Episode 9 Claimed and Shamed

Insurance fraud in the UK has hit epidemic levels.

It's costing us over £1 billion every year.

That's almost £3.5 million every day.

Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries, even phantom pets.

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

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

But insurers are fighting back,

exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.

Armed with covert surveillance systems...

Subject out the vehicle.

..sophisticated data-analysis techniques...

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

Police! Don't move! Stay where you are!

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

Just don't lie to us.

All those con men, scammers and cheats on the fiddle

are now caught in the act and claimed and shamed.

Coming up, one fraudster performs a vanishing act.

She was wanted by all 43 police forces and was literally on the run.

A victim of a road traffic accident has a change of heart.

He'd obviously been allured

to the money that had been put aside for him.

And RSA encounter the world's unluckiest dog owners.

When you looked at the invoices and the supporting documentation,

they didn't really stack up.

It is estimated that there were around four million

offences of theft in the UK last year.

So it goes without saying that insuring your belongings is

something worth doing.

Whether you bought something outright, or are just hiring it,

insurance is there to protect you if things go walkies.

But unfortunately, not all claims are what they appear

and that's where claim validations specialists like i-Cog come in.

Managing director Tara Shelton's previous

experience as a police officer and psychologist came in handy

when she dealt with a claim from a woman named Diane Thompson

who had become a victim of a mugging.

She was in a park in London

and she had been approached by three males who robbed her of six

cases of photographic equipment that she'd hired to make a music video.

The equipment in total was worth £150,000.

£150,000 - clearly this wasn't your average camera.

It's more to do with Hollywood blockbuster movies -

that's the type of camera it is.

Unsurprisingly, with a claim of that size, the insurance company

were keen for Tara to find out more.

So she gave Diane a call.

With a long career as an accountant and a real passion for professional

filming, spending 150 grand on her kit wasn't that far-fetched.

I initially asked Diane Thompson to just tell me

in detail exactly what happened.

M'hm.

With someone as passionate about high-definition images

as Diane obviously was, you'd expect her descriptions to be spot-on.

I separated each of the three offenders,

if you like, and asked her to describe them.

OK.

She quite clearly faltered at that point and strangely enough,

all three looked exactly the same and were all wearing exactly the same clothing.

This certainly does sound interesting.

M'hm.

Mugged and no mobile phone - Diane really was having a bad day.

And her bad luck didn't end there,

as Diane wasn't able to find the boys in blue anywhere.

The account of her being approached by three males who were all

dressed the same and all looked the same,

and then her actions after the theft,

of racing around London for five hours in a car

to report it to the police but every police station

that she visited was closed, just didn't ring true.

One hell of a story, more like - and unfortunately for Diane,

the longer the call went on, the more her account

sounded like fiction rather than fact.

When I relayed my concerns to Diane,

it was quite interesting -

she took on a persona of quite an uneducated, weak female

who didn't understand.

She might have struggled to find the police on the day

but fortunately for Diane, she was now speaking to the perfect person.

Well, it's not every day you have a former detective

investigating your case.

That can only be a good thing, can't it?

After my phone call with Diane, it was very important at that stage

just to follow the normal insurance process.

We had to meet Diane and I invited the insurer to come with me and take

a statement from her and actually get her to sign that statement.

But when Tara arrived at the address Diane had given,

the case took a shocking twist.

When I actually turned up at her home address,

not only was she not there, but she had...actually hadn't been

living at that address for probably about three months at that time.

Unfortunately, the only way for her to get out the situation

was to go on the run.

This really is starting to sound like a Hollywood plot

and Tara thinks she may know exactly why Diane did a runner.

Her motivation for disappearing was very, very clear to me,

she'd been detected.

Diane Thompson was wanted by all 43 police forces

and was literally on the run.

With the country's police force on the lookout for Diane,

Tara and her team turned their attention to the stolen kit.

In the media industry, there's actually an intelligence

database where you can place potentially stolen equipment

to alert the industry that any equipment that comes into their

hands with this particular serial number has been reported as stolen.

Thanks to this database, the plot thickened even further.

A few days later, um,

a music producer in Italy contacted the Metropolitan police

and said, "I have that camera in my hands as we speak."

So the kit that our pretend producer had flogged abroad was

returned to the hire company.

But finding Diane wasn't so easy

and she stayed missing for over a year

until the police had a remarkable stroke of luck.

The local policing team just happened to be passing one

of her old addresses and she just happened to be standing outside.

I mean, it was...it was literally that random, and she was arrested

and conveyed straight to Holloway on a remand warrant pending trial.

She may have been a phoney producer

but Diane still had one final plot twist up her sleeve.

When I found out that Diane had gone against her advice from her

own counsel and decided to plead not guilty I was...I was utterly amazed.

It might have taken a year to track Diane down

but justice was served rather more swiftly.

And I was absolutely delighted when within nine minutes, the jury

unanimously found Diane Thompson guilty.

Diane Thompson had claimed for over £150,000 of equipment, but instead

of a career behind the camera, she got over two years behind bars.

I think it's fair to say Diane Thompson thought

she was cleverer than she was and that first phone call

I had with her without question identified that she wasn't

going to get away with this story, but because she was in so deep,

and was committed to her story at that time, she really had no choice

but to follow it through or to admit the truth, and she was never going

to admit the truth, and to this day, she still doesn't admit the truth.

Still to come, there's a fiery case of whodunnit.

What's quite clear is that he deliberately started the fire

and left it to burn out.

And some sick puppies need looking at.

Either the Staffords were the unluckiest dog owners in the world,

or else there is something not quite right about this claim.

DOG WHIMPERS

With around 30 million cars on UK roads, it's unfortunately

inevitable that accidents happen from time to time.

But thankfully, not all accidents are severe.

Colin Bushell of DWF knows as well as anyone that no matter how

big or small a claim may be, they all need investigating -

even if it involves parked vehicles.

The accident itself is quite straightforward.

The claimant's coming along a minor road

and looks to park up on the side of the road.

The defendant is actually parked to his left,

and he's looking to come onto the main road itself

and there's a very minor bump between the two cars.

A minor bump - that sounds like it should be a quick

and easy claim to settle.

This was a straightforward case.

LV were looking to make payments

in respect to the vehicle damage,

so there were no issues from their perspective.

Ursula Jallow and her team at LV dealt with the claim.

He told us about somebody who'd actually rung him

earlier in the morning, letting him know that they knew that he'd

had an accident and that actually he was entitled to some money.

To the claimant's credit, he actually said that he had a pre-existing condition.

As an insurance company, this was great, to hear a consumer

telling us this, because that tells us actually the message is

getting across that it's not OK to put a fraudulent whiplash claim

through when actually there's nothing wrong with you.

And so actually when we were hearing this from our third party, it was very, very refreshing.

And this upstanding man wasn't exactly shy

about sharing his feelings about opportunistic claimants.

Having had the conversation with the third party,

we then surprisingly had a claim through from a solicitor's acting on behalf of him.

When investigators read through the document, it seemed to tell

a different story altogether.

He has a neck injury which is described as being severe

and a lower-back injury, which again is severe.

Hang on. The last time they spoke to him, he was strongly against bogus claims.

He'd obviously been allured to the money that had been put aside for him.

As the insurers continued to read on,

it went from surprising to shocking.

Very specifically within the medical report

is reference to having suffered severe shock,

and there was actually severe travel fear included

within the medical report itself.

"Travel fear"?

That's a new one on me.

This chap really had done a complete U-turn.

When you look at and consider the evidence or the tone very much

within the initial phone call,

this gentleman doesn't come across as somebody who is

in any way, shape or form suffering from shock.

He comes across as a very calm, considered gentleman.

So, even though this claimant's injuries seemed to have changed

drastically, unbelievably he still stuck to his story.

Both parties decided to run this to trial.

If the claimant were to succeed, he's looking at the value

of his claim to be around £3,500.

Armed with the evidence from the phone call,

LV and DWF were more than happy to go to court.

The call recording is fairly unique.

It's not often you're able to bring that type of evidence

to a judge's attention.

Above all else, the phone-call evidence proved one thing.

First and foremost, you've told us you weren't injured.

You're now telling us you are.

His story-changing antics didn't help him

when the time came to stand in front of the judge.

So, at trial, I think it's fair to say that the claimant came across

very poorly and had quite a bad day out, to be honest with you.

The extent of his cross-examination was lengthy

and he was taken to all of the inconsistencies,

which were numerous.

A good example would be the fact that the claimant forgot

he'd actually suffered, or allegedly suffered, a neck injury.

That was something he had to try and explain away in the face of the court to the judge.

But, unlike our claimant,

the judge on this case only says what he means.

So, the outcome of the hearing itself is really straightforward.

The claimant failed on every aspect of his claim,

so, it was dismissed in full.

And although this claimant lost his case,

he should count himself fortunate.

I'd suggest the claimant was actually quite lucky.

The court dismissed his case, but took no further steps.

On a different day before a different judge,

he may well have been found to have been fundamentally dishonest.

Or, a worse case scenario,

he could be held to be in contempt.

Think of that as the court equivalent of three points.

If we actually look at the original phone call itself,

this gentleman acknowledges that the types of individuals

who are going to pursue exaggerated claims are a scourge.

Apart from the "should be shot" bit,

incredibly, this claimant has hit the nail on the head.

And that is exactly why this issue has to be investigated,

those making spurious, invalid, exaggerated claims

are the root cause of this increased premium.

Pets can be a great addition to the home.

In fact, it's estimated that 12 million UK households have them.

And the most popular pet by a long way is,

you've guessed it -

dogs, with 8.5 million nationwide.

And for some homes, one dog just isn't enough,

as John Beadle discovered when RSA received a call

from a canine-loving couple.

The Staffords took out three policies with us.

The first policy was for a dog called Buster.

Unfortunately, illness and injury affect most pets at some point

and, sadly, Buster was no different.

Buster the dog sadly broke his leg.

So, we funded the treatment

for his broken leg...

which then developed into cancer,

and that ultimately led to him having to have his leg amputated,

and then, very sadly, ultimately, he had to be put to sleep.

Losing a pet can be an extremely upsetting experience.

But, fortunately, the Stafford family were covered.

The thing with pet insurance is, and I'm a dog owner,

is you hope you never have to use your pet insurance,

but, sadly, sometimes you do.

Following Buster's passing,

Mr and Mrs Stafford did what many dog lovers would do -

they bought another canine companion.

They subsequently took out another policy for a dog called Angel.

And then Angel also developed a form of cancer.

Visits to the vet's aren't cheap, and so the Stafford family

quickly racked up thousands of pounds' worth of vet bills.

And, of course, all these claims we were paying in good faith

because they were all supported by a documentation from the vets

and invoices.

With their recent upsetting losses in mind, the Stafford family

decided to cheer themselves up with a third dog, Winston.

Winston then developed cancer.

Three dogs with cancer?

This is starting to sound like Groundhog Day.

We were entitled to think that either

the Staffords were the unluckiest dog owners in the world

with all three of their poor animals having developed cancer,

or else there was something not quite right about this claim.

And reading Mr and Mrs Stafford's paperwork did little to settle

the investigators' concerns.

Our fraud investigators, when they began to look at this case,

and when you looked at the invoices,

and the supporting documentation,

they didn't really stack up.

They didn't look as professional as they perhaps should have done.

With concerns about Mr and Mrs Stafford's numerous

pet insurance claims,

RSA checked the authenticity of the documents.

And, of course, when we went and visited the vets

they said they'd never created any of this documentation

or the stamps, and the signatures used were all fraudulent.

Knowing that the documents were dodgy, RSA passed the case on to the

City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department.

After investigating the case,

Ifed officers arrested Mr and Mrs Stafford,

and charged them with conspiracy to commit fraud

by false representation.

And when the case got to court,

the judge was less than impressed with the couple's shaggy dog story.

We were pleased with the sentence handed down to the Staffords.

They didn't go to prison, but they got a substantial

suspended prison sentence,

plus a community service order.

The couple were also ordered to repay every penny

of the eight grand they'd fraudulently received.

They probably thought it was easy,

that insurers don't have any controls around this,

and they were probably motivated by greed.

So, my message to the people is,

we're not stupid,

and you will get caught.

So, all three of Mr and Mrs Stafford's

pet insurance claims were bogus.

But whatever happened to their dogs?

Angel and Winston didn't exist at all.

So, if Angel and Winston were phantom pooches, what about Buster?

There is a kind of nice postscript to this story,

because when we unravelled this series of claims as a fraud,

we actually saw Buster, who was alive and well,

and I can assure you he had all four legs still on him.

The UK's fire and rescue services attend over 200,000 fires

every year.

But as Tom Gardiner from Aviva knows only too well,

some fire-related insurance claims are less smoky and more hokey,

particularly when the police are giving you the heads up

on a suspicious claim.

Mr Lee made a claim for fire damage to his Ford Transit van,

which was found burnt out in a car park whilst it was unattended.

Right from the start,

doubts were raised about Mr Lee's version of events.

Very quickly, we had a number of concerns

about the claim.

The fire appeared to have been deliberately started

in the passenger seat,

but the vehicle was found locked,

and he also had burns to his hands.

It certainly sounds suspicious.

But Mr Lee had an explanation.

The police clearly thought the burns to Mr Lee's hands

meant that he had something to do with the fire himself.

He sought to explain that as being as a result of handling weedkiller.

It wasn't looking good for Mr Lee.

But then Aviva discovered something that added even more

fuel to the fire.

The decisive piece of evidence, and the nail in the coffin,

was CCTV coverage at the car park,

which Mr Lee had overlooked,

but which actually showed him driving the vehicle, on fire,

into the car park.

He later tried to explain that as being fog or mist,

but which the police were able to rule out

and said that the weather was clear.

With alarm bells well and truly ringing,

Aviva were confident they now knew the facts.

I think what's quite clear is that Mr Lee deliberately started

the fire in the vehicle himself,

drove it to the car park,

locked it and left it to burn out.

Realising his claim was up in smoke,

Mr Lee started having second thoughts.

Eight days after he'd reported the incident,

Mr Lee telephoned Aviva wanting to withdraw the claim.

Unfortunately what he didn't realise was

withdrawing a claim wouldn't take away the crime.

Faced with the evidence against him in court,

Mr Lee took a turn for the worse.

At the trial, during evidence, when presented with the CCTV images,

he suddenly alleged chest pains,

and, as a result, the trial was adjourned

while an ambulance attended.

Thankfully, the chest pains didn't last,

and it wasn't long before the trial resumed.

Mr Lee finally received a suspended sentence of 16 weeks.

So, anyone thinking they can just walk away from this type

of fraudulent claim is risking more than just burnt fingers.

I think the lesson is that submitting fraudulent claims

isn't the solution, because you will get caught, you will get prosecuted.

Mr Lee will find it very difficult to access financial products

in the future, and instead of being a lot better off,

he's a lot worse off.

If you think that man's attempt to cash in was extreme, then buckle up.

Because outside the British Isles,

there are people whose attempts to cash in on insurance payouts

go from ridiculously shocking...

to just plain stupid.

Let's file that one under "ridiculous", shall we?

And the risk some people are willing to go to can be frightening.

Even your mate is leaving you alone on that one.

Taxi!

Getting caught faking a personal injury claim can be pretty serious,

but to some it's worth the risk.

But not worth making an effort, though, I see.

Here's a chap who seems happy to show you how it's done.

That'll leave a mark.

Maybe next time this young man will think twice before he throws

himself in front of a moving car.

That looks like more of a snooze than a bruise.

On your bike!

Yep, when it comes down to it, to some people it doesn't matter

if it's on a slow street...

or a hurtling highway.

Forget the payout, you're lucky to leave this scam with your life.

Ludicrous claims happen all over the world,

but if that isn't scary enough,

some people are taking their chances and falling in front of moving cars

here in the UK, too,

as this unlucky learner driver found out.

Yep, this looks like a perfect road to practise the old

three-point turn.

What's he doing?

That's nice of him.

Oh, he's back. Maybe he's going to give the windscreen a clean?

-Ah!

-BLEEP!

Comfortable down there, are you?

I want to see that again.

Ah!

Put it in reverse, would you?

Here he comes...

Oh, there you go.

Help!

Thankfully, this man walked away and didn't submit an insurance claim.