Episode 10 Claimed and Shamed

Insurance fraud in the UK has hit epidemic levels.

It's costing us over £1.3 billion every year.

That's almost £3.6 million every day.

Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries, even phantom pets.

The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing,

and every year it's adding over £50 to your insurance bill.

But insurers are fighting back, exposing 14 fake claims every hour.

Armed with covert surveillance systems...

That's the subject out the vehicle.

..sophisticated data analysis techniques...

..and a number of highly skilled police units...

Police! Don't move, stay where you are!

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

Just don't lie to us.

All of those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle

are now caught in the act and claimed and shamed.

Coming up -

one fraudster jumps out of the frying pan and into the fire...

It's quite unusual to see a fire spread so quickly.

Strongly indicated that a manual accelerant was used.

..a potential fraudster

tries to take an insurance company for a ride...

The claimant presented his claim

about two and a half years after the accident.

He still hadn't been to see his GP.

..and a fake crash with an online grocery store leaves a bad taste

in the fraudsters' mouths.

There's nothing more frustrating for a fraudster than to have an accident

with a vehicle that isn't insured.

The fire service attends just over 210,000 fires a year.

When a home or business goes up in flames,

they can see people's possessions and livelihoods

disappear in a matter of minutes.

Mihir Pandya from Allianz dealt with a claim

that saw a family business go up in smoke.

On the day in question, Mr Hindry told us that

he had closed shop at the end of the normal trading day,

set the alarm system

and travelled to another location about eight miles away.

About 30 minutes later, the first member of the public

saw the fire breaching the roof and called the fire service.

Within minutes, the first fire engine arrived

and firefighters witnessed the extent of the fire.

The officer in charge could see the magnitude of the fire had prevented

any firefighters entering the building

because there was a danger to life.

And at the height of the fire,

there was as many as 75 firefighters at the scene.

The fire raged throughout the night,

into the next morning and the only things left standing

were the external masonry walls.

In a matter of hours,

several generations of hard work had burnt to the ground.

Allianz wasted no time and immediately began investigating.

On arriving at the scene the following morning,

our investigators could see Mr Hindry. He was visibly upset.

He expressed his concern for his employees, their futures

and he vowed to get the business back on its feet

and he was going to rebuild it.

One of the first things the investigators did was check the alarm lock.

What they found fuelled their suspicions.

Mr Hindry had told us at the end of the working day

he'd set the alarm system - about 5:30 in the evening.

On investigating, our forensic investigators told us

that, whilst the alarm system was set,

somebody had entered the building, switched the alarm system off,

remained in the building for about ten minutes

and then set the system again.

Now, this would have been only ten minutes before

that first member of public saw the fire reaching through the roof.

For Allianz, there's usually no smoke without fire.

The first indication that there was something amiss

was the nature of the fire.

In our experience, it's quite unusual to see a fire spread so quickly

and its magnitude strongly indicated that a manual accelerant

was set by that unknown person in that short timeframe.

Leading us to believe that this was arson.

Convinced foul play was at hand, Allianz turned up the heat.

We instructed police, who undertook their own investigations,

and one of the first things they did was to check mobile phone records

of Mr Hindry. And what they discovered

was, whilst Mr Hindry told us he was in a location eight miles away,

this wasn't actually the case.

And he was a lot nearer to the property.

With so many inconsistencies in Hindry's version of events,

Allianz continued to investigate.

We would check financial records, the financial status

and the financial trading history of the company.

It became quickly evident that, two years prior to the fire,

the business was in financial difficulty

and was, technically, insolvent.

With all evidence gathered, there was a lot at stake for Allianz.

Had Mr Hindry been successful, he would have received

in the region of 2.1 million for the loss of the business and the stock.

In June 2014, the case went to trial at Norwich Crown Court.

Whilst we know that the business was in financial difficulty

for two years prior to the fire,

during the trial it emerged that Mr Hindry had also quite a significant

gambling addiction and that he would often gamble up to £10,000 a day.

A gambling habit like that works out at over £250,000 a month.

Hindry had got his fingers burnt in more ways than one

and his losing streak was about to hit rock bottom.

His lies led to his downfall.

Hindry was found guilty of fraud and arson

and received a six-year prison sentence.

The actions of Mr Hindry had not only impacted on his family -

who were his business partners, so, between them

they'd lost a £2.1 million business -

but also his long-serving employees, who clearly held

Mr Hindry in very high esteem. And I'm sure would have been very,

very disappointed at what had happened.

To see a family business turned to ash is heart-wrenching.

In the summer of 2011,

one business became the centrepiece of the riots in Croydon.

Burnt to the ground overnight, furniture store

House of Reeves has been in the area for almost 150 years.

Maurice Reeves has worked in the family firm for most of his life.

I heard it on the television. And I said, "No, that can't be our shop."

But, of course, it was. I saw the name Reeves

and I said, "This is like a nightmare."

And that night, well, I didn't sleep.

And, then, the following morning

when I came down here, the devastation was horrendous.

Our main building was completely destroyed.

The iconic pictures everybody saw on the television haunts me still.

They would never be erased from my memory.

Oh, the cost to us, to me, personally, was extreme

because I had worked all my life there.

And, as you can understand, emotionally,

it was so upsetting that it was very difficult to comprehend.

The company has always been on this site,

and the road is named Reeves's Corner, after the family business.

It survived all these wars, the Depression, Second World War,

the First World War, everything, and yet, in 2011,

we were destroyed by one person who set light to it.

He is still serving a long prison sentence.

But this doesn't make up for the family's loss.

The stress it gives you after you've had a devastation fire like ours

can never compensated by being paid money by an insurance company.

Because they can't, it's impossible to evaluate.

What Hindry did is unthinkable for Maurice.

For somebody to build a business

and then destroy it is really...

..incomprehensive for me.

It would be too devastating for my sons,

and people who work here have a pride and achievement.

We're all fighters, the Reeves family. That's why we're still here.

Still to come - one claimant gets caught with his trousers down.

Actually, it's quite amusing because this gentleman had a lucky habit.

And an insurer calls time on a potential fraudster's claim.

Didn't discover the item was missing until at least two hours,

and for something as big, chunky, and worth nearly £25,000,

we found this slightly unusual.

Around 200,000 car accidents occur each year in the UK.

Whiplash injuries can be extremely severe,

with aches and pains lasting for months.

Unsurprisingly, insurance companies see more than their fair share

of these types of claims. But some are more unusual than others.

Sarah Hill from BLM ended up dealing with one such case.

The accident was quite straightforward -

it was a rear-end road traffic accident.

The claimant was claiming that he'd suffered neck and back injuries -

so, whiplash injury - and the claim was worth in the region of £15,000.

Whiplash claims are usually brought to insurers' attention

not long after the accident.

But this claimant was working to a completely different timescale.

Following a road traffic accident, it is usual to see a report

of an injury within two weeks to a month after the accident.

The claimant presented his claim about two and a half years

after the accident. He still hadn't been to see his GP.

That's right, not two and a half weeks,

not two and a half months, but two and a half years.

Now, why on earth would someone be looking for compensation

so long after the accident?

Well, investigations revealed this potential fraudster had been

approached by a claims management company.

This was an encouraged attempt to make a claim.

The claimant was advised that he could make an injury claim

up to three years after the accident and, therefore,

decided to make that claim.

Of course, you can't submit a claim without evidence.

But, luckily for this chap,

the claims management company had that covered.

The claimant's legal adviser sent him for a medical report.

The allegation was it was so severely impacting upon his hobbies,

his daily activities, and, actually, he even went as far as saying

it had impacted upon his work life

because he'd had to speak to his line manager about rearranging

some of his work schedule to accommodate his symptoms.

So, we have a claim for injuries, complete with medical report

and what sounded like a drastically affected lifestyle.

But BLM's client wasn't about to get the chequebook out just yet,

and decided to do a bit of detective work -

and it's just as well they did.

It came as quite a surprise

when our intelligence team undertook some social media searches.

The claimant, just about one month after the accident, had been

involved in a 100km trek, so clearly not displaying any symptoms

of injury at that point in time.

And there was plenty more evidence where that came from.

So, what's he been up to?

Six miles in a decent time, phew, you must be in "wheely" good shape.

Three peaks in terrible weather.

Be careful up there, you might come a cropper.

Three hours on your bike, well, that'll certainly build you up.

About a year after the accident,

he was mountain biking without any symptoms yet again.

Long ride after work - cramming it in, hey?

Two days out on your bike, you must be fit as a fiddle.

Oh, and you're joining the gym. So, let's get this straight.

You can't walk, but you can manage a six-mile trek.

You're having difficulty cycling,

but you can cope with a pedal-powered day out.

And you're having problems with work,

but you're OK to jump on your bike after.

OK.

And he's only just mentioning this now,

two and half years after the event.

Is it me, or is he pushing it a little?

After looking at this for the insurer,

it was a case of "on your bike!"

We then presented the evidence that we'd achieved

in the course of investigations to his legal representatives

and, unsurprisingly,

the claimant decided not to progress his claim and discontinued his claim.

The claimant obviously thought he'd be peddling his way to the bank.

The message of this case, really, is that if you are contacted

following a road traffic accident, it is quite right that you are advised

that if you are injured you're entitled to make a claim.

But you must ask yourself

whether you were actually genuinely injured as a result of the accident.

Crash for cash is becoming a major policing issue.

Cars working together to cause deliberate accidents

are milking the insurance industry of just over £390 million a year.

Crash for cash starts when one or two cars

move in front of the victim.

The first car brakes,

giving the second car a reason to come to an abrupt halt...

..causing the victim's car to go into the back of them.

The driver of the car that's been hit can then cash in

on a hefty insurance pay-out.

Staged accidents like this have become a serious social problem.

But it isn't just the insurance companies who are the victims.

DCI Angie Rogers heads up the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department,

one of many forces tackling this dangerous crime.

If people are out there committing insurance fraud on our roads

and deliberately crashing into people,

there's a risk of serious harm, injury or even death.

With crash for cash on the rise, insurers and the police will

use everything in their power to bring these criminals to justice.

But it isn't just car drivers who are victims of this dangerous crime.

Ian Emery is a senior associate at law firm Hill Dickinson.

He represents a number of commercial clients who are sitting ducks

when it comes to crash for cash.

There are a number of reasons why fraudsters

target commercial vehicles.

One is that they are larger than a car, for example,

so there's more chance of a collision actually taking place.

Another reason is that commercial vehicles will always be insured.

There's nothing more frustrating for a fraudster than to have

an accident with a vehicle that isn't insured.

Ah, yes, don't you just hate it when that happens?

You go to all the trouble of staging a crash for cash...

and then there's no insurance to claim on.

This makes business vehicles, such as the white van,

a particular favourite for fake accidents.

With general insurance claims that we look at, the Ford Transit

features in approximately 7% of accidents,

but when we look at induced accidents,

the same vehicle features on approximately 15%, which would

suggest that it is being targeted in that type of accident.

But commercial drivers are fighting back.

When it comes to any kind of collision,

a reliable eyewitness is crucial, so companies like Ocado have armed

their vehicles with something that never takes its eyes off the road.

Having cameras installed in commercial vehicles can really

assist our clients, because the evidence that they

get from the camera such as this, that films an accident taking place,

where someone has stopped deliberately, can really help defend

-the claim and can be the silver bullet.

-It certainly can,

as a trio of crash-for-cash criminals found out when

they tried to use an online grocery business as their meal ticket.

This claim involved an Ocado delivery van on the outskirts of London,

who was driving in heavy traffic and, unavoidably, hit the car in front.

As a result of this accident, there was some minor damage to the front

of the Ocado delivery van and some minor damage to the car,

to the rear bumper of the car, as well.

With over 23,000 traffic collisions on London's roads every year,

it sounded pretty plausible.

But when Ocado's insurers later received three whiplash claims

of around £20,000 from the occupants of the car,

it was time to check out the footage from the grocery-van cam

to see exactly what had happened.

OK, what we can see in this footage is the delivery van

is proceeding in heavy traffic in London,

the car in front slows down and speeds up on a number of occasions,

before finally slamming on next to the bus stop.

Could this just have been a doddery driver? Not according to Ian.

When we review footage and we see that a car speeds up

and slows down on a number of occasions before finally

stopping suddenly, it suggests that the driver is maybe trying

to commit the act of deliberately slamming on, but maybe

isn't sure how hard to break, and maybe has to test it

a couple of times before finally going through with the manoeuvre.

The on-board camera not only captures the incident,

but it's specifically designed to record

when the van breaks sharply, or there's an impact.

This claim was starting to smell decidedly off,

so the occupants of the car were asked exactly why

they'd been so heavy-handed - or, rather, footed - with the brakes.

Each of the claimants came back with a description that there

was a lady at the bus stop on the left-hand side who was

either stepping off or about to step off the kerb, which is

the reason why they'd stopped suddenly.

When we reviewed the footage,

we could see that there was no lady at the bus stop

and that's when our concerns were really confirmed that this was

an attempt to pursue fraudulent claims against our clients.

OK, now, I know the footage is a little grainy, but, nope,

I can't see a woman or anyone standing by the bus stop.

It was quite clear to see there was no old lady,

there were no other people, there were no children on bikes,

there was no reason whatsoever for them to have stopped, there was

no-one on the pavement at all and there wasn't even anyone

on the other side of the road who was potentially crossing the road either.

The claimants' account of a ghost granny left Ian and his team with

no doubt that they were dealing with a classic case of crash for cash.

Or were the claimants just trying a supermarket sweep?

The fact that they gave a version of events that seemed plausible -

there was someone stepping off the kerb -

they thought that would be a good enough reason to justify why they

stopped suddenly. They clearly weren't aware they were being

videoed by the vehicle behind

and that that video would show conclusively that

there really wasn't anyone there and there was no reason for them to stop.

Convinced that this was a fraudulent claim,

Ian set the wheels of justice in motion.

In this case, once we'd identified the concerns we'd had

and we'd reviewed the footage, we passed the matter

to the police and they investigated.

They arrested the three individuals in the vehicle in front.

This claim was definitely past its sell-by date and you would

have thought the fraudsters would have checked out here, but not so.

Even after they were arrested by the police and questioned

and shown the footage, they still decided to plead

not guilty at the criminal trial but, thankfully,

the strength of the evidence that we had, including the footage,

meant that they were convicted.

All three occupants of the car were convicted of fraud...

..and each received three months behind bars.

I suspect that when they reached the decision to pursue this

fraudulent claim and to set up the accident,

I don't think they ever thought that it would end up with the police

knocking on their door and ultimately them spending three months in prison.

After trying to defraud the grocery company, justice had been delivered

and Ian's in no doubt as to why the case was so successful.

Without the footage, it would've been a much more difficult case to defend,

because it would have been the word of the Ocado driver against

the three occupants in the third-party vehicle,

so having the footage really did help us immensely in this case.

And any other fraudsters who think online grocery vans

are a sweet treat when it comes to insurance claims

are, quite frankly, off their trolley.

I think fraudsters see this kind of accident as easy money,

relative to other areas of crime

and, also, I think they see it as relatively low risk,

but I think this case is a good example of where it's not easy money

and it's not low risk and it can have some quite serious consequences

including, in this case, a custodial sentence.

Some people like a flutter on the horses or a game of cards.

Crossing your fingers or knocking on wood are just

some of the things we do for luck.

Some of us even have lucky rituals.

However, when a case involving a superstitious gambler landed

on John Beadle's desk at RSA, it raised a smile or two.

Actually, it's quite amusing,

because this gentleman had a lucky habit where

he pressed the button on the machine

and then walked backwards, watching the machine while it played...

..and he'd repeat this several times.

Let's have a look at this lucky ritual. Here we go.

So, it's a few steps back, throw your hand behind your back,

a little shimmy round the stool, and here we go again.

A few steps back, bit of a quick lunge

and swing your leg out to the left. Well, that works for me.

But this prancing punter's lucky moves turned out to be his downfall.

He claimed he was sitting on a stool

and the stool spun round causing him to fall to the floor and sustained

an injury of deep laceration of the knee

and the claim was for in excess of £13,000.

13 grand is a windfall for any gambler and, unsurprisingly,

this fella thought he was going to be quids in.

But what he didn't bank on

were the CCTV cameras that captured the truth.

Ooph, what a fall. But I think his luck might have just run out.

Well, we became suspicious very early on

when they reviewed the CCTV and it showed that the claimant

actually didn't fall off the stool that he allegedly had.

Now, there's no disputing that this fella has had a nasty fall...

..but it doesn't look like he has any intention of getting up.

In fact, he's really milking it.

It's been nearly two minutes and he's still on the floor.

What on earth is he waiting for?

Ah, there you go, a knight in shining armour.

And, as luck would have it, a potential witness.

On your feet, son.

Oh, there he goes again.

Never mind the stool, this chap's acting like he's been hit by a bus.

Now, I've seen some overacting in my time,

but this really takes the biscuit.

'Ey up, what he doing? Trousers are coming down now.

No-one wants to see that.

You just take five, mate.

But, despite his ordeal, our unlucky gambler still managed to check

if he's hit the jackpot.

Trousers on and back on his feet, it's back to business.

But as far as RSA was concerned, all bets were off.

He said that the stool was faulty and, of course,

the CCTV showed that he wasn't sitting on it at all.

The injury is caused, really, by his own stupidity.

And it's one of those cases where an accident is an accident

and there is really no blame or liability on anybody

apart from himself and his rather peculiar betting habit.

So, to anyone out there who thinks they can cheat the system,

remember that the house always wins,

no matter how much of a song and a dance you make out of it.

Notting Hill Carnival.

Every August bank holiday, London comes alive with the vibrant

sounds and colourful costumes of one of the largest festivals in Europe.

With an estimated one million Carnival partygoers,

it's an ideal opportunity for a thief to strike.

Insurers TH March & Co dealt with one claimant

who lost more than he bargained for.

We were notified by our customer

that he had unfortunately

lost his gent's 18 carat Rolex Daytona gold watch

which was as a result of a scuffle which took place

at the Notting Hill Carnival in August 2014.

And this particular gold watch was worth a bob or two.

£25,000 by most people's standards, is a lot of money

to spend on a watch and, in fact,

it's probably worth more than most people spend on their car.

It wasn't just the value of the watch that caught the insurer's eye.

What we found particularly unusual about this loss

was that it wasn't discovered until two hours after

the alleged assault, scuffle, mugging took place.

I don't know about you, but if I was actually assaulted or bumped into

in the street, the first thing I'd do is check my possessions.

In this particular case, the gentleman concerned

didn't discover the item was missing

until at least two hours and, for something as big, chunky

and worth nearly £25,000, we found this slightly unusual.

But for the insurer, there was still one missing link.

The customer didn't report the loss to the police

until the following day. I'd want to talk to a policeman straight away,

get something reported straight away in case they can actually find it

or maybe find somebody and apprehend them, who may have taken it.

Thankfully, all wasn't lost for the claimant.

The insured was able to produce the original Rolex box

together with all the paperwork to go with that.

This is a good point

and something we would expect for any particular claim.

The insurer continued with their enquiries,

but the claimant's responses just didn't ring true.

What we found slightly unusual was the watch was

purchased from a friend of a friend.

Whilst he could remember the first name of the person from whom it was

bought, he couldn't produce any of the contact details, including

a phone number, e-mail or even an address.

What we find slightly more unusual was that the person

who he purchased the watch from apparently provided him

with a receipt which he could not find at the time of the claim.

It was all looking a bit suspect, but then there was a killer blow.

The thing that really blew this claim out of the water was

the fact, on further questioning,

he disclosed that he had a previous criminal conviction.

This meant, by not disclosing a conviction,

that the policy would be treated as null and void by the insurers

and no claim could be proceeded with.

And as a result of this, they were willing,

in this particular case, to give him a refund of the premium.

Remember, the insurer always keeps a watchful eye over all claims.

If you're not 100% truthful at the time of taking out the policy,

you run a real risk of not having any future claim met

and you could be substantially out of pocket as a result of that.