0:00:01 > 0:00:05Insurance fraud in the UK has hit epidemic levels.
0:00:05 > 0:00:08It's costing us over £1 billion every year.
0:00:08 > 0:00:11That's almost £3.5 million every day.
0:00:13 > 0:00:15Deliberate crashes,
0:00:15 > 0:00:17bogus personal injuries,
0:00:17 > 0:00:18even phantom pets.
0:00:19 > 0:00:23The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing
0:00:23 > 0:00:27and, every year, it's adding over £50 to your insurance bill.
0:00:27 > 0:00:29But insurers are fighting back,
0:00:29 > 0:00:33exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.
0:00:33 > 0:00:35Armed with covert surveillance systems...
0:00:35 > 0:00:38Subject out of vehicle.
0:00:38 > 0:00:40..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
0:00:42 > 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 > 0:00:49They'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
0:00:54 > 0:00:58are now caught in the act and claimed and shamed.
0:01:05 > 0:01:07KNOCKS AT DOOR
0:01:07 > 0:01:11The City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department
0:01:11 > 0:01:14pays a visit to a suspected fraudster...
0:01:14 > 0:01:15He wasn't expecting a knock.
0:01:15 > 0:01:17He wasn't expecting anyone, I don't think,
0:01:17 > 0:01:19to catch up with what he'd been up to.
0:01:19 > 0:01:22..a brazen bus claim is busted...
0:01:22 > 0:01:24She may as well have been sitting on the bonnet of the car
0:01:24 > 0:01:26with her feet up, reading the newspaper,
0:01:26 > 0:01:29wearing a T-shirt saying, "I'm not in my car".
0:01:29 > 0:01:32..and a claimant is their own worse enemy.
0:01:47 > 0:01:49Everyone who works in insurance
0:01:49 > 0:01:52should know what a hard line the industry takes against fraud -
0:01:52 > 0:01:56from junior claims handlers up to high-flying City brokers,
0:01:56 > 0:01:58like Jay Solder.
0:01:58 > 0:02:00Solder's generous salary
0:02:00 > 0:02:02meant he frequently jetted off on luxury holidays.
0:02:02 > 0:02:05But one sunshine break ended up under a black cloud
0:02:05 > 0:02:07and he had to make a claim.
0:02:09 > 0:02:11He'd lost his jacket whilst on a flight
0:02:11 > 0:02:14coming back from a European destination.
0:02:14 > 0:02:18Contained within his jacket was a pen, mobile phone,
0:02:18 > 0:02:20wallet and some cash.
0:02:20 > 0:02:23Mathew Crawford-Thomas is the fraud manager at Intana,
0:02:23 > 0:02:26a company that's a claims management specialist,
0:02:26 > 0:02:29handling claims on behalf of insurers.
0:02:29 > 0:02:32The claim Mr Solder submitted to us in May 2013
0:02:32 > 0:02:35was in the region of between £4,000-4,500.
0:02:35 > 0:02:38On the basis of it, the claim looked 100% genuine.
0:02:38 > 0:02:40But Solder's travel claim was the start of a journey
0:02:40 > 0:02:43that would lead all the way to court.
0:02:43 > 0:02:46As soon as I opened up the documents for Mr Solder's claim,
0:02:46 > 0:02:48alarm bells started to ring.
0:02:48 > 0:02:52I recognised the name "Jay" and the occupation "insurance broker".
0:02:52 > 0:02:54To have that first name and that occupation the same...
0:02:54 > 0:02:57to me, seemed a bit strange.
0:02:57 > 0:03:00Mathew soon discovered it was no mere coincidence.
0:03:00 > 0:03:02After a bit more digging, I'd actually found out
0:03:02 > 0:03:05that he'd submitted a claim to us in January of the same year.
0:03:05 > 0:03:07This time, under the name "Jay Webb".
0:03:07 > 0:03:10But Jay Solder hadn't stopped at a fake name.
0:03:10 > 0:03:12I ran the date of birth through our system
0:03:12 > 0:03:15and found a match at a completely different address -
0:03:15 > 0:03:18the same first name, different surname,
0:03:18 > 0:03:20same bank account, same occupation.
0:03:20 > 0:03:23For me, the two claims were from exactly the same person.
0:03:23 > 0:03:26Not only was there a close match on the personal details,
0:03:26 > 0:03:29there were other similarities too.
0:03:29 > 0:03:32Most of the items that he'd claimed for in January 2013
0:03:32 > 0:03:35and in May 2013 were exactly the same items.
0:03:37 > 0:03:38It was unfortunate for Mr Solder -
0:03:38 > 0:03:41he thought he was dealing with two different companies.
0:03:41 > 0:03:45However, both claims landed on my desk, albeit four months apart.
0:03:46 > 0:03:48Convinced that there had never been a loss
0:03:48 > 0:03:50and that the whole thing was fabricated,
0:03:50 > 0:03:52Mathew liaised with IFED...
0:03:54 > 0:03:55..the City of London Police's
0:03:55 > 0:03:57Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department -
0:03:57 > 0:03:59and they launched an investigation,
0:03:59 > 0:04:01headed up by DC Aman Taylor.
0:04:03 > 0:04:06One of the main enquiries I did was to contact the airlines,
0:04:06 > 0:04:08to find out if he actually flew
0:04:08 > 0:04:11and it transpired that, on one of the flights, he hadn't flown.
0:04:11 > 0:04:17He'd bought the cheapest ticket he could find from Stansted to France
0:04:17 > 0:04:21and used the boarding pass as proof of him flying.
0:04:21 > 0:04:22With the evidence building,
0:04:22 > 0:04:26Solder's holiday scam was about to be permanently grounded.
0:04:26 > 0:04:28By now, we were certain something wasn't right
0:04:28 > 0:04:32and that we needed to go round and speak with Mr Solder officially.
0:04:34 > 0:04:37We rocked up to the house at 7.30 in the morning
0:04:37 > 0:04:41and began to give the IFED knock on the door.
0:04:43 > 0:04:45Eventually, Solder opened the door
0:04:45 > 0:04:47and let the officers into his property.
0:04:47 > 0:04:50- I'm from the City of London Police Insurance Fraud team.- Right.
0:04:50 > 0:04:53I'm here today to speak to you, regarding a claim that you've made.
0:04:53 > 0:04:56- Is it all right if we come in?- Yeah. - Got my colleagues here with me.
0:04:56 > 0:04:59'First thing we do in that circumstance is to arrest him.'
0:04:59 > 0:05:01You're under arrest on suspicion of fraud by false representation,
0:05:01 > 0:05:04relating to the claim that's been made. I've got to caution you,
0:05:04 > 0:05:08you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned
0:05:08 > 0:05:12something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
0:05:12 > 0:05:16When Jay Solder was placed under arrest, he was visibly shaking. 'He wasn't expecting a knock.
0:05:16 > 0:05:19'He wasn't expecting anyone, I don't think, to catch up with what he'd been up to.
0:05:19 > 0:05:22I can see you're upset about it, but unfortunately,
0:05:22 > 0:05:25- this is the way it's going to have to be dealt with today. - OK.- All right?
0:05:25 > 0:05:27And then we went about our business searching,
0:05:27 > 0:05:29to try and find the items that he'd claimed for -
0:05:29 > 0:05:32especially given the fact that we knew, on one of the travel claims,
0:05:32 > 0:05:34he hadn't even travelled.
0:05:34 > 0:05:37If the evidence they found was related to the claims,
0:05:37 > 0:05:38it would prove vital.
0:05:41 > 0:05:43Good.
0:05:43 > 0:05:45No, nothing.
0:05:45 > 0:05:48We like to be thorough in IFED.
0:05:48 > 0:05:49Bathroom's clear.
0:05:53 > 0:05:55There's sunglasses which are...
0:05:55 > 0:05:58They're similar, they're the same make and model of the sunglasses
0:05:58 > 0:06:00that have been reported stolen as well.
0:06:00 > 0:06:02So, we'll seize them.
0:06:02 > 0:06:05Lo and behold, items that Mr Solder had claimed for
0:06:05 > 0:06:06were located at the property.
0:06:09 > 0:06:11See that? There, look.
0:06:11 > 0:06:14And that's going to be the camera lens.
0:06:14 > 0:06:16There's one item in particular, which was a Sony camera,
0:06:16 > 0:06:18which featured in a lot of the claims,
0:06:18 > 0:06:21along with a number of other items which were matched,
0:06:21 > 0:06:25or similar items to ones that had been reported stolen.
0:06:25 > 0:06:28Still to come, the raid continues.
0:06:28 > 0:06:31I'll have to get this down. I think this is a bag of money.
0:06:31 > 0:06:33And more - much more - comes to light.
0:06:33 > 0:06:36£6,000 is not something you usually come across
0:06:36 > 0:06:38in your normal house search.
0:06:38 > 0:06:42And words fail when CCTV reveals a false claim.
0:06:42 > 0:06:44There aren't enough syllables in the word "incredulous"
0:06:44 > 0:06:47to describe how I actually felt when I looked at this.
0:06:47 > 0:06:50I just wanted to, to scream at the screen saying,
0:06:50 > 0:06:51"She's not in the car!"
0:06:58 > 0:07:01More and more, the insurance industry
0:07:01 > 0:07:03is relying on technology to detect fraud -
0:07:03 > 0:07:07from large-scale cons right down to minor household claims.
0:07:07 > 0:07:10What these scammers all have in common
0:07:10 > 0:07:13is that they underestimate the sophisticated resources available.
0:07:13 > 0:07:17Good afternoon, you're speaking to Claire at I-COG. How can I help?
0:07:20 > 0:07:23On the surface, this claimant seemed to be making
0:07:23 > 0:07:25a fairly routine household insurance claim.
0:07:49 > 0:07:52But the claimant had dug a hole for himself
0:07:52 > 0:07:54with the shady gardening story.
0:07:54 > 0:07:57It was quite unbelievable that it's just an unexplained loss.
0:07:57 > 0:08:00The rings had just vanished from the property.
0:08:00 > 0:08:01Whilst the back door had been open,
0:08:01 > 0:08:04their eyesight had been in the property at all times.
0:08:04 > 0:08:05There was no way these rings
0:08:05 > 0:08:08could just have disappeared from this kitchen.
0:08:11 > 0:08:14Claire Mitten, from specialist claims consultants I-COG,
0:08:14 > 0:08:15worked on the case.
0:08:15 > 0:08:18The insurance company wanted Clare to use her expertise
0:08:18 > 0:08:22to root out any inconsistencies in the claimant's version of events.
0:08:22 > 0:08:25We asked him to forward us any proof of ownership he might have,
0:08:25 > 0:08:27in the form of a receipt, a valuation,
0:08:27 > 0:08:29as well as a photograph.
0:08:29 > 0:08:33He submitted a photograph of his wife wearing the rings,
0:08:33 > 0:08:37but was unable to provide us with any receipts or valuations.
0:08:38 > 0:08:40But rather than burying any suspicions,
0:08:40 > 0:08:43the photo planted further seeds of doubt.
0:08:44 > 0:08:46When we received the photograph, to the untrained eye,
0:08:46 > 0:08:48it would look like a very normal photograph -
0:08:48 > 0:08:50it was a lady on her sofa
0:08:50 > 0:08:52with her arm around the dog, cuddling the dog.
0:08:52 > 0:08:55However, to us, as experts in the industry,
0:08:55 > 0:08:58we were able to tell that this photograph looked quite staged.
0:08:58 > 0:09:01The prominence of the photograph was on the ring
0:09:01 > 0:09:04and it was quite close up, with regards to what we were looking at.
0:09:04 > 0:09:06Just didn't feel quite right.
0:09:06 > 0:09:08But that wasn't all.
0:09:08 > 0:09:11Further technological analysis of the photo revealed evidence
0:09:11 > 0:09:15that proved beyond doubt that it was a totally false claim.
0:09:15 > 0:09:16We analysed the photograph
0:09:16 > 0:09:19and the data that was held within the photograph and established
0:09:19 > 0:09:22that the photograph had actually been taken the evening before.
0:09:22 > 0:09:25The incident date had actually been the previous week,
0:09:25 > 0:09:27so this quite clearly led to the fact
0:09:27 > 0:09:30that he still had the rings in his possession.
0:09:30 > 0:09:33It was time to raise the concerns with the claimant.
0:09:33 > 0:09:36Claire rang him and gave him the opportunity to come clean.
0:09:51 > 0:09:53With the claimants pleading ignorance,
0:09:53 > 0:09:56Claire knew it was time to confront him about the dates.
0:09:56 > 0:09:58But it didn't go the way she expected.
0:10:13 > 0:10:14Yesterday?
0:10:14 > 0:10:17I'm no advanced conversation management expert,
0:10:17 > 0:10:19but he just dropped himself in it.
0:10:19 > 0:10:21If he'd lost the rings when he said,
0:10:21 > 0:10:25he couldn't possibly have taken a photo of them yesterday.
0:10:35 > 0:10:36This did surprise me.
0:10:36 > 0:10:40I wasn't expecting this result. I was expecting him to explain
0:10:40 > 0:10:43that they were taken quite a long time ago.
0:10:43 > 0:10:46I actually don't think he realised what he had told me.
0:10:54 > 0:10:56Come on, pal. You're fooling no-one.
0:11:27 > 0:11:30He wasn't budging, but Claire's not one to back down.
0:11:46 > 0:11:49I then asked the insured for a final time
0:11:49 > 0:11:51that this was his chance to be honest with me
0:11:51 > 0:11:53and tell me what had happened to the rings.
0:12:10 > 0:12:12With the photo evidence and the confession,
0:12:12 > 0:12:15there could be only one outcome to the claim - it was declined.
0:12:16 > 0:12:18We explained to him that
0:12:18 > 0:12:20the insurance company has zero tolerance to fraud
0:12:20 > 0:12:22and we have recommended that the insured
0:12:22 > 0:12:24is placed on the fraud register.
0:12:24 > 0:12:26So, it'll make it very difficult for him in the future
0:12:26 > 0:12:29to get any further insurance policies.
0:12:29 > 0:12:32Right from the start, the tale of lost jewellery
0:12:32 > 0:12:34had lacked the ring of truth.
0:12:35 > 0:12:36And by the end of the call,
0:12:36 > 0:12:39Claire had successfully weeded out the facts.
0:12:46 > 0:12:49Digital data from photographs was also instrumental
0:12:49 > 0:12:52in a case of wintry woe submitted to Allianz.
0:12:53 > 0:12:56- NEWS PRESENTER:- Britain's brutal winter remains with us.
0:12:58 > 0:13:02In early 2014, Britain's notoriously unpredictable weather
0:13:02 > 0:13:04meant the country took a battering.
0:13:06 > 0:13:10The UK was hit by a series of weather-related events -
0:13:10 > 0:13:11mini-storms, if you will.
0:13:13 > 0:13:16And thousands of policy holders were affected.
0:13:16 > 0:13:20Lives were affected, businesses were affected.
0:13:20 > 0:13:24Given the situation, there was nothing immediately unusual
0:13:24 > 0:13:26about one particular weather-related claim.
0:13:26 > 0:13:29The policy holder had suffered storm damage
0:13:29 > 0:13:32to the rendering on a wall outside his house.
0:13:32 > 0:13:38The damage was estimated to be in the region of £3,900-4,200.
0:13:40 > 0:13:42Allianz started to process the claim
0:13:42 > 0:13:44and commissioned a surveyor's report.
0:13:44 > 0:13:48It was at this point that the storm clouds started to gather.
0:13:48 > 0:13:51In his view, the damage was caused by wear and tear
0:13:51 > 0:13:54and over a period of time than actually being storm damage.
0:13:57 > 0:14:00The foundations of this claim were starting to look shaky
0:14:00 > 0:14:02and Allianz contacted the builder
0:14:02 > 0:14:04who had provided one of the estimates.
0:14:04 > 0:14:07He also indicated that the damage was likely to be
0:14:07 > 0:14:10as a result of moisture over a period of time,
0:14:10 > 0:14:14as opposed to a single event, such as a storm.
0:14:14 > 0:14:17But could the policy holder simply have been mistaken
0:14:17 > 0:14:19about the cause of the damage?
0:14:20 > 0:14:24The policy holder's occupation was a builder...
0:14:26 > 0:14:29..and one would expect a builder to be able to differentiate
0:14:29 > 0:14:33from what is storm damage to what is wear and tear.
0:14:33 > 0:14:35Unlikely, then.
0:14:35 > 0:14:36Further investigation was called for
0:14:36 > 0:14:38and they took another look at photos
0:14:38 > 0:14:42that had been supplied with the estimates.
0:14:42 > 0:14:45The analysis of the photographs told us
0:14:45 > 0:14:50that the photos weren't in fact taken at the time alleged,
0:14:50 > 0:14:52but were taken three and a half months earlier.
0:14:55 > 0:14:57And it was at this point that we thought, actually,
0:14:57 > 0:14:59we were dealing with a fraudulent claim.
0:14:59 > 0:15:02Allianz's investigation cut through the bluster
0:15:02 > 0:15:03to expose a bitter truth.
0:15:05 > 0:15:06The policy holder knew
0:15:06 > 0:15:09at the time of incepting the policy with Allianz Insurance
0:15:09 > 0:15:12that there was pre-existing damage
0:15:12 > 0:15:15and he was simply waiting for the opportunity
0:15:15 > 0:15:18for a weather-related event to submit the claim.
0:15:20 > 0:15:22When the storm struck, he saw his chance
0:15:22 > 0:15:25and attempted to claim an insurance pay-out.
0:15:25 > 0:15:28Challenged by Allianz about the photos,
0:15:28 > 0:15:32he refused to come clean and the case was passed to IFED.
0:15:32 > 0:15:35Some months later, we were contacted by IFED,
0:15:35 > 0:15:39who advised us they'd arrested the policy holder.
0:15:39 > 0:15:43He'd admitted the fraud and they'd given him a caution.
0:15:43 > 0:15:46Although they'd avoided an undeserved pay-out,
0:15:46 > 0:15:48there was still a cost to bear.
0:15:48 > 0:15:51What was really frustrating about this whole thing
0:15:51 > 0:15:55was that the policy holder submitted a claim at a time
0:15:55 > 0:15:59when there were thousands of policy holders in genuine need
0:15:59 > 0:16:03and this diverted resources from Allianz, from other insurers,
0:16:03 > 0:16:07where we could have actually helped those people get back on their feet.
0:16:07 > 0:16:11This does prove that insurance fraud is not a victimless crime.
0:16:19 > 0:16:21According to the Association of British Insurers,
0:16:21 > 0:16:26whiplash is now costing motorists £2 billion a year.
0:16:26 > 0:16:30Aviva's bodily injuries unit, based in Bishopbriggs near Glasgow,
0:16:30 > 0:16:34includes experts that specialise in detecting personal injury fraud.
0:16:34 > 0:16:36If someone tries to fake or exaggerate an injury,
0:16:36 > 0:16:38they'll pull the plug.
0:16:38 > 0:16:41Richard Hiscocks is Director of Casualty Claims.
0:16:43 > 0:16:45His team recently dealt with an injury
0:16:45 > 0:16:47caused by a road traffic collision.
0:16:47 > 0:16:49So, we got a claim from the third party,
0:16:49 > 0:16:53to say he'd been involved in an accident with our customer.
0:16:53 > 0:16:55He was holding our customer at fault.
0:16:55 > 0:16:58The accident was two cars reversing in the early hours of the morning,
0:16:58 > 0:17:00outside a nightclub.
0:17:04 > 0:17:07The claimant had alleged that, as they were reversing,
0:17:07 > 0:17:11our customer had reversed into him, causing injury.
0:17:11 > 0:17:13THUD!
0:17:13 > 0:17:16He claimed that he had whiplash in his left shoulder,
0:17:16 > 0:17:18of 12 months' duration.
0:17:21 > 0:17:23With such a lengthy period of injury,
0:17:23 > 0:17:26the value of the claim was substantial.
0:17:26 > 0:17:29We put an estimate on this claim of just over £5,000,
0:17:29 > 0:17:32which is a mix of the compensation for the injuries
0:17:32 > 0:17:34and the legal costs.
0:17:34 > 0:17:36But right from the start,
0:17:36 > 0:17:38there was something back to front about the claim.
0:17:38 > 0:17:40Aviva contacted their insured driver
0:17:40 > 0:17:44and his version of what had happened was very different.
0:17:45 > 0:17:47He was acquainted with the claimant
0:17:47 > 0:17:50and they'd been reversing their cars at the same time.
0:17:50 > 0:17:52I don't quite know why they'd been doing that.
0:17:52 > 0:17:54Me, either!
0:17:54 > 0:17:57Because the contact and the speed was very slight...
0:17:59 > 0:18:01..they both agreed at the time
0:18:01 > 0:18:03that neither was going to do anything more about it.
0:18:03 > 0:18:07But some time later, the claimant did a U-turn on the agreement
0:18:07 > 0:18:09and put in a claim.
0:18:09 > 0:18:13He even attempted to back it up with CCTV he'd obtained.
0:18:13 > 0:18:17Actually, what you see is two vehicles reversing at the same time.
0:18:17 > 0:18:20Our customer's in the white vehicle on the right-hand side,
0:18:20 > 0:18:23the claimant is in the other vehicle next to that
0:18:23 > 0:18:25and they seem to reverse together
0:18:25 > 0:18:29and, right at the end, there's some sort of collision,
0:18:29 > 0:18:33but clearly, the CCTV shows there's no impact
0:18:33 > 0:18:36that's severe enough to cause injury.
0:18:36 > 0:18:38Submitting the CCTV was a bold move,
0:18:38 > 0:18:42but one that ultimately backfired spectacularly.
0:18:42 > 0:18:46This CCTV was provided by the claimant in support of their claim,
0:18:46 > 0:18:49but actually, what it does is pretty much disprove it.
0:18:49 > 0:18:52Aviva informed the claimant that they would not be paying.
0:18:52 > 0:18:55He refused to back away and the case went to trial,
0:18:55 > 0:18:58where he couldn't even keep his story straight.
0:18:58 > 0:19:00Originally, he said that he had
0:19:00 > 0:19:03a 12 month injury to his left shoulder.
0:19:03 > 0:19:04In court, he said he had
0:19:04 > 0:19:07a six months injury to his right shoulder
0:19:07 > 0:19:10and he had injury to his neck, which hadn't been mentioned before.
0:19:10 > 0:19:12So, he'd changed his shoulder and added something else in
0:19:12 > 0:19:14and changed the duration,
0:19:14 > 0:19:19which clearly indicated he was fabricating much of his story.
0:19:19 > 0:19:21The outcome was never really in doubt.
0:19:21 > 0:19:25The judge found in our favour. Not only did we win the case,
0:19:25 > 0:19:27that there was no injury, he also found that
0:19:27 > 0:19:30the claimant was what's called "fundamentally dishonest",
0:19:30 > 0:19:34in that he'd fabricated evidence, which the court takes a dim view of.
0:19:34 > 0:19:36And it was good old CCTV
0:19:36 > 0:19:39that put the brakes on the false personal injury claim.
0:19:52 > 0:19:55FirstGroup operates a fleet of over 6,000 buses
0:19:55 > 0:19:58carrying around 1.7 million passengers a day.
0:19:58 > 0:20:01So, it's not surprising that, from time to time,
0:20:01 > 0:20:02there are minor accidents.
0:20:02 > 0:20:06In 2010, one of our London buses has been rounding a corner.
0:20:06 > 0:20:08He's taken the corner a little bit too tight
0:20:08 > 0:20:11and he's managed to come into contact with a vehicle
0:20:11 > 0:20:14that was parked at the side of the road as he's gone round the bend.
0:20:14 > 0:20:17We've received a claim for the damage to the vehicle
0:20:17 > 0:20:18and then, some time later,
0:20:18 > 0:20:21we've been presented with a personal injury claim
0:20:21 > 0:20:23from the lady with the car.
0:20:23 > 0:20:26According to the claimant, this was no minor prang,
0:20:26 > 0:20:29but a collision that resulted in serious injury.
0:20:29 > 0:20:32This claimant's alleged that she was in her vehicle with her seatbelt on
0:20:32 > 0:20:34when she was hit in the rear by a bus.
0:20:34 > 0:20:36She's been thrown forwards and backwards,
0:20:36 > 0:20:39and also been thrown into the interior of her car,
0:20:39 > 0:20:41striking her chest.
0:20:41 > 0:20:42This has caused her some problems
0:20:42 > 0:20:45with general household heavy domestic chores -
0:20:45 > 0:20:47hanging out her washing -
0:20:47 > 0:20:50the injury itself is mainly to her shoulder.
0:20:50 > 0:20:53Treatment involved physiotherapy
0:20:53 > 0:20:55and, subsequently, it may well end up in surgery.
0:20:55 > 0:21:00The level of injury was reflected in the potential value of the claim.
0:21:00 > 0:21:03All in all, this claim would have been worth around £42,000.
0:21:03 > 0:21:08That's the injury itself, the surgery costs
0:21:08 > 0:21:10and, after surgery, you may well need some looking after,
0:21:10 > 0:21:14so we would allow an element of care for that as well
0:21:14 > 0:21:16and just about under half of it
0:21:16 > 0:21:19would have been legal costs on top of that.
0:21:19 > 0:21:23Most people would have assumed the woman had suffered a serious injury
0:21:23 > 0:21:25and FirstGroup was responsible.
0:21:25 > 0:21:26But Lee's not most people,
0:21:26 > 0:21:29and, right from the off, he knew something was amiss.
0:21:29 > 0:21:32Normally, in an incident where a vehicle is shunted in the rear,
0:21:32 > 0:21:34you've got a forward-backward movement,
0:21:34 > 0:21:38so you would expect a sort of whiplash-type injury.
0:21:38 > 0:21:41With this particular one, the main injury is to her shoulder.
0:21:41 > 0:21:44That, coupled with the fact that she didn't actually go and see her GP
0:21:44 > 0:21:47until some four months after the accident,
0:21:47 > 0:21:49just made us think, "Something's not quite right here".
0:21:49 > 0:21:53So, we immediately thought we would investigate this in a bit more depth
0:21:53 > 0:21:57and it was at that stage that we decided to look at the CCTV footage.
0:21:57 > 0:22:01What it showed put a huge dent in the claimant's story.
0:22:01 > 0:22:04So, we look up the CCTV from this incident.
0:22:04 > 0:22:07We're expecting to see an impact on the vehicle,
0:22:07 > 0:22:11we know that's happened. There's damage to the car.
0:22:11 > 0:22:13The bus is rounding the corner, it does hit the car,
0:22:13 > 0:22:17so this lady's alleging she's been thrown around in her car,
0:22:17 > 0:22:20she's been moved forward and backwards.
0:22:20 > 0:22:24There's the glaring, obvious fact that she's not in the car.
0:22:26 > 0:22:29She's standing by the side of the car -
0:22:29 > 0:22:31it's absolutely ridiculous!
0:22:31 > 0:22:33There aren't enough syllables in the word "incredulous"
0:22:33 > 0:22:36to describe how I actually felt when I looked at this.
0:22:36 > 0:22:39I just wanted to scream at the screen saying,
0:22:39 > 0:22:40"She's not in the car!"
0:22:40 > 0:22:43It's just absolutely preposterous
0:22:43 > 0:22:45that she could even consider putting this claim in.
0:22:45 > 0:22:49She may as well have been sitting on the bonnet of the car with her feet up,
0:22:49 > 0:22:53reading the newspaper, wearing a T-shirt saying, "I'm not in my car".
0:22:53 > 0:22:56It's just so blatantly obvious, when you look at it.
0:22:57 > 0:23:00With the CCTV proving that no injury had occurred,
0:23:00 > 0:23:03the prognosis for the claim was not looking good.
0:23:03 > 0:23:06We sent the CCTV footage to the claimant's solicitors,
0:23:06 > 0:23:09pointing out the major flaws in their client's case
0:23:09 > 0:23:13and, unsurprisingly, we've not heard back from them since.
0:23:13 > 0:23:16I think even the best solicitor in the world is going to have a problem
0:23:16 > 0:23:18making a claim for personal injury
0:23:18 > 0:23:22in a car accident where someone wasn't actually even in the car.
0:23:27 > 0:23:30I'm from the City of London Police Insurance Fraud team.
0:23:30 > 0:23:34Previously, DC Aman Taylor began a search of the home of Jay Solder,
0:23:34 > 0:23:36an insurance broker suspected of
0:23:36 > 0:23:38trying to defraud his own industry.
0:23:38 > 0:23:41So, at the moment, I've just to tell you, you're under arrest, OK?
0:23:41 > 0:23:44You're under arrest on suspicion of fraud by false representation,
0:23:44 > 0:23:47- relating to the claim that's been made, all right?- OK.
0:23:47 > 0:23:48They've already found a camera
0:23:48 > 0:23:51that featured in several insurance claims.
0:23:51 > 0:23:54- He's got an active policy at the moment.- With somebody else?
0:23:54 > 0:23:57That's not the one that he had with us.
0:23:57 > 0:24:00But the search is about to uncover something completely unexpected.
0:24:00 > 0:24:02Two more holidays booked.
0:24:02 > 0:24:04Two more claims.
0:24:04 > 0:24:06A little interesting development here -
0:24:06 > 0:24:08that our policy, which wasn't paid out on,
0:24:08 > 0:24:11which is the one that Mat's investigated and passed on to us -
0:24:11 > 0:24:13the one that he's been nicked for today -
0:24:13 > 0:24:16he's actually got another policy in place at the time...
0:24:16 > 0:24:18- That covers the same trip. - ..covering the same trip.
0:24:18 > 0:24:21During the search, we found another travel insurance document
0:24:21 > 0:24:24for another claim that had been made by Mr Solder
0:24:24 > 0:24:27and found that to be an entirely fraudulent claim as well.
0:24:27 > 0:24:30So, the first claim he made with my mob,
0:24:30 > 0:24:32which got paid, I can check.
0:24:32 > 0:24:34Right.
0:24:35 > 0:24:38That's the reason why he's walked away from that one -
0:24:38 > 0:24:41due to the fact that this policy covers the same trip,
0:24:41 > 0:24:42that he bought two policies for.
0:24:42 > 0:24:46- Yep, so he's gone on that when he's got a knock back from them.- Yeah.
0:24:47 > 0:24:51It was the search that kept on giving.
0:24:51 > 0:24:52We found a large quantity of cash,
0:24:52 > 0:24:56which subsequently turned out to be around £6,000 in cash,
0:24:56 > 0:24:59which had been concealed in a wardrobe.
0:24:59 > 0:25:00And we found a Rolex watch
0:25:00 > 0:25:03valued somewhere in the region of about £8,000.
0:25:03 > 0:25:06- Yeah, looks nice, doesn't it? - Is there a story behind this, Jay?
0:25:06 > 0:25:10It was replaced by the insurance company.
0:25:10 > 0:25:14So what, have you had a loss or a theft of one of these before, then?
0:25:14 > 0:25:16- Yeah, in the first burglary. - Oh, OK.
0:25:18 > 0:25:21- So, this is the replacement?- Yes.
0:25:22 > 0:25:25Right, OK.
0:25:25 > 0:25:28Following the off-the-cuff remark made by Mr Solder
0:25:28 > 0:25:31about the Rolex being a replacement following a burglary,
0:25:31 > 0:25:34I decided to dig a bit deeper and contact the insurance companies
0:25:34 > 0:25:36to try and find out whether or not he had been burgled
0:25:36 > 0:25:39and whether or not he had been paid out.
0:25:39 > 0:25:41What we found was that he'd not had one,
0:25:41 > 0:25:45but he'd had two home insurance claims - with one company.
0:25:45 > 0:25:47Both made within three months of each other
0:25:47 > 0:25:49and totalling over £50,000.
0:25:53 > 0:25:56This was a huge new development in the case.
0:25:56 > 0:26:00In addition to the travel insurance claims they knew about,
0:26:00 > 0:26:03it appeared that Solder had branched out into household insurance,
0:26:03 > 0:26:06claiming a staggering amount of money for two burglaries
0:26:06 > 0:26:10they strongly suspected had never happened.
0:26:10 > 0:26:12The raid was a total success, as far as we're concerned.
0:26:12 > 0:26:14We got the person we were looking for,
0:26:14 > 0:26:17we seized all the items that we were looking for,
0:26:17 > 0:26:21with the addition of some items that we weren't aware of at that time.
0:26:21 > 0:26:24Meanwhile, Jay Solder was given the opportunity
0:26:24 > 0:26:26to tell his side of the story.
0:26:26 > 0:26:28Jay Solder didn't admit to his crimes.
0:26:28 > 0:26:30The first interview we had at the police station,
0:26:30 > 0:26:32he answered "no comment" to all of our questions.
0:26:32 > 0:26:34And, in the second interview,
0:26:34 > 0:26:38he was given full disclosure of all the evidence that we had against him
0:26:38 > 0:26:40and he still elected to make no comment.
0:26:42 > 0:26:45Solder's silence on the matter ultimately made no difference
0:26:45 > 0:26:48and the case proceeded to court at the Old Bailey.
0:26:48 > 0:26:51He admitted four fake travel insurance claims
0:26:51 > 0:26:53and two exaggerated household claims.
0:26:53 > 0:26:55He then had to return to be sentenced
0:26:55 > 0:26:58and Aman was there to see justice served.
0:26:58 > 0:27:01He was terrified, really -
0:27:01 > 0:27:02terrified of what was going to happen.
0:27:02 > 0:27:04He knew the gravity of the fact
0:27:04 > 0:27:07that it's such a serious offence, over a period of time.
0:27:07 > 0:27:10Solder was called in to hear his fate.
0:27:10 > 0:27:11It wasn't good news.
0:27:11 > 0:27:14Today, he's been sentenced to 21 months in prison.
0:27:14 > 0:27:16The judge has the option to suspend it,
0:27:16 > 0:27:18which he has done in these circumstances.
0:27:18 > 0:27:20160 hours of community service,
0:27:20 > 0:27:23so giving something back to the community.
0:27:23 > 0:27:26And he's been ordered to pay back £37,000.
0:27:26 > 0:27:29For Aman, it's the end of a long, complex investigation.
0:27:29 > 0:27:31Today, I'm satisfied with the outcome -
0:27:31 > 0:27:35the outcome is one where we brought an end to the case,
0:27:35 > 0:27:38so it shows that we'll see it the whole way through.
0:27:38 > 0:27:41While Solder avoided a custodial sentence,
0:27:41 > 0:27:43there's still a heavy price to pay.
0:27:43 > 0:27:46Jay Solder's a young man in a very good job.
0:27:46 > 0:27:51By committing this insurance fraud, he's pretty much ruined his life.
0:27:51 > 0:27:54My advice to anyone that considers committing this type of crime
0:27:54 > 0:27:55is to simply not bother.
0:27:55 > 0:27:58You will get found out, it will get detected
0:27:58 > 0:28:01and you could end up standing in front of an Old Bailey judge,
0:28:01 > 0:28:03waiting for a sentence to be passed.