with two cars...

They'll drive in tandem, looking for their victim.

They'll position themselves in front

and then the decoy car which will be the lead car will brake hard.

That gives the middle car, the one that they want to be damaged, a reason to brake,

catch their victim out and they will run into the back.

And this is a typical cash-for-crash scenario.

The insurance industry have estimated that it costs them

somewhere in the region of £392 million per year,

but I think it's probably bigger than that.

It is an extremely dangerous way of earning some money,

because you are putting innocent members of the public at risk.

Intelligence has led DI Dave Hindmarsh and his team to the home of a suspect,

thought to be connected to a case of crash-for-cash.

We're just on our way to execute a search warrant at an address

on a person

that we believe has been involved in at least two induced collisions.

The intelligence we have is this person's had two crashes all with similar circumstances

within the last year,

and there's some evidence that suspects us to believe that he's been putting through false claims,

so we're just arriving now at...

The team are out at the break of dawn so they can maintain the element of surprise.

As they approach the house, they cover all exits.

The kitchen light's on, Roger.

Who's there? It's the police.

Do you want to come in? Yes, please.

Good morning. I'm DC Roger Crawley from the Metropolitan Police Specialist Crimes Operation.

I'd like to speak to you about two induced collisions that occurred last year,

accidents in which I believe you were involved and which I believe were deliberately staged.

I'd like to come in and speak to you. I've got a search warrant here to search your premises.

The team is let into the house and they explain what's going to happen.

OK. What we're going to be searching for is documentation in relation to that collision,

passports, any other documentation, mobile phones that may assist me with my investigation.

One thing I don't understand...

you are to investigate had the accident been caused deliberately?

Yeah, that's right. OK, that's what you are here for? That's right.

I suspect they are deliberately staged accidents. OK.

Well, I am driving since eight years in this country and I've never, ever been involved in any accident,

except these two accidents that happened last year.

After initially querying the situation,

the suspect finally indicates where they can find the documentation they need.

There are a set of documents over there. You can have a look.

OK? There are all the documents.

As for the accident concerned, of course I drive on the road...

My suggestion now is that he's arrested.

The team confer and make the decision to arrest the suspect.

OK, you're under arrest.

You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned

something which you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence.

Do you understand that?

What are you doing to me?

A formal interview will take place at a police station,

but the suspect wants to discuss the allegations there and then.

You will be given your opportunity when we get down to the police station...

Yeah, I understand.

I will interview you to give your version of events. And if you wish to tell me all about...

The team needs to avoid a long discussion, so they're not wasting valuable time.

It's not negotiable. You have been arrested

and you are going to be taken to a police station, OK?

But I don't understand.

You can take me to the police station, I don't mind,

because I know I'm right, so I don't need to clear up anything.

Listen to me. The officer explained why you've been arrested, OK?

You will be going to the police station, so you might as well just sit there

until we've finished doing the search, we'll take you down to the police station,

then everything will be explained to you fully.

Unexpectedly, the suspect then questions whether they are who they say they are.

Are you police, really?

We've showed you our warrant cards. I've showed you my warrant card. Do you want to see it again?

Please. I'll show it to you again. But you're arresting me for something I never done.

It's probably best if you just be quiet.

It seems like the suspect is using delaying tactics

and the interruption means that over 20 minutes have passed before the search finally gets underway.

We've entered the premises using the search warrant.

The man in the living room has now been arrested

for believed submitting fraudulent personal injury claims.

He's going to be coming back to the police station with us where he'll be interviewed formally.

We're basically looking for paperwork pertaining to insurance claims, insurance certificates,

documentation for specific vehicles.

Eventually they conclude the search and ready to take the suspect away and remove the potential evidence.

So if you just do as we say then there'll be no need to handcuff you. All right? Brilliant.

We came looking for paperwork for insurance claims,

and having had a look through the documentation briefly, that's what we've got.

So certainly the objective today was to find some paperwork, which we have,

and to arrest the person who's been arrested. So I think the objective has been completed.

According to one phone company, 700,000 mobiles are lost or stolen every year.

Luckily, most gadgets are covered by household insurance.

But with so many claims in the system,

it's easy to believe that some fraudulent ones could slip through unnoticed.

At least that's what Fazal Begum thought.

He submitted multiple claims from people who didn't exist.

Tom Gardiner from Aviva worked on the case.

In the first place our systems created an alert.

The alert was produced because Begum had submitted two similar claims close together.

Although he'd used different names, the claims handlers identified a match in other personal details.

An investigation was launched

and recordings of the phone calls from the two similar claims were retrieved.

What they found confirmed their suspicions.

When they listened to calls, it was quite clear

that there were a number of claims being reported by the same person.

How can I help?

It's William Daniels here.

I'm calling regarding the settlement of my claim.

Have you got your claim number there, sir?

Yes. It's 11-Mike-Hotel-Oscar-015344.

And if you could just confirm for me your full name?

Yes, it's Mr Fabiano Ferria.

If I could take your policy number?

It's Mike-Hotel-Oscar-051140518.

The claims handlers passed on their findings to Aviva's Claims Fraud Intelligence Team.

The voice

of Mr Begum was very distinctive.

You could tell it was the same person in each call.

In the phone calls from the increasing familiar voice,

the caller also noted a keen interest in the exact terms and conditions of the policies.

The other question I have, in the policy, "theft from unattended road vehicles",

does that mean if somebody breaks into a car and steals something

that the limit would be 1,500? That's right, yeah.

Because I reported a claim yesterday... Right.

The items that were stolen are over that limit.

The concern was that these two claims were the tip of the iceberg.

And so it proved

when the investigation turned up an additional 20 household insurance claims

which were very similar to the first two.

Although most of the claims originated from Walsall,

proving further links was a challenge.

All of the names and addresses were different,

so it's difficult to show that it was one person behind these.

They went back to the calls from these cases too. They provided damning evidence.

Listening to the call recordings, it was quite clear that this was the same gentleman involved,

so we could try and link all 20 cases.

It was obvious that they'd uncovered a complex web of fake identities all invented by one man.

The people supposedly making the claims didn't exist.

Mr Begum or Alexander Brazil and Dr Shah, as he was also known,

submitted over 22 claims in total within a period of several months.

Another giveaway was that the claims were all very similar.

Typically his claims were for mobile devices, tablets and laptops,

which he claimed had been left at takeaways or stolen on trains.

The claims were generally supported by a lot of documentation,

but our investigations revealed that most of those were faked or fraudulent.

Each claim was typically for several thousand pounds.

In total he submitted 22 claims with a value of over £50,000.

All the evidence pointed to fraud on a massive scale

and the company contacted the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department.

The IFED team had initially been investigating Begum because of another lead

and it appeared that his fanciful storytelling had moved up a gear.

DC Craig Mullish worked on the case.

He reported that his son was very violently robbed at one of the London railway stations,

that needed medical treatment.

The allegations made

were investigated by the British Transport Police,

and it very quickly came to light that the story we were told was not accurate

and alarm bells were ringing.

This led the IFED team to work with Aviva to investigate other insurance claims made by Fazal Begum.

They revealed evidence of a pattern of fraudulent behaviour and they decided to take action.

They obtained a warrant for Mr Begum's arrest and carried out a raid on his property.

There was no cooperation and we had to force entry.

Aviva wasn't expecting to hear from him again, but several days later he got in contact.

Astonishingly, he telephoned Aviva again to make a claim for the damage to his front door

that IFED had caused whilst raiding the property.

Basically our front door was damaged.

There was a law-enforcement agency who forced entry into our property for something which I don't know...

Despite the fact that the door had been broken as a result of his fraudulent behaviour,

he still thought he deserved a payout.

I think the fact that Mr Begum actually claimed for the damage to his door

just showed the audacity of the fraud.

There really is no bounds to what this man will do to submit and claim fraudulent monies

from the insurance companies.

But the insurer was on to him and the claim went nowhere.

At this point Fazal Begum finally realised that the game was up and he went on the run.

Unfortunately for him he made a poor choice of hiding place.

Mr Begum then skipped bail but was later found at his mother's property, hiding in the loft.

Fazal Begum was bought to trial and the weight of evidence meant that the outcome was never in doubt.

Mr Begum was charged with 14 counts of fraud and sentenced to two years in prison

which we felt was a fair and proportionate sentence.

This is a great result, it gives a great message out

that neither the insurance industry not IFED will tolerate insurance fraud

and this, I'm sure, will be a deterrent to any future fraudster out there

that thinks insurance fraud is an easy touch. It clearly isn't.

Roundabouts are statistically safer than other types of intersection,

but they still see their fair share of accidents.

Susan Evans of insurers Admiral worked on a case involving a policyholder

who'd been involved in one such collision.

She said she was approaching a mini roundabout,

thought she had enough time to clear the mini roundabout

before the other car made its turn, but unfortunately she didn't and it resulted in a collision.

The accident resulted in damage to both vehicles

and the driver of the other car decided to pursue a claim.

It was alleged that there were actually two passengers within that car as well

and that both passengers had unfortunately been injured in the incident.

In line with the claims procedure, specific details of the injuries were provided.

The claims that we were faced with from the alleged passengers in the vehicle

were whiplash claims that were around about £2,000 apiece in terms of value.

But the collision took place here on a bustling High Street during the day

which means one thing - eyewitnesses.

One actually came forward and said they were adamant that there was no passengers in the vehicle

that our policyholder had collided with,

so we had a written statement to confirm there was nobody in that car apart from the driver.

Alarm bells started to ring and the insurer decided that further investigation was needed,

so they went through the CCTV they'd sourced from the local council.

The footage reveals a very different version of events.

The claimant can be seen driving down towards the mini roundabout,

whilst the policy holder approaches from the other direction

at the bottom of frame.

The claimant starts to turn right

but the policyholder is going straight on

and they collide.

What they saw next proved to be a crucial piece of evidence.

They both exit their vehicle, examine the damage

and exchange details.

But at no point does anyone else get out of the claimant's car.

If we look carefully at the footage, I think anyone involved in an incident of that nature

is probably going to get out of the vehicle, have a look at the damage,

perhaps assist the driver to try and get details from the other party.

You don't see any passengers exiting from the car whatsoever.

The CCTV proved that there was only one person in the car

and that the claim for two personal-injury payouts was a ploy to get more money.

Admiral confronted the claimant's solicitors with the evidence.

They were clearly quite shocked at the start,

but being faced with the irresistible evidence that the CCTV footage presented,

the claims were dropped immediately.

If the claimant thought they could walk away with money they didn't deserve, they were wrong.

There are penalties that they will have to pay. They will be recorded on a database

and within the background you also have the fact that the police might pick it up as a prosecution.

It's estimated that there are almost two million CCTV cameras in the UK,

which means that fraudsters are increasingly being caught out by film evidence.

When it's so clear, as on these particular occasions,

and there's clear evidence that those people are not in the car, it makes our job very, very easy.

The Met Traffic Unit are on the road again,

this time to execute a raid on a company they believe helps organise crash-for-cash collisions

to create fake insurance claims.

This morning we're going down to an accident management company.

We've got evidence which suggests that the company have been involved in two induced collisions,

and part of today is to take all of their paperwork and to sift through it at a later stage

to identify other induced collisions,

so at this stage we're not really sure. It could just be as simple as these two collisions.

However, I suspect that we'll find evidence relating to more.

The team arrives at the scene and approach the company's rented office.

They're working against the clock.

But first there's the small matter of gaining access.

There's no-one here which is typical of accident management companies when we arrive.

The two options we have is we'll try and get hold of the owner, get him to come round and open up.

If not, we'll open up ourselves. We shan't be leaving without what we came for.

They attempt to make contact with the owner of the company, but draw a blank.

Finally, they get through to the landlord of the property.

Hello, sir. My name's Andy Collings. I'm a detective constable who works for the Metropolitan Police.

The owner of the company is proving hard to track down.

But the landlord should be able to let DI Hindmarsh and his team into the office.

Could you get yourself down here as soon as possible?

Just then a third party approaches the officers.

Come with me and speak to my colleague, please.

I'm just wondering how you suddenly turned up, that's all.

I'm wondering how you just suddenly appeared.

No, because, yesterday, like, I was at the office. Yeah.

He claims not to be an employee, but has come to pick up some paperwork.

The Met Traffic Unit is no closer to gaining entry,

but then the landlord of the property arrives in person.

Got them? I've got a door key, but I don't have a shutter key.

Oh, dear!

He's nothing to do with the company under investigation

and cooperates with the team to try and gain access to the office.

Have we got a bar?

Here we are, the man with the bar!

Eventually, the landlord finds a shortcut.

Seriously?

You done that on purpose!

And finally they're in.

Thank you.

The search is interrupted by the man they first spoke to on the street.

He's followed them into the office.

If you want to wait outside...

You don't work here, do you?

No, but I do look after the place occasionally.

OK, well, that's not what you said earlier,

so do you want to wait outside?

All right.

You said you came here to collect papers from...

For the... Can you just wait outside, yeah? OK.

At last they're able to search the company office in earnest.

Although the team is investigating a small number of specific incidents,

they suspect that the company is connected to more,

and they hope to find evidence of this.

We're just going through all the desks in here looking for fraudulent motor insurance claims.

We have certain collisions, accidents that we know about that have happened

that we will need the paperwork for

and hopefully we'll find them when we go through it more thoroughly,

but at this stage we can take everything

and we can investigate the claims and see if they may be suspect as well.

Before long the team makes an interesting discovery.

Some stuff has been found in the bin over there with some dates from an insurance company

that have written to this company questioning some claims that have been made,

and that's ended up in the bin, so...

we'll have to look at that and see what their concerns were and speak with that insurance company,

and obviously investigate that collision as well.

You find things that you're looking for and it's just like putting together a jigsaw, really, I suppose.

As the potential evidence is bagged and recorded, another discovery is made.

The guy that turned up first thing this morning that was denying actually working here,

this is actually his desk here so he does actually work here.

It's not just paperwork that the team is after.

The company's computer equipment will be examined too.

The company is now closed because we've taken away all their computers and all their documentation,

so it will be difficult for them to continue practising.

In relation to further inquiries into this matter, it's an ongoing investigation

and there is likely that we'll be looking to execute further search warrants

and hopefully discover more evidence of any wrongdoing.

The Met Traffic Unit is dedicated to making our roads as safe as possible,

and every fraudster they take down moves them one step closer to that goal.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd