Episode 10

Download Subtitles

Transcript

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.