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 billion every year.
0:00:08 > 0:00:11That's almost £3.5 million every day.
0:00:13 > 0:00:16Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries,
0:00:16 > 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 the vehicle.
0:00:38 > 0:00:41..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
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
0:00:54 > 0:00:58are now caught in the act and claimed and shamed.
0:01:05 > 0:01:09Today, an insurance scam takes its toll.
0:01:09 > 0:01:13These families have been broken due to their involvement in this fraud.
0:01:13 > 0:01:17A dubious home insurance claim fails to get off the ground.
0:01:17 > 0:01:19She then quite bizarrely suggested
0:01:19 > 0:01:21that two crows had entered her property
0:01:21 > 0:01:25upon two separate occasions and caused very similar damage.
0:01:25 > 0:01:27Pretty implausible, really.
0:01:27 > 0:01:30And a fake personal injury claim takes a tumble.
0:01:30 > 0:01:32Once we'd looked at the CCTV footage,
0:01:32 > 0:01:34he just didn't have a leg to stand on.
0:01:41 > 0:01:43Fraudsters seem to think
0:01:43 > 0:01:46that making a false claim involves little or no risk.
0:01:46 > 0:01:49But lying on legal documentation or in court
0:01:49 > 0:01:52actually carries a heavy penalty,
0:01:52 > 0:01:55as insurance cheats are increasingly finding out.
0:01:56 > 0:01:57Ursula Jallow,
0:01:57 > 0:02:01LV's Head of Financial Intelligence and Crime Solutions,
0:02:01 > 0:02:03worked on a case in which a taxi driver
0:02:03 > 0:02:07claimed that his car had been hit by one their policy holders.
0:02:07 > 0:02:08Jamil was driving along the road,
0:02:08 > 0:02:12when our insured pulled out onto Mr Jamil's taxi.
0:02:12 > 0:02:14SCREECHING TYRES
0:02:14 > 0:02:16The resulting collision meant that the taxi driver
0:02:16 > 0:02:18was claiming for compensation.
0:02:18 > 0:02:22The claim was for Mr Jamil himself from an injury perspective,
0:02:22 > 0:02:28the damage to his vehicle, hire of a temporary car and storage.
0:02:28 > 0:02:31In addition to that, he was actually carrying two passengers
0:02:31 > 0:02:34at the time, who both also put personal injury claims through.
0:02:34 > 0:02:39In total, the claim that was put forward totalled £145,000.
0:02:39 > 0:02:42Maybe he'd left the meter running. It was a staggering amount of money
0:02:42 > 0:02:45for what sounded like a fairly minor collision,
0:02:45 > 0:02:50involving him, his passengers - Farhana Kazami and Shamila Saleem -
0:02:50 > 0:02:51and an LV-insured driver.
0:02:51 > 0:02:54Further investigation was called for.
0:02:54 > 0:02:56At LV, we have a number of indicators that tell us
0:02:56 > 0:03:00if we should be looking into a claim that might be suspicious of fraud.
0:03:00 > 0:03:03In this case, there were a few indicators that were met.
0:03:03 > 0:03:07Things like having a claim come through very close to
0:03:07 > 0:03:10when the policy is set up, which is what happened in this case.
0:03:10 > 0:03:12As we carried out further investigations,
0:03:12 > 0:03:15we found that actually, the addresses that had been provided
0:03:15 > 0:03:19as part of the claim and also mobile phone numbers had also been
0:03:19 > 0:03:23used in very similar claims across the industry with other insurers.
0:03:23 > 0:03:26And actually, we got in contact with some of those insurers and found
0:03:26 > 0:03:28that actually, the claims were very, very similar
0:03:28 > 0:03:30and were definitely connected
0:03:30 > 0:03:32and therefore we actually had an organised fraud ring.
0:03:32 > 0:03:36If they were right, they'd uncovered criminality on a huge scale
0:03:36 > 0:03:38involving multiple people and collisions.
0:03:38 > 0:03:41Ronan McCann, from law firm Horwich Farrelly,
0:03:41 > 0:03:44also worked on the case for the insurers affected.
0:03:44 > 0:03:46Initially he focused on the suspicious addresses
0:03:46 > 0:03:49and the people who supposedly lived there.
0:03:49 > 0:03:52It was my view that these policy holders didn't exist
0:03:52 > 0:03:56and when we had investigators going to these properties,
0:03:56 > 0:03:59they were able to discover that they did not.
0:03:59 > 0:04:01But to move the investigation up a gear,
0:04:01 > 0:04:04they also needed to test Mr Jamil's version of events.
0:04:04 > 0:04:08To find out what really happened, we sent out a forensic engineer.
0:04:09 > 0:04:12He identified that actually, the damage to the vehicle
0:04:12 > 0:04:14wasn't consistent with the circumstances
0:04:14 > 0:04:16presented to us as part of the claim.
0:04:16 > 0:04:18In addition to that, he was able to understand
0:04:18 > 0:04:22that at the time of the accident, despite the third party saying
0:04:22 > 0:04:26that he was driving along, actually, the car was stationary at the time.
0:04:26 > 0:04:28And that was quite damning.
0:04:28 > 0:04:32The forensic engineering evidence drove away any doubts.
0:04:32 > 0:04:35At this stage, it became clear to me what really happened.
0:04:35 > 0:04:38The organisers of this fraud had secured the cooperation
0:04:38 > 0:04:43of a number of different individuals and had taken their vehicles away,
0:04:43 > 0:04:47driving one into the other when one of them was stationary.
0:04:47 > 0:04:50And it wasn't just the LV collision where the cars were proved to
0:04:50 > 0:04:53have been stationary at the time they sustained the damage.
0:04:53 > 0:04:55This was a great piece of evidence
0:04:55 > 0:04:59which was common to each individual case.
0:04:59 > 0:05:03So we then were able to build up a picture of this fraud ring
0:05:03 > 0:05:07and were able to see that the common features
0:05:07 > 0:05:09included the damage to the vehicles,
0:05:09 > 0:05:13the fact that they were stationary when damaged,
0:05:13 > 0:05:15the fact that the policy holders didn't reside
0:05:15 > 0:05:17at the properties that were given.
0:05:17 > 0:05:18It was my view that these claimants,
0:05:18 > 0:05:22having signed witness statements, claim forms,
0:05:22 > 0:05:23were telling lies.
0:05:23 > 0:05:27The insurers agreed and refused to pay out.
0:05:27 > 0:05:29We did decline the claims but actually,
0:05:29 > 0:05:32the claimants then issued proceedings against us
0:05:32 > 0:05:34for their losses.
0:05:34 > 0:05:36So, is that a surprise?
0:05:36 > 0:05:38Actually, to the insurance industry, that's not.
0:05:38 > 0:05:40That's something we see every day,
0:05:40 > 0:05:42especially when it's organised fraudsters.
0:05:42 > 0:05:45Driven on by greed, they seemed to think
0:05:45 > 0:05:47that they can use the law to intimidate companies
0:05:47 > 0:05:49into giving them money.
0:05:49 > 0:05:52Legal action is an attractive route for fraudsters,
0:05:52 > 0:05:54because if they win, they get a payout,
0:05:54 > 0:05:56and if they lose, there's no comeback.
0:05:58 > 0:06:00Or at least, that's what Mr Jamil
0:06:00 > 0:06:03and his associates, including Kazami, assumed.
0:06:03 > 0:06:05Ronan thought differently.
0:06:05 > 0:06:07I recommended to the insurance company
0:06:07 > 0:06:11that instead of simply allowing claimants to discontinue,
0:06:11 > 0:06:13that we proceed with a separate application
0:06:13 > 0:06:15to transfer the matter to the High Court
0:06:15 > 0:06:19and to seek to pursue them in contempt of court
0:06:19 > 0:06:22by way of a prosecution, which could result in a jail term.
0:06:22 > 0:06:25The tables were about to be turned on the fraudsters
0:06:25 > 0:06:28and they would now be the ones being pursued through the courts.
0:06:28 > 0:06:32With the stakes raised, there was a surprising development in the case.
0:06:32 > 0:06:37Unusually, I received a telephone call from Farhana Kazami,
0:06:37 > 0:06:40one of the claimants involved in the LV claim.
0:06:41 > 0:06:43She telephoned me to say
0:06:43 > 0:06:45that she was really sorry for being involved,
0:06:45 > 0:06:48that the claim was in fact dishonest,
0:06:48 > 0:06:49and what should she do.
0:06:49 > 0:06:53To that, I confirmed to her that she should simply tell the truth,
0:06:53 > 0:06:55send a letter to the court,
0:06:55 > 0:06:57or a statement to the court and to myself.
0:06:57 > 0:06:59I said that would have the effect
0:06:59 > 0:07:02that the court may well be more sympathetic.
0:07:02 > 0:07:05She took his advice and made a full confession.
0:07:05 > 0:07:09A sentence from her letter puts this into context.
0:07:09 > 0:07:14"I am truly sorry for what I've done and the time that has been wasted.
0:07:14 > 0:07:16"I've wanted to come clean ages ago
0:07:16 > 0:07:17"and was scared of the consequences."
0:07:17 > 0:07:21True to her word, she then stuck to her honest version of events
0:07:21 > 0:07:24under the pressure of cross-examination.
0:07:24 > 0:07:28She stood firm and confirmed that this accident was staged,
0:07:28 > 0:07:31that she wasn't involved in it,
0:07:31 > 0:07:35and that she was apparently going to get one third of the money.
0:07:35 > 0:07:38She made a credible witness and in the end,
0:07:38 > 0:07:42the three others - Saleem, Jamil and Aziz - admitted the charges.
0:07:44 > 0:07:47For falsely trying to claim £145,000,
0:07:47 > 0:07:51they were hit with a combined total of 22 months in prison.
0:07:54 > 0:07:57Farhana Kazami, who had been quite courageous,
0:07:57 > 0:08:01was handed a 12-week sentence, which was suspended for six months.
0:08:01 > 0:08:04The much smaller sentence reflected her honesty.
0:08:04 > 0:08:07There is a very sad side to this story,
0:08:07 > 0:08:08which is a human cost.
0:08:08 > 0:08:12All the fraudsters were parents and, in some cases,
0:08:12 > 0:08:14were the sole breadwinners for their families.
0:08:14 > 0:08:19These families have been broken due to their involvement in this fraud.
0:08:19 > 0:08:22They were the authors of their own misfortune
0:08:22 > 0:08:25and this really sends out a message to anyone getting
0:08:25 > 0:08:28involved in fraudulent claims to stay well away.
0:08:33 > 0:08:37Later, a phone claimant's story lacks the ring of truth.
0:08:43 > 0:08:47And a shocking injury leads to a bogus compensation claim.
0:08:47 > 0:08:50That's the point where his leg has snapped
0:08:50 > 0:08:53and the bone is probably on the outside of his body by now.
0:08:59 > 0:09:02Queues, over-crowding and cancelled trains.
0:09:02 > 0:09:05All part of the commuting experience for the 4 million people
0:09:05 > 0:09:09who use public transport to get to work in England and Wales every day.
0:09:11 > 0:09:13As if that's not bad enough,
0:09:13 > 0:09:15one man recently got home to discover
0:09:15 > 0:09:18that he'd lost his phone during the journey.
0:09:19 > 0:09:23Andy Morris is the chief marketing officer for Assurant Solutions,
0:09:23 > 0:09:27a company that provides cover for mobile devices.
0:09:27 > 0:09:30We received a call from this particular claimant.
0:09:30 > 0:09:32They had lost a high-specification iPhone.
0:10:03 > 0:10:07It was only later that he realised he'd lost the phone.
0:10:07 > 0:10:09In line with standard procedure,
0:10:09 > 0:10:11the case was reviewed by the company's claims handlers.
0:10:11 > 0:10:16We have a unique sort of fraud-scoring system,
0:10:16 > 0:10:18which will identify
0:10:18 > 0:10:21trends or likelihoods or people
0:10:21 > 0:10:25who have a propensity to submit a false claim.
0:10:25 > 0:10:29Well, this particular claimant was a little bit vague,
0:10:29 > 0:10:33which is not uncommon for people when they've lost their phone.
0:11:06 > 0:11:09The claim was flagged as needing further investigation
0:11:09 > 0:11:12and the fraud team interviewed the man in more detail.
0:11:33 > 0:11:35He sounds pretty certain,
0:11:35 > 0:11:38but it turns out his faulty memory has let him down again.
0:12:00 > 0:12:04But the absent-minded claimant was forgetting something else.
0:12:04 > 0:12:06Something very important.
0:12:06 > 0:12:08One of the amazing things about this case is the evidence
0:12:08 > 0:12:14that we obtained was that the claimant was advertising for sale,
0:12:14 > 0:12:18on an online sales site, the same phone,
0:12:18 > 0:12:23exactly the same specification with the same contact details,
0:12:23 > 0:12:27personal contact details they'd submitted for the claim form.
0:13:20 > 0:13:22Despite the claimant's vague response,
0:13:22 > 0:13:24the situation was crystal clear.
0:13:24 > 0:13:28The phone that he was claiming a payout for was also on sale.
0:13:28 > 0:13:30The suspicion was that he'd never lost it
0:13:30 > 0:13:33and that he was attempting to get a double payout.
0:13:33 > 0:13:39Our fraud team telephoned this customer to question, you know,
0:13:39 > 0:13:42was there any mitigation, or was there a reason for it.
0:13:45 > 0:13:47The claimant had informed our agent
0:13:47 > 0:13:50that somebody had stolen their identity.
0:14:09 > 0:14:11Double whammy. According to the claimant,
0:14:11 > 0:14:15they'd lost their phone and their identity had been stolen.
0:14:15 > 0:14:19But shortly afterwards, his run of bad luck and memory loss ended.
0:14:19 > 0:14:25We were unexpectedly contacted three days later by the claimant,
0:14:25 > 0:14:29who said there was no further action necessary,
0:14:29 > 0:14:32that amazingly, they had found the original phone
0:14:32 > 0:14:35and that they no longer needed our services.
0:14:35 > 0:14:36It was an incredible twist of fate.
0:14:36 > 0:14:38As soon as he'd been informed
0:14:38 > 0:14:40the claim wasn't going to go any further,
0:14:40 > 0:14:43the phone in question turned up and the claim was dropped.
0:14:43 > 0:14:48If you're thinking about defrauding because it's just £500
0:14:48 > 0:14:49or it's just a little handset,
0:14:49 > 0:14:52actually, it's still a financial crime.
0:14:57 > 0:14:59Accidental damage to your possessions
0:14:59 > 0:15:02can leave you spitting feathers.
0:15:02 > 0:15:04But that's where household insurance comes in,
0:15:04 > 0:15:06even if the culprit isn't human.
0:15:08 > 0:15:12Scott Clayton is Zurich's Claims Fraud and Investigations Manager,
0:15:12 > 0:15:15and recently dealt with a claim from a policy holder
0:15:15 > 0:15:17who'd gotten into a flap.
0:15:17 > 0:15:19The initial claim that came in
0:15:19 > 0:15:22was that she said that she'd been woken at 6 o'clock in the morning
0:15:22 > 0:15:23with a disturbance downstairs.
0:15:23 > 0:15:25On going downstairs, she found out
0:15:25 > 0:15:27that a crow had actually come into the property
0:15:27 > 0:15:29and was trying to escape.
0:15:29 > 0:15:31So in its panic and doing whatever crows do,
0:15:31 > 0:15:35then it was making quite a mess in its attempts to escape.
0:15:35 > 0:15:36According to the claimant,
0:15:36 > 0:15:39the feathered offender had caused mayhem.
0:15:39 > 0:15:41The claim was accompanied by photos,
0:15:41 > 0:15:43which showed the extent of the damage,
0:15:43 > 0:15:46if you look closely enough.
0:15:46 > 0:15:50I mean, she said that a fireplace had been damaged by this crow,
0:15:50 > 0:15:52the carpets, not just in her living room,
0:15:52 > 0:15:54but in the hallway and stairs had been damaged,
0:15:54 > 0:15:56which needed cleaning.
0:15:56 > 0:15:58Curtains had been soiled and damaged,
0:15:58 > 0:16:00a mirror had fallen off the actual wall.
0:16:00 > 0:16:04When you added all the items up, it was round about £5,500.
0:16:04 > 0:16:07A considerable sum, which seemingly flew in the face
0:16:07 > 0:16:10of the photographic evidence.
0:16:10 > 0:16:11But at this stage,
0:16:11 > 0:16:13there was no reason to doubt the policyholder's word.
0:16:13 > 0:16:16In Scott's experience, this type of wildlife claim
0:16:16 > 0:16:19isn't a particular rare sighting.
0:16:19 > 0:16:22It's actually not hugely unusual for a crow or a bird to actually
0:16:22 > 0:16:24find its way into a property.
0:16:24 > 0:16:27When they do find themselves cornered
0:16:27 > 0:16:28and they're trying to escape,
0:16:28 > 0:16:31then frequently we do get claims for the mess that they cause.
0:16:31 > 0:16:35It was only on closer examination that foul play was suspected.
0:16:35 > 0:16:38We investigated the claim like we normally do
0:16:38 > 0:16:41and looked into the background of the policyholder
0:16:41 > 0:16:44and we managed to find out that she'd actually made
0:16:44 > 0:16:47several previous claims with other insurers.
0:16:47 > 0:16:49So we looked specifically into one claim
0:16:49 > 0:16:52because it had very similar hallmarks to this one,
0:16:52 > 0:16:55and managed to establish that, sure enough,
0:16:55 > 0:16:58she'd made a virtually identical claim to her previous insurers
0:16:58 > 0:17:00for damage caused by a crow.
0:17:01 > 0:17:04This certainly ruffled feathers with the fraud team.
0:17:04 > 0:17:07They were convinced that there had never been a crow invasion
0:17:07 > 0:17:10and the policyholder was attempting to bring a false claim.
0:17:10 > 0:17:13We sent an investigator out to see the policyholder,
0:17:13 > 0:17:15took a statement from her.
0:17:15 > 0:17:19She actually denied that she'd made any previous claims for bird damage.
0:17:19 > 0:17:22She denied having previous claims with other insurers,
0:17:22 > 0:17:24but clearly we knew that was different.
0:17:24 > 0:17:27So we ultimately challenged her on those facts
0:17:27 > 0:17:30and she eventually admitted that she had made a previous claim
0:17:30 > 0:17:32with another insurer for this damage.
0:17:32 > 0:17:36But even then, she tried to wing it with an unconvincing explanation.
0:17:36 > 0:17:38She then quite bizarrely suggested
0:17:38 > 0:17:41that two crows had entered her property
0:17:41 > 0:17:45on two separate occasions and caused very similar damage.
0:17:45 > 0:17:47Pretty implausible, really.
0:17:47 > 0:17:49Her bird-brained cover story wasn't going to fly
0:17:49 > 0:17:51and there would be no payout from Zurich.
0:17:51 > 0:17:53That wasn't the end of it.
0:17:53 > 0:17:56She obviously knew the repercussions for what she'd done
0:17:56 > 0:17:58so she, probably in an attempt to try
0:17:58 > 0:18:01and make things easier for her, wrote us a letter of apology.
0:18:01 > 0:18:04The letter said, "I'm very sorry for the misleading statement
0:18:04 > 0:18:06"I gave to you on your visit to my home
0:18:06 > 0:18:10"and I now wish to withdraw my claim and again I wish to apologise
0:18:10 > 0:18:13"for any inconvenience I may have caused you and your company,
0:18:13 > 0:18:16"and I do hope this will bring this matter to a close.
0:18:16 > 0:18:18"I would very much appreciate this."
0:18:18 > 0:18:20The case may not have gone any further,
0:18:20 > 0:18:23but there are still serious consequences.
0:18:23 > 0:18:26Not only did she lie to Zurich when she took the policy out,
0:18:26 > 0:18:28but she lied to her previous insurer.
0:18:28 > 0:18:30Although she admitted that she'd made a fraudulent claim,
0:18:30 > 0:18:31it doesn't stop there
0:18:31 > 0:18:34because she's going to find it very difficult
0:18:34 > 0:18:35to obtain insurance in the future.
0:18:35 > 0:18:38With no payout and a big question mark
0:18:38 > 0:18:40against her financial prospects,
0:18:40 > 0:18:42the whole saga has left the policyholder
0:18:42 > 0:18:44with nothing to crow about.
0:18:44 > 0:18:46If you're going to lie to your insurance company,
0:18:46 > 0:18:48don't underestimate how much they collaborate
0:18:48 > 0:18:51in terms of the data and information.
0:18:51 > 0:18:52And if you get caught lying,
0:18:52 > 0:18:55the consequences of doing that are quite severe,
0:18:55 > 0:18:57either through lifestyle, employment,
0:18:57 > 0:18:59or ultimately getting future insurance.
0:19:05 > 0:19:08Losing your keys is normally just one those challenges
0:19:08 > 0:19:10that life throws at you every so often.
0:19:10 > 0:19:14But if lost keys fall into the wrong hands...
0:19:15 > 0:19:17..the consequences can be severe.
0:19:19 > 0:19:23Mark Chiappino is the Counter Fraud Claims and Policy Validation Manager
0:19:23 > 0:19:25at Direct Line.
0:19:25 > 0:19:28A customer, Mr Singh, recently got in touch to lodge
0:19:28 > 0:19:32a claim for items he said had been stolen in a burglary.
0:19:32 > 0:19:34We received a nine-page list from him
0:19:34 > 0:19:37detailing the items that had allegedly been stolen.
0:19:37 > 0:19:41This included two mobile phones, two laptops, four cameras,
0:19:41 > 0:19:45the £2,000 cash and £35,000 worth of jewellery.
0:19:45 > 0:19:49A nine-page list is all very well, but a high-value insurance claim
0:19:49 > 0:19:51requires additional proof of ownership.
0:19:51 > 0:19:53We asked him to substantiate
0:19:53 > 0:19:55the amount of jewellery that had been taken,
0:19:55 > 0:19:57and he subsequently e-mailed us several photographs.
0:19:57 > 0:20:01These show the extent of the pilfered plunder.
0:20:01 > 0:20:04The burglars were lucky to net such a large haul,
0:20:04 > 0:20:06not least because, according to Mr Singh,
0:20:06 > 0:20:09they gained entry to the property purely by chance.
0:20:18 > 0:20:20His wife had dropped her keys in street
0:20:20 > 0:20:23and the thieves had used the keys to enter his property.
0:20:23 > 0:20:27This was despite the fact that there was no identifying marks on the keys
0:20:27 > 0:20:29to indicate which property was his.
0:20:29 > 0:20:32What a stroke of luck for the thieves.
0:20:32 > 0:20:34Finding a random set of keys on the street,
0:20:34 > 0:20:37locating the right house by fluke,
0:20:37 > 0:20:39and then pocketing a fortune in valuables.
0:20:39 > 0:20:44There was something that didn't sound quite right.
0:20:44 > 0:20:46Alarm bells were ringing right from the start of this claim.
0:20:46 > 0:20:48There was an unusual set of circumstances,
0:20:48 > 0:20:51a high value of items had been stolen.
0:20:51 > 0:20:54He was also really pushy and looking for us to settle this claim straight away.
0:20:55 > 0:20:57But that simply wasn't going to happen.
0:20:57 > 0:20:59With so many question marks,
0:20:59 > 0:21:03Direct Line wanted to unlock exactly what had occurred with the keys.
0:21:03 > 0:21:05The second time we spoke to him,
0:21:05 > 0:21:07he gave us a different version of events.
0:21:07 > 0:21:08The first time, he had told us
0:21:08 > 0:21:11that his wife had dropped the keys in the street.
0:21:11 > 0:21:12The second time we spoke to him,
0:21:12 > 0:21:15he changed his story, telling us that the keys had actually
0:21:15 > 0:21:17been inadvertently left in the lock when they left the house.
0:21:17 > 0:21:19This merely served to confirm our suspicions
0:21:19 > 0:21:22that this was a case warranting much deeper investigation.
0:21:22 > 0:21:24Direct Line then analysed
0:21:24 > 0:21:27the photographs that Singh had supplied.
0:21:27 > 0:21:30Despite his assertion that the photographs had been taken
0:21:30 > 0:21:32some time ago, they were actually date-stamped
0:21:32 > 0:21:35to within a half-hour period 24 hours after he had said
0:21:35 > 0:21:36the burglary had occurred.
0:21:36 > 0:21:40Proving that he had the bling in his possession all along.
0:21:40 > 0:21:43The whole claim and the alleged burglary had been totally fabricated
0:21:43 > 0:21:46in order that he could claim £60,000 worth of money
0:21:46 > 0:21:47to which he was not entitled.
0:21:47 > 0:21:51Unsurprisingly, he didn't receive a penny in compensation.
0:21:51 > 0:21:54After rejecting his claim, we never heard any more from this individual.
0:21:54 > 0:21:57But that's not where the matter rested.
0:21:57 > 0:22:00The case was passed to IFED -
0:22:00 > 0:22:01the City of London Police's
0:22:01 > 0:22:04Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department.
0:22:04 > 0:22:08Since IFED started in 2012, we've dealt with over 1,200 people
0:22:08 > 0:22:10through arrests or interviews
0:22:10 > 0:22:14and we've brought over 100 people to justice in courts.
0:22:14 > 0:22:18This elite squad has prevented millions of pounds being paid out
0:22:18 > 0:22:20to criminals in fraudulent claims.
0:22:21 > 0:22:24IFED started an investigation into Mr Singh
0:22:24 > 0:22:27and the very many versions of what had happened.
0:22:27 > 0:22:29Looking at all the evidence that we were given,
0:22:29 > 0:22:31it was obvious to us that there had been no burglary,
0:22:31 > 0:22:33this was a fairly blatant attempt
0:22:33 > 0:22:36to try and carry out an insurance fraud to line his own pockets.
0:22:36 > 0:22:39The next stage was for them to pay Singh a visit.
0:22:39 > 0:22:41When IFED detectives went to Mr Singh's address
0:22:41 > 0:22:44and arrested him and carried out a search,
0:22:44 > 0:22:48we found his jewellery and his electrical items all safe and sound
0:22:48 > 0:22:49inside a safe in the house.
0:22:49 > 0:22:52These photos were taken on the day of the arrest.
0:22:52 > 0:22:55They clearly show some of the same pieces of jewellery
0:22:55 > 0:22:58that Singh had said had been stolen when he submitted his claim.
0:22:58 > 0:23:01I think Mr Singh was surprised to get a knock on the door
0:23:01 > 0:23:02from police detectives.
0:23:02 > 0:23:06I think he thought that having had his insurance claim refused
0:23:06 > 0:23:07was the end of it.
0:23:07 > 0:23:10He certainly didn't expect to find himself in a police station.
0:23:10 > 0:23:12Let alone court. But that's where he ended up.
0:23:12 > 0:23:14When Mr Singh appeared at the Old Bailey,
0:23:14 > 0:23:16he pleaded guilty to fraud
0:23:16 > 0:23:18and he was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence,
0:23:18 > 0:23:20100 hours' community service
0:23:20 > 0:23:23and ordered to pay £1,300 in costs and fines.
0:23:23 > 0:23:27His bungled scheme to gain tens of thousands of pounds in compensation
0:23:27 > 0:23:31had completely backfired and he was now much worse off than before.
0:23:31 > 0:23:34This was a pretty unsophisticated attempt to defraud the insurer.
0:23:34 > 0:23:36There wasn't a great deal of thought put into it,
0:23:36 > 0:23:39as his web of lies was pretty quickly uncovered.
0:23:39 > 0:23:41It was certainly a very greedy attempt, though.
0:23:41 > 0:23:45No matter how well or badly thought through the fraud is,
0:23:45 > 0:23:48would-be insurance cheats need to think twice.
0:23:48 > 0:23:52The industry works really closely with police units like mine
0:23:52 > 0:23:54and we will come after you.
0:24:01 > 0:24:03It's no secret that railway stations,
0:24:03 > 0:24:06with their fast-moving trains, escalators and crowds of people
0:24:06 > 0:24:08carry an element of risk.
0:24:08 > 0:24:14But most people manage to avoid any drama by using basic common sense.
0:24:14 > 0:24:15MOST people...
0:24:18 > 0:24:21Any personal injury claims involving transportation company
0:24:21 > 0:24:24FirstGroup are thoroughly investigated.
0:24:24 > 0:24:27Lee Ingram is the Claims Team Manager
0:24:27 > 0:24:29and recently dealt with a railway station injury.
0:24:29 > 0:24:33We received a claim following an alleged tripping incident,
0:24:33 > 0:24:36where a gentleman's saying that he's fallen over a defective paving slab.
0:24:36 > 0:24:38According to the man, he took a heavy fall
0:24:38 > 0:24:41that resulted in a horrific injury.
0:24:41 > 0:24:45The claim that came in was for a compound fracture to the shin bone.
0:24:45 > 0:24:47So it's one of the bigger bones in your leg.
0:24:47 > 0:24:51The compound fracture element means that the bone has broken,
0:24:51 > 0:24:52has actually pierced the skin.
0:24:52 > 0:24:56It sounds like a pretty nasty injury, and it is.
0:24:56 > 0:24:58It was no surprise, then, that the claimant was after
0:24:58 > 0:25:00a substantial amount of compensation.
0:25:00 > 0:25:04The value of the claim was around about £55,000,
0:25:04 > 0:25:06comprising of the injury itself,
0:25:06 > 0:25:09there would have been a loss of earnings claim,
0:25:09 > 0:25:11a care claim arising from the fact he would have needed
0:25:11 > 0:25:13help with domestic chores,
0:25:13 > 0:25:15and the legal cost bills on top of that.
0:25:15 > 0:25:18Lee's team decided to track down the offending paving slab,
0:25:18 > 0:25:20which was said to have caused the trip.
0:25:20 > 0:25:23They were expecting to find a crater.
0:25:23 > 0:25:24Instead they found this.
0:25:25 > 0:25:30A tiny crack, approximately three millimetres deep,
0:25:30 > 0:25:32the same thickness as a pound coin.
0:25:33 > 0:25:36This element of his story was starting to look groundless.
0:25:36 > 0:25:38So they checked the station CCTV
0:25:38 > 0:25:41to look at where on the platform the accident happened.
0:25:45 > 0:25:48The man can be seen at the far end of the platform
0:25:48 > 0:25:50at the top of the screen.
0:25:50 > 0:25:53The defect that he's alleging is nowhere near there,
0:25:53 > 0:25:56it's some 30 feet away from where he's actually saying it happened.
0:25:56 > 0:25:59He doesn't even get to that part of the platform.
0:25:59 > 0:26:02The man's story was starting to look shaky
0:26:02 > 0:26:06and rewinding the tape even further caused it to fall down completely.
0:26:06 > 0:26:08So, here comes the gentleman up to the gate
0:26:08 > 0:26:10and, lo and behold, he's actually limping
0:26:10 > 0:26:13when he comes into the station
0:26:13 > 0:26:16so this is before the incident's even happened.
0:26:17 > 0:26:19He goes through the barrier,
0:26:19 > 0:26:21he's obviously in a rush to catch a train,
0:26:21 > 0:26:24so he's run through the barrier as quickly as he can.
0:26:24 > 0:26:29He's taken a very sharp right-hand turn and then, he stopped.
0:26:29 > 0:26:32That's the point where his leg has snapped
0:26:32 > 0:26:34and the bone is probably on the outside of his body by now.
0:26:34 > 0:26:37He can't go on any further.
0:26:37 > 0:26:40And neither could his claim.
0:26:40 > 0:26:43The CCTV showed that after snapping the bone,
0:26:43 > 0:26:46he could barely hobble to the nearest bench.
0:26:46 > 0:26:48So, while the horrific injury was real,
0:26:48 > 0:26:53the alleged reason for it happening was completely false.
0:26:53 > 0:26:56The evidence in this case is particularly convincing
0:26:56 > 0:26:59in the fact that it flies in the face of everything that he said.
0:26:59 > 0:27:03The claimant's version of events simply didn't stand up to scrutiny,
0:27:03 > 0:27:06but the real kicker was a piece of witness evidence.
0:27:06 > 0:27:08Paramedics were called and they've arrived quite quickly.
0:27:08 > 0:27:10This chap has actually told them
0:27:10 > 0:27:13that he's injured his leg earlier that day
0:27:13 > 0:27:17so he was already carrying an injury as we've seen from the footage.
0:27:17 > 0:27:19Fortunately his comments to the paramedics were
0:27:19 > 0:27:22witnessed by a gentleman who was working for us
0:27:22 > 0:27:25but he previously worked for the Met Police for 19 years,
0:27:25 > 0:27:28so a very credible witness to have overheard this particular statement.
0:27:28 > 0:27:33By this stage, the man's claim had been run into the ground.
0:27:33 > 0:27:36In light of the overwhelming evidence, which showed that
0:27:36 > 0:27:38everything this gentleman was saying just wasn't true,
0:27:38 > 0:27:41we had no choice but to turn this claim down
0:27:41 > 0:27:43and, funnily enough, we've never heard back.
0:27:43 > 0:27:47The claimant finally accepted that the claim had hit the buffers
0:27:47 > 0:27:50and that he had only himself to blame for the injury.
0:27:50 > 0:27:54I do feel sorry for the guy but, yeah, really, he shouldn't be trying
0:27:54 > 0:27:57to blame us for the incident when he knows full well there was no defect.
0:27:57 > 0:28:00Once we'd looked at the CCTV footage,
0:28:00 > 0:28:02he just didn't have a leg to stand on.