0:00:02 > 0:00:05Insurance fraud in the UK has hit epidemic levels.
0:00:05 > 0:00:08It's costing us over £1.3 billion every year.
0:00:08 > 0:00:11That's almost £3.6 million every day.
0:00:13 > 0:00:18Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries, even phantom pets.
0:00:19 > 0:00:23The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing,
0:00:23 > 0:00:26and every year it's adding over £50 to your insurance bill.
0:00:27 > 0:00:31But insurers are fighting back, exposing 14 fake claims every hour.
0:00:32 > 0:00:35Armed with covert surveillance systems...
0:00:35 > 0:00:37That's the subject out the vehicle.
0:00:37 > 0:00:40..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
0:00:41 > 0:00:43Police!
0:00:43 > 0:00:45..and a number of highly-skilled police units...
0:00:45 > 0:00:47Police, don't move! Stay where you are.
0:00:47 > 0:00:49..they're catching the criminals red-handed.
0:00:49 > 0:00:51Just don't lie to us.
0:00:51 > 0:00:54All those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle are now
0:00:54 > 0:00:58caught in the act and claimed and shamed.
0:01:06 > 0:01:11Today, a failed personal injury claimant kicks off.
0:01:11 > 0:01:13I think he was a little upset with the way in which
0:01:13 > 0:01:15I cross examined him,
0:01:15 > 0:01:16and as I left the court building,
0:01:16 > 0:01:20I found him following me down the street.
0:01:20 > 0:01:23A jailbird fails with a performance that falls flat.
0:01:23 > 0:01:25The incident was so obviously staged.
0:01:25 > 0:01:28If there was a scale of one to ten as an actor,
0:01:28 > 0:01:30he'd be at the very bottom of this scale.
0:01:30 > 0:01:33And a drunken driver gets smashed.
0:01:33 > 0:01:38He appeared drunk and then began to get quite aggressive.
0:01:38 > 0:01:40'And then he proceeded to punch the policeman.'
0:01:47 > 0:01:52The UK is host to an estimated five million CCTV cameras,
0:01:52 > 0:01:54meaning the country has one of the highest rates of cameras
0:01:54 > 0:01:55per person in the world.
0:01:57 > 0:02:00And they are one of the most powerful weapons in the
0:02:00 > 0:02:03insurers' armoury when it comes to shooting down fraudulent claims.
0:02:05 > 0:02:08CCTV was to prove vital in the case of a motor insurance claim
0:02:08 > 0:02:13that was presented to insurers LV and investigate it by Claire Lunn.
0:02:15 > 0:02:19The claimant alleged that our insured
0:02:19 > 0:02:25had reversed back into his parked vehicle at such
0:02:25 > 0:02:29a force that it threw him forwards and backwards in his vehicle.
0:02:29 > 0:02:34Whilst our insured admitted that they had reversed back into the vehicle,
0:02:34 > 0:02:37they said that the vehicles had literally touched.
0:02:38 > 0:02:43Colin Bushell of LV's solicitors, DWF, also worked on the case.
0:02:45 > 0:02:47There were no injuries to the driver of the...
0:02:47 > 0:02:50sort of fault vehicle, as it were, but the claimant
0:02:50 > 0:02:53who went on to make a claim for personal injury
0:02:53 > 0:02:55had various alleged losses.
0:02:55 > 0:02:57So there was an injury claim, there was a claim
0:02:57 > 0:02:59for care and assistance.
0:02:59 > 0:03:01He claimed for damage to his vehicle, which he
0:03:01 > 0:03:02alleged had been written off,
0:03:02 > 0:03:04and there were other sort of minor
0:03:04 > 0:03:07losses that he alleged, miscellaneous expenses.
0:03:07 > 0:03:09Care and physio and things like that.
0:03:10 > 0:03:11So at the outset,
0:03:11 > 0:03:15the driver is suggesting that he's thrown around inside the car,
0:03:15 > 0:03:16and as a result,
0:03:16 > 0:03:20he suffers what people would know as a whiplash-type injury.
0:03:22 > 0:03:26He suggested that he required help getting dressed
0:03:26 > 0:03:30or washing his hair, and that was provided by his partner.
0:03:30 > 0:03:34He also suggests that he couldn't play football or golf,
0:03:34 > 0:03:36which he said he did two or three times a week.
0:03:36 > 0:03:38He also says that the collision caused damage to his car
0:03:38 > 0:03:42which wrote it off, which is something that we had to look at.
0:03:43 > 0:03:46He put forward a claim in the region of £5,000,
0:03:46 > 0:03:49so if he were to succeed on everything he was asking for,
0:03:49 > 0:03:53that's what the insurance company would have expected to pay out.
0:03:53 > 0:03:56You'd expect the driver's cost to be in the same region,
0:03:56 > 0:03:57wouldn't you?
0:03:57 > 0:04:00The total cost of the claim to our insurance vehicle
0:04:00 > 0:04:05came to a minor £65.62.
0:04:05 > 0:04:11Hang on, £5,000 on one side versus £65.62 on the other.
0:04:12 > 0:04:17That's a whacking great difference of £4,934.38.
0:04:18 > 0:04:20Something wasn't adding up,
0:04:20 > 0:04:24so the insurers went back to their driver to get her side of the story.
0:04:24 > 0:04:26She immediately said, "This isn't right.
0:04:26 > 0:04:29"He didn't tell me at the scene he was injured.
0:04:29 > 0:04:31"He's certainly describing a collision
0:04:31 > 0:04:33"which I can't describe myself."
0:04:33 > 0:04:35It was very low speed as far as she was concerned.
0:04:35 > 0:04:37And she didn't agree at all that this individual
0:04:37 > 0:04:38could have been injured.
0:04:38 > 0:04:40So, yes, she was surprised
0:04:40 > 0:04:44and quite angry at the thought that a claim could have been made.
0:04:44 > 0:04:46Someone wasn't telling the truth,
0:04:46 > 0:04:49but one thing that never lies is the camera.
0:04:49 > 0:04:53CCTV allowed insurers to find out what had really happened.
0:04:53 > 0:04:55So we were quite lucky in this instance
0:04:55 > 0:04:59because the lady actually worked in the building adjacent to where the
0:04:59 > 0:05:04accident happened, which happened to have CCTV cameras outside.
0:05:04 > 0:05:07So she made initial enquiries and advised us that footage was
0:05:07 > 0:05:11available, which formed part of our initial assessment of the claim.
0:05:11 > 0:05:14We were able to look at those images and assess what she was saying
0:05:14 > 0:05:17and what the claimant was saying, which was exceptionally helpful.
0:05:17 > 0:05:20You can see the woman getting into her car.
0:05:20 > 0:05:22Now, brace yourselves as you're about his witness
0:05:22 > 0:05:24a really nasty crash.
0:05:28 > 0:05:31No, you haven't missed it - that was it.
0:05:31 > 0:05:36So the footage quite clearly shows this is a very gentle impact.
0:05:36 > 0:05:40It's a kiss between the two vehicles and I can see quite clearly here
0:05:40 > 0:05:44you just about make out that the claimant's vehicle rocks.
0:05:44 > 0:05:45Nothing more, really.
0:05:47 > 0:05:48You certainly don't see him
0:05:48 > 0:05:52get thrown around as he suggests happened to him.
0:05:52 > 0:05:55And almost immediately he is out of the vehicle,
0:05:55 > 0:05:57walking around, looking between the cars
0:05:57 > 0:06:00to say - or examine - what potential damage may have been caused
0:06:00 > 0:06:03as a result of this very small collision.
0:06:07 > 0:06:10It's almost as if he's rubbing off dirt from the front of the bumper,
0:06:10 > 0:06:11to be honest with you.
0:06:15 > 0:06:18We certainly wouldn't say that he suffered a gross injury.
0:06:18 > 0:06:21He certainly doesn't look like he was thrown around
0:06:21 > 0:06:24and needed help to get out of the car as he suggested.
0:06:24 > 0:06:26There is certainly nobody helping him get out of the car.
0:06:26 > 0:06:28So when I first saw this footage, I thought
0:06:28 > 0:06:31it was incredible what this gentleman was saying.
0:06:31 > 0:06:33I didn't believe at all that he could have suffered
0:06:33 > 0:06:35the injuries he'd alleged.
0:06:35 > 0:06:38The footage was then forwarded to other party
0:06:38 > 0:06:40with the expectation that the claim would be dropped,
0:06:40 > 0:06:42but they couldn't have been more wrong.
0:06:42 > 0:06:45Well, the claimant, or the face of the claimant - his representatives -
0:06:45 > 0:06:48were very dismissive of the footage, which surprised us.
0:06:48 > 0:06:51We expected them to pretty much hold their hands up and say,
0:06:51 > 0:06:55"OK, we think we've been rumbled. We'll walk away from this."
0:06:55 > 0:06:58The footage was treated in almost a blase way, to be honest with you,
0:06:58 > 0:07:01in that the claimant said, "No, I'll basically see you at trial.
0:07:01 > 0:07:02"Let's go."
0:07:02 > 0:07:05Despite the overwhelming evidence against him,
0:07:05 > 0:07:08the claimant had the nerve to take the case all the way.
0:07:08 > 0:07:11The insurers appointed an experienced barrister, Mark Roberts,
0:07:11 > 0:07:14to represent them at court.
0:07:14 > 0:07:15My initial thoughts
0:07:15 > 0:07:17when I got the case were that it was an interesting case,
0:07:17 > 0:07:20lots of difficulties in the evidence from the claimant's perspective,
0:07:20 > 0:07:25lots for me to have a go at, and the CCTV footage was a real bonus.
0:07:25 > 0:07:28Oh, in my opinion, it was undoubtedly grossly exaggerated.
0:07:28 > 0:07:32I'd probably go as far as to say that the claim for injury was entirely
0:07:32 > 0:07:33made up.
0:07:33 > 0:07:36It seemed to me wholly unreasonable to suggest that
0:07:36 > 0:07:39anybody could be injured in circumstances such as this.
0:07:39 > 0:07:40When the case reached trial,
0:07:40 > 0:07:44the claimant took to the stand, and then perhaps wished he hadn't.
0:07:44 > 0:07:48When I cross-examined, it was the best fun I'd had for some time.
0:07:48 > 0:07:51He was an aggressive witness, he was a difficult witness, he refused
0:07:51 > 0:07:55to answer questions, things had to be put to him in very different ways.
0:07:55 > 0:07:59He pretended to fail to understand questions that were very basic ones
0:07:59 > 0:08:02that were put to him, so it was a bit of fun.
0:08:02 > 0:08:05Despite the CCTV evidence stacked against him,
0:08:05 > 0:08:07the claimant had the cheek to keep to his story.
0:08:08 > 0:08:13He tells the court that he's thrown about by the impact, which he's not.
0:08:13 > 0:08:15But he's quite happily leaping out of the car and looking
0:08:15 > 0:08:19at the front of the car and showing no signs of injury whatsoever.
0:08:20 > 0:08:22There could be only one outcome.
0:08:23 > 0:08:25He lost fairly and squarely.
0:08:25 > 0:08:29And the judge simply didn't accept anything that he'd said.
0:08:29 > 0:08:31And I think I would have been astounded had any judge
0:08:31 > 0:08:35accepted anything that he put forward as honest, frankly.
0:08:35 > 0:08:38One person who didn't agree was the claimant himself.
0:08:38 > 0:08:42He later attempted to confront the man who had exposed his lies.
0:08:42 > 0:08:45I think he was a little upset with the way in which
0:08:45 > 0:08:48I'd cross-examined him. And as I left the court building,
0:08:48 > 0:08:51I found him following me down the street.
0:08:51 > 0:08:52I pointed out to him that following me
0:08:52 > 0:08:56down the street potentially wasn't a good idea from his perspective.
0:08:56 > 0:08:59Told him very politely to go away, put it that way.
0:08:59 > 0:09:02The claimant made the first sensible decision of the case
0:09:02 > 0:09:03and backed down.
0:09:03 > 0:09:09Sadly, this is another example of a genuine minor accident
0:09:09 > 0:09:12being turned into a moneymaking opportunity.
0:09:14 > 0:09:18Ultimately, if we make payments on these types of claims,
0:09:18 > 0:09:19it affects you as a consumer,
0:09:19 > 0:09:22as an insurer...or an insured, I should say,
0:09:22 > 0:09:24and a driver cos it goes to your premiums
0:09:24 > 0:09:26and you end up paying the bill for this.
0:09:31 > 0:09:32Still to come...
0:09:32 > 0:09:36A would-be fraudster tries to blame his crime on the postal service.
0:09:36 > 0:09:40The customer was claiming that the ring was in the packet when
0:09:40 > 0:09:41he posted it and, therefore,
0:09:41 > 0:09:44has been stolen by a member of Royal Mail.
0:09:46 > 0:09:48And what happens when one of these...
0:09:48 > 0:09:50That will be mine one day.
0:09:50 > 0:09:51..meets one of these...
0:09:52 > 0:09:53..and one of these?
0:09:55 > 0:09:56- Oooh!- BLEEP.
0:09:56 > 0:09:58- Oooh!- BLEEP.
0:10:03 > 0:10:06Fraudulent insurance claims are a constant pain for the industry.
0:10:06 > 0:10:11With a total of 119,000 fake cases in a recent 12-month period,
0:10:11 > 0:10:14the problem is in danger of becoming endemic.
0:10:14 > 0:10:17One man used to dealing with the sharp end of personal injury claims
0:10:17 > 0:10:20is health and safety manager Colin Wells.
0:10:22 > 0:10:25His workplace provides more challenges than most -
0:10:25 > 0:10:29the Category B Dovegate Prison in Staffordshire,
0:10:29 > 0:10:31one step down from maximum security.
0:10:31 > 0:10:35The prison authorities are regularly hit with personal injury claims,
0:10:35 > 0:10:38and the case involving an inmate by the name of Mr Delisser
0:10:38 > 0:10:40was no different.
0:10:40 > 0:10:44The claim that was received from Mr Delisser's solicitor
0:10:44 > 0:10:47was that he was walking on the landing after emptying his bin.
0:10:47 > 0:10:50There was some water that had accumulated on the floor
0:10:50 > 0:10:52and he actually slipped into the water,
0:10:52 > 0:10:53and as he was trying to get up,
0:10:53 > 0:10:57carried on slipping, resulting in injuries to his right tendon
0:10:57 > 0:11:00and to his back, which required further physiotherapy.
0:11:02 > 0:11:05The injuries the prisoner suffered had potentially long-term
0:11:05 > 0:11:09implications and could have resulted in a hefty compensation pay out.
0:11:09 > 0:11:13It's Colin's job to make sure the cons aren't attempting a con.
0:11:13 > 0:11:15Part of my role as health and safety manager
0:11:15 > 0:11:19is to robustly look into each accident and incident.
0:11:19 > 0:11:23Part of that information that I will gather together is the CCTV footage.
0:11:23 > 0:11:26I'll get the accident report, any of the reports that go with it,
0:11:26 > 0:11:29any interviews that we have off staff
0:11:29 > 0:11:31and then this will be the package that I'll put together
0:11:31 > 0:11:35or wait for the claimant or if the solicitor's going to come in.
0:11:36 > 0:11:40As a matter of course, Colin also checked footage from the prison's
0:11:40 > 0:11:43understandably extensive network of CCTV cameras
0:11:43 > 0:11:46and it soon became clear that there was something fishy
0:11:46 > 0:11:48about this watery accident.
0:11:48 > 0:11:52The CCTV footage shows that...Mr Delisser walking
0:11:52 > 0:11:54along the landing after emptying his bin.
0:11:54 > 0:11:57He notices the water actually on the floor,
0:11:57 > 0:11:59he points to the water on the floor
0:11:59 > 0:12:02and then he gesticulates to a fellow prisoner across the landing
0:12:02 > 0:12:06with his eyes, saying, "Look at me," and then points to the floor again.
0:12:06 > 0:12:09Mr Delisser then carries on to complete his fall
0:12:09 > 0:12:11actually onto the floor.
0:12:13 > 0:12:17The incident was so obviously staged, if there was a scale of
0:12:17 > 0:12:21one to ten of how the accident took place as an actor,
0:12:21 > 0:12:24he'd be at the very bottom of this scale, it's that obvious.
0:12:24 > 0:12:26So, no Oscar on its way then.
0:12:26 > 0:12:28Apart from the criminally bad acting,
0:12:28 > 0:12:32the involvement of another prisoner also gave the game away.
0:12:32 > 0:12:35It makes it a lot easier for when you're trying to put a claim in
0:12:35 > 0:12:37to have two people stating the same thing.
0:12:37 > 0:12:41Despite his best efforts, the prisoner fell down on the basics,
0:12:41 > 0:12:44failing to realise that a prison is possibly the worst place
0:12:44 > 0:12:45to commit a crime,
0:12:45 > 0:12:48what with all the prison officers and cameras everywhere.
0:12:48 > 0:12:50I think prisoners do get complacent.
0:12:50 > 0:12:52They must know that the cameras are there,
0:12:52 > 0:12:55but because they are totally surrounded by them
0:12:55 > 0:13:00all the time, they seem to forget that the cameras are watching them.
0:13:00 > 0:13:03There was only one reason for him to do this and that was for fraud
0:13:03 > 0:13:07and to get financial gain out of HMP Dovegate.
0:13:07 > 0:13:09Needless to say, the claim was dead in the water,
0:13:09 > 0:13:12but Colin wasn't prepared to leave the matter there.
0:13:12 > 0:13:16I then took out a separate prosecution with Staffordshire Police
0:13:16 > 0:13:19to go against Mr Delisser.
0:13:19 > 0:13:22The reason I pursued this prosecution against Mr Delisser
0:13:22 > 0:13:25was not only because we received the letter of claim from him
0:13:25 > 0:13:28for his own financial reward, but because it was
0:13:28 > 0:13:33so obvious by the CCTV footage that he actually slipped on purpose.
0:13:33 > 0:13:35Since the evidence was all caught on camera,
0:13:35 > 0:13:37it was a foregone conclusion.
0:13:37 > 0:13:40The outcome of this particular claim was Mr Delisser
0:13:40 > 0:13:45received an initial eight weeks - 56 days - actually onto his sentence,
0:13:45 > 0:13:46which he completed.
0:13:46 > 0:13:48Although his original sentence and the reason why
0:13:48 > 0:13:51he was in prison to start with was quashed, the prison
0:13:51 > 0:13:55authorities took a tough stance when it came to his attempted fraud.
0:13:56 > 0:13:58It's a message that we do want to, say, take out,
0:13:58 > 0:14:00that we don't take this lightly.
0:14:00 > 0:14:01Quite the contrary,
0:14:01 > 0:14:04the claimant felt the heavy hand of the law again.
0:14:11 > 0:14:15The popularity of online shopping means it's a multibillion pound
0:14:15 > 0:14:18business, but there's nothing more annoying than ordering something
0:14:18 > 0:14:21over the internet and then having to send it back if it isn't right.
0:14:23 > 0:14:25That's where the Royal Mail comes in.
0:14:25 > 0:14:28They pride themselves on going the extra mile to ensure
0:14:28 > 0:14:30items are delivered and returned safely.
0:14:30 > 0:14:33So, when something goes wrong, it's a big deal.
0:14:34 > 0:14:37When an online shopper got in touch to report that an item they'd
0:14:37 > 0:14:41returned by post to an internet jewellery retailer had never
0:14:41 > 0:14:45arrived, the Royal Mail's Diane Matthews looked into it.
0:14:46 > 0:14:50The customer had returned an item that they purchased online,
0:14:50 > 0:14:52which was an engagement ring for £1,900.
0:14:52 > 0:14:55And when the package was opened back at the jewellers,
0:14:55 > 0:14:59it was found that the ring and the box were not inside the packaging.
0:15:00 > 0:15:03The customer was claiming that the ring was in the packet
0:15:03 > 0:15:05when he posted it and, therefore,
0:15:05 > 0:15:08has been stolen by a member of Royal Mail.
0:15:09 > 0:15:13The company takes such an accusation very seriously
0:15:13 > 0:15:15and immediately launch investigation.
0:15:15 > 0:15:18The customer was asked to fill in a claim report and provide
0:15:18 > 0:15:20the team with proof of postage.
0:15:21 > 0:15:24Royal Mail received the claim from the customer
0:15:24 > 0:15:28and it was forwarded to the investigation team.
0:15:28 > 0:15:31And when we looked at it and we looked at the paperwork that was
0:15:31 > 0:15:37associated with the claim, then the posting receipt was looked at
0:15:37 > 0:15:40and it was noticed that the weight of the item was on there.
0:15:40 > 0:15:43The weight corresponded to the weight of the package
0:15:43 > 0:15:45containing the ring and the box
0:15:45 > 0:15:48when the customer took it to his local post office to send it back.
0:15:48 > 0:15:51The weight was to be a key piece of evidence.
0:15:51 > 0:15:54Meanwhile, the Royal Mail investigation team contacted
0:15:54 > 0:15:56the online jewellers for their side of the story.
0:15:57 > 0:16:01The jeweller, when they receive all packages,
0:16:01 > 0:16:06weigh the item as well as check the packet for any signs of tampering.
0:16:06 > 0:16:09It was established that the package hadn't been tampered
0:16:09 > 0:16:13and that the weight of the item was identical to the weight
0:16:13 > 0:16:17when the customer posted it at his local post office.
0:16:17 > 0:16:21I might not know much about carats - the diamond ones, not the veg -
0:16:21 > 0:16:23but I do know they weigh something.
0:16:23 > 0:16:25If the two weights were the same,
0:16:25 > 0:16:27that means the parcel was empty to start with.
0:16:27 > 0:16:30Therefore, the customer had kept hold of the ring.
0:16:32 > 0:16:34The case had fraud stamped all over it
0:16:34 > 0:16:38and the investigation team paid the customer a visit.
0:16:38 > 0:16:41The customer admitted when interviewed that he made
0:16:41 > 0:16:44the purchase of the engagement ring purely to facilitate
0:16:44 > 0:16:50a fraudulent claim to Royal Mail in order to recoup his £1,900.
0:16:50 > 0:16:52We contacted Merseyside Police
0:16:52 > 0:16:56and the customer was then arrested on suspicion of fraud.
0:16:58 > 0:16:59The case proceeded to court
0:16:59 > 0:17:03and justice was delivered for the £1,900 he tried to claim.
0:17:03 > 0:17:07He was given a criminal record
0:17:07 > 0:17:10and also an 18-month conditional discharge.
0:17:10 > 0:17:16He was also ordered to pay back the £1,900 investigation cost
0:17:16 > 0:17:18and also a victim surcharge.
0:17:20 > 0:17:22But the story didn't end there.
0:17:22 > 0:17:24The customer had tried to return the ring to the company
0:17:24 > 0:17:28after his scam was exposed, but they refused to accept it.
0:17:28 > 0:17:32The customer was handed the ring back as he entered into a finance
0:17:32 > 0:17:34agreement to pay for the ring.
0:17:34 > 0:17:35In this instance,
0:17:35 > 0:17:38the customer has paid twice for the ring, in essence - sort of a
0:17:38 > 0:17:42double whammy simply because he has to pay his finance agreement
0:17:42 > 0:17:44when he purchased the ring
0:17:44 > 0:17:49and he also has to pay Royal Mail £1,900 in compensation and costs.
0:17:49 > 0:17:54In this case, the would-be fraudster pushed the envelope too far.
0:17:54 > 0:17:57It's satisfying to get a result like this because the Royal Mail
0:17:57 > 0:18:00employ a lot of honest individuals
0:18:00 > 0:18:04and obviously the fact that their integrity has been questioned
0:18:04 > 0:18:06is something that we need to protect.
0:18:06 > 0:18:09I think the customer thought that he'd only have to put
0:18:09 > 0:18:13the claim in and we'd pay it, but Royal Mail do actively check
0:18:13 > 0:18:15compensation claims as a matter of routine.
0:18:16 > 0:18:18This claim certainly didn't pay off.
0:18:25 > 0:18:27Insurers are taking the fight to the fraudsters using every
0:18:27 > 0:18:29tool at their disposal.
0:18:29 > 0:18:32A big growth area is in specialist consultants,
0:18:32 > 0:18:35like Tara Shelton of i-Cog.
0:18:35 > 0:18:39She uses techniques that identify fraud more swiftly than normal.
0:18:39 > 0:18:41She's every scammer's worst nightmare,
0:18:41 > 0:18:44a former police officer with a degree in psychology.
0:18:44 > 0:18:48If you actually mix the key ingredients of my background
0:18:48 > 0:18:50in the police with psychology it's, in essence,
0:18:50 > 0:18:53given us the perfect, unique mixture
0:18:53 > 0:18:55of how to assess claims in a way that
0:18:55 > 0:18:58maybe not have been done before.
0:18:58 > 0:19:02She can tell if someone is lying just from listening to their voice.
0:19:03 > 0:19:08Actually listening to a claimant talk about their claim
0:19:08 > 0:19:13is probably the most powerful source you can ever use to detect either
0:19:13 > 0:19:17opportunistic or organised fraud because people convey themselves
0:19:17 > 0:19:21in a multitude of ways without them actually realising it.
0:19:21 > 0:19:24You will get the individuals that are stupid,
0:19:24 > 0:19:28you will also get the individuals that don't even think that
0:19:28 > 0:19:32an insurer would assess a claim and commonly we will find
0:19:32 > 0:19:37that their account of what happened is missing obvious detail.
0:19:37 > 0:19:42So another indicator that we currently see is evasive behaviour.
0:19:42 > 0:19:45So they will intentionally try and sidestep, they will
0:19:45 > 0:19:47intentionally try and change the topic,
0:19:47 > 0:19:51they will intentionally try and divert the call handler
0:19:51 > 0:19:54away from the discussion at that present time.
0:19:54 > 0:19:57Ultimately, a claim always has a story
0:19:57 > 0:20:00about something that's happened, an incident,
0:20:00 > 0:20:04and for me that's where the key lies in actually assessing
0:20:04 > 0:20:08that account of what happened as to whether it's true or not.
0:20:09 > 0:20:13Elsewhere, specialist training means call handlers are now able
0:20:13 > 0:20:16to read the signs of questionable behaviour.
0:20:16 > 0:20:19One such claim came to LV when they received a call
0:20:19 > 0:20:21from a customer reporting the theft of his vehicle
0:20:21 > 0:20:23and a subsequent crash.
0:20:24 > 0:20:27Once again, it was Claire Lunn who looked into the case.
0:20:30 > 0:20:32During the initial call,
0:20:32 > 0:20:35our claimant's appeared quite hesitant to
0:20:35 > 0:20:38give any detail, quite evasive
0:20:38 > 0:20:41and displayed certain behaviours and mannerisms
0:20:41 > 0:20:45that gave lots of red flags that perhaps this needed
0:20:45 > 0:20:47to be looked into a bit further.
0:20:48 > 0:20:51The claimant was asked to give a detailed account of what happened.
0:20:58 > 0:20:59'Yes.
0:21:03 > 0:21:04'Yes.
0:21:16 > 0:21:17'Uh-huh.
0:21:21 > 0:21:22'Yeah.'
0:21:24 > 0:21:28These were very unusual circumstances of a theft and quite bizarre.
0:21:28 > 0:21:31So, again, we wanted to make sure
0:21:31 > 0:21:35and validate the circumstances had happened as reported to us.
0:21:35 > 0:21:37The insurers called the claimant back
0:21:37 > 0:21:39to go over his version of events.
0:21:39 > 0:21:41Again, his behaviour was strange.
0:21:41 > 0:21:44He seemed confused about what had happened.
0:21:58 > 0:22:01"Because I crashed into their house?"
0:22:01 > 0:22:03I thought he said it was a thief.
0:22:03 > 0:22:05I'm no expert, but it sounded like he'd slipped up there.
0:22:10 > 0:22:12However, solid evidence was needed,
0:22:12 > 0:22:15and a combination of good old-fashioned investigation work
0:22:15 > 0:22:18and curtain-twitching locals was the answer.
0:22:19 > 0:22:21People who'd witnessed what had actually happened
0:22:21 > 0:22:23gave a completely different version of events.
0:22:50 > 0:22:52Far from being an innocent victim,
0:22:52 > 0:22:56it was clear that the claimant was the villain of the piece.
0:22:56 > 0:22:58Furthermore, he was attempting to get a pay-out for damage
0:22:58 > 0:23:00that he'd caused.
0:23:01 > 0:23:05They saw our claimant get out of the vehicle.
0:23:05 > 0:23:09He appeared drunk and then began to get quite aggressive.
0:23:31 > 0:23:36The claimant was actually taken to hospital because he'd suffered
0:23:36 > 0:23:40from head injuries from being involved in the incident.
0:23:40 > 0:23:43Maybe the knock to the head explains why he thought
0:23:43 > 0:23:45he was in with a chance of a pay-out.
0:23:45 > 0:23:49We now knew that the claimant hadn't been truthful
0:23:49 > 0:23:52and we declined his claim.
0:23:52 > 0:23:55It's quite remarkable that our claimant thought that he would
0:23:55 > 0:23:57get away with this.
0:23:57 > 0:24:01There were several witnesses of the incident, but I think he was
0:24:01 > 0:24:07hoping that the insurance company wouldn't do thorough investigations.
0:24:07 > 0:24:08He was dead wrong.
0:24:08 > 0:24:10The insurer's evidence was passed to the police,
0:24:10 > 0:24:12who had already launched their own investigation.
0:24:15 > 0:24:19His attempt to claim for damage to his car had hit the buffers.
0:24:19 > 0:24:23Our claimant was eventually charged with driving whilst impaired
0:24:23 > 0:24:28and was given a 22-month driving ban and a suspended sentence.
0:24:28 > 0:24:32The claimant not only put himself at risk but others at serious
0:24:32 > 0:24:38risk of harm and then made up a story to try and cover his tracks.
0:24:38 > 0:24:41Just like the drunk claimant himself,
0:24:41 > 0:24:42his story didn't stand up,
0:24:42 > 0:24:46and he was left high and dry with no pay-out and a criminal record.
0:24:53 > 0:24:56UK insurers have managed to put the brakes on this
0:24:56 > 0:24:58type of small-scale motor insurance scam.
0:24:58 > 0:25:00But over in America,
0:25:00 > 0:25:03fraudsters have driven the stakes to unprecedented heights.
0:25:05 > 0:25:09On the face of it, Andy House was living the American dream.
0:25:09 > 0:25:13He owned a luxury car dealership in Texas and drove this bad boy -
0:25:13 > 0:25:16a 1.75 million supercar,
0:25:16 > 0:25:21caught on film by a passing motorist, student Joe Garza.
0:25:21 > 0:25:22Pretty sure that's a Lambo, dude.
0:25:24 > 0:25:29Wrong. It's a Bugatti Veyron, and only 450 were ever made.
0:25:29 > 0:25:32It's one of the rarest and most expensive cars on the planet.
0:25:33 > 0:25:35That will be mine one day.
0:25:35 > 0:25:38Wrong again, it won't be anyone's.
0:25:38 > 0:25:42House's American dream turned into a nightmare when this happened.
0:25:42 > 0:25:44- Oh!- BLEEP.- Oh!- BLEEP.
0:25:48 > 0:25:50Whilst driving along La Marque Lagoon,
0:25:50 > 0:25:52he had a titanic accident,
0:25:52 > 0:25:55swerving off the road at high speed and into the water.
0:25:55 > 0:25:59Luckily, he made it out alive, none the worse for wear.
0:25:59 > 0:26:02The dramatic clip was filmed purely by chance
0:26:02 > 0:26:05and has been viewed and shared around the world millions of times.
0:26:08 > 0:26:10While Andy received nothing worse than a soaking,
0:26:10 > 0:26:13any hopes of repairing his Bugatti Veyron were sunk.
0:26:15 > 0:26:17The soggy supercar was totally beyond repair.
0:26:21 > 0:26:22Soon after the accident,
0:26:22 > 0:26:25specialist contractors were called in to recover the vehicle.
0:26:25 > 0:26:29The loss of such a high-profile car made international headlines
0:26:29 > 0:26:33and the world's petrolheads demanded an explanation.
0:26:33 > 0:26:35House claimed that as he was driving,
0:26:35 > 0:26:36his mobile phone had gone off
0:26:36 > 0:26:39and he'd been distracted by a passing pelican
0:26:39 > 0:26:41which had made him swerve into the lagoon.
0:26:41 > 0:26:43He added that he'd left the engine running
0:26:43 > 0:26:46because he was being stung by mosquitoes.
0:26:46 > 0:26:49The flooded engine meant that the vehicle was totally beyond repair.
0:26:50 > 0:26:52But all was not lost.
0:26:52 > 0:26:56As a responsible car dealer, House had taken out extensive insurance,
0:26:56 > 0:27:00meaning he was in line for a seven-figure compensation pay-out,
0:27:00 > 0:27:02having valued the car at 2.2 million -
0:27:02 > 0:27:05to you and me, that's £1.5 million.
0:27:07 > 0:27:09And everything would have gone swimmingly
0:27:09 > 0:27:12if it hadn't been for the social media clip.
0:27:13 > 0:27:16At the time, House was unaware that the accident had been filmed,
0:27:16 > 0:27:18but during their investigation,
0:27:18 > 0:27:21the insurers were quick to find and analyse the video.
0:27:22 > 0:27:26They tried to spot the pelican he claimed to have swerved to avoid,
0:27:26 > 0:27:27but it's more of a case of
0:27:27 > 0:27:30"where's the birdie?" not "watch the birdie."
0:27:30 > 0:27:32The pelican is nowhere to be seen.
0:27:32 > 0:27:35The clip also shows he made no attempt to brake
0:27:35 > 0:27:36before splashing into the lake.
0:27:38 > 0:27:40Convinced that he had deliberately trashed his supercar
0:27:40 > 0:27:44to get an insurance pay-out, the insurers rejected the claim.
0:27:44 > 0:27:47They then reported him to the authorities
0:27:47 > 0:27:49and he was eventually put on trial for wire and mail fraud.
0:27:51 > 0:27:54In August 2014, he pleaded guilty
0:27:54 > 0:27:56and could face up to 20 years in the slammer.
0:27:57 > 0:28:00Using his Bugatti Veyron to try and pull a fast one
0:28:00 > 0:28:04ultimately left Andy House a washed-up fraudster.