0:00:05 > 0:00:09Insurance fraud has reached epidemic levels in the UK.
0:00:09 > 0:00:14It's costing us more than £1.3 billion every year.
0:00:14 > 0:00:17That's almost 3.6 million every day.
0:00:19 > 0:00:24Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries, even phantom pets.
0:00:26 > 0:00:29The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing,
0:00:29 > 0:00:34and every year, it's adding around £50 to your insurance bill.
0:00:34 > 0:00:36But insurers are fighting back,
0:00:36 > 0:00:39exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.
0:00:39 > 0:00:41Armed with covert surveillance systems...
0:00:41 > 0:00:44That's the subject out the vehicle.
0:00:44 > 0:00:47..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
0:00:48 > 0:00:51- Police!- ..and a number of highly skilled police units...
0:00:51 > 0:00:53Police! Don't move, stay where you are.
0:00:53 > 0:00:57- ..they're catching the criminals red-handed.- Just don't lie to us.
0:00:58 > 0:01:01All those con-men, scammers, and cheats on the fiddle
0:01:01 > 0:01:04are now caught in the act, and claimed and shamed.
0:01:12 > 0:01:14A simple speeding ticket leads to the bust of
0:01:14 > 0:01:16a sophisticated fraud operation...
0:01:17 > 0:01:20The scale of the fraud was massive.
0:01:20 > 0:01:24..a wannabe master forger needs some serious lessons in spelling,
0:01:24 > 0:01:25and speaking...
0:01:25 > 0:01:27His behaviour changed quite dramatically.
0:01:27 > 0:01:29He started to gabble...
0:01:32 > 0:01:35..to the point that he was actually losing control.
0:01:35 > 0:01:39..and a gamble that a betting shop wasn't fitted with CCTV
0:01:39 > 0:01:41doesn't pay out.
0:01:47 > 0:01:49When dealing with large scale frauds,
0:01:49 > 0:01:53sometimes it's the smallest mistake that cracks the case wide open.
0:01:53 > 0:01:56In this case, a simple speed camera fine led to
0:01:56 > 0:02:00a fraud that was worth almost a quarter of a million pounds.
0:02:03 > 0:02:05If a motorist is caught speeding on camera,
0:02:05 > 0:02:07it's a straightforward process.
0:02:07 > 0:02:10A form is sent out to the registered owner of the car, and they're
0:02:10 > 0:02:13asked to fill in the details of who was driving at the time.
0:02:13 > 0:02:16That person then receives an appropriate penalty.
0:02:18 > 0:02:23Some try and cheat the system by entering false details.
0:02:23 > 0:02:25However, officers like PC Graham Radcliffe of the
0:02:25 > 0:02:28Greater Manchester Police are there to catch them.
0:02:28 > 0:02:33The case first came to light when a Mercedes car activated two
0:02:33 > 0:02:36speed cameras, one in Manchester, and one in the Midlands.
0:02:38 > 0:02:41Information was sent to the owner of the Mercedes to find out
0:02:41 > 0:02:44who was driving the car when it was caught speeding.
0:02:44 > 0:02:46The forms were returned to the police,
0:02:46 > 0:02:48saying that a woman had been behind the wheel.
0:02:48 > 0:02:52That woman was subsequently convicted.
0:02:52 > 0:02:56But there was a twist - she'd NEVER been in the car.
0:02:56 > 0:02:59She wasn't aware of the fact that she'd been nominated in the
0:02:59 > 0:03:03first place, and it was as a result of her subsequently complaining
0:03:03 > 0:03:08the fact that she'd been wrongly convicted that my inquiry began.
0:03:08 > 0:03:10Little did he know where it would lead,
0:03:10 > 0:03:13or what he was about to uncover.
0:03:13 > 0:03:16Graham established that the woman was indeed telling the truth.
0:03:16 > 0:03:19She had nothing to do with the speeding Mercedes.
0:03:20 > 0:03:24Complex investigations into how this woman's name had wrongly ended up
0:03:24 > 0:03:28on the form led Graham to an accident management company,
0:03:28 > 0:03:30called Optimum Claim Solutions,
0:03:30 > 0:03:33owned by a man called Jason Brown.
0:03:37 > 0:03:40The company did have some legitimate business,
0:03:40 > 0:03:43but Graham was quickly able to establish that Brown was
0:03:43 > 0:03:47involved in some very dubious activities indeed.
0:03:47 > 0:03:50He'd found that he could make more money out of falsely creating
0:03:50 > 0:03:53accidents and making claims,
0:03:53 > 0:03:56particularly very high credit hire claims for hire cars,
0:03:56 > 0:04:00for accidents that never existed, and personal injury claims.
0:04:01 > 0:04:05So, Brown was using his accident management company illegally
0:04:05 > 0:04:07in two distinct ways.
0:04:07 > 0:04:10Firstly, he'd make up totally imaginary accidents and claim
0:04:10 > 0:04:13that passengers had been injured in order to get pay-outs
0:04:13 > 0:04:14from insurance companies.
0:04:14 > 0:04:18He'd also tell insurers that he'd provided very expensive hire cars
0:04:18 > 0:04:22for people waiting for their crashed cars to be fixed.
0:04:22 > 0:04:26Again, the accidents would be totally fictitious.
0:04:27 > 0:04:29Graham arrested Jason Brown,
0:04:29 > 0:04:33and both his home and business premises were thoroughly searched.
0:04:33 > 0:04:36What was uncovered was clearly a large scale fraud in relation
0:04:36 > 0:04:39to false credit hire claims to insurance companies
0:04:39 > 0:04:43following accidents, accidents which never happened.
0:04:47 > 0:04:49Graham worked closely with those companies
0:04:49 > 0:04:51who had been targeted by Brown.
0:04:51 > 0:04:54One of them was insurance providers Allianz.
0:04:54 > 0:04:57Mihir Pandya heads up their fraud department.
0:04:59 > 0:05:03As it turned out, Jason Brown was already on their radar.
0:05:03 > 0:05:06His vehicle had allegedly been involved in an accident
0:05:06 > 0:05:09resulting in multiple whiplash claims.
0:05:09 > 0:05:11The total value of the claims submitted to us was in
0:05:11 > 0:05:13the region of £30,000.
0:05:13 > 0:05:16A significant sum, and not something that would be paid out
0:05:16 > 0:05:18no questions asked.
0:05:18 > 0:05:23When we receive claims of this kind, it's routine to do some enquiries.
0:05:23 > 0:05:27Almost immediately, they discovered fundamental problems.
0:05:27 > 0:05:29So many discrepancies.
0:05:29 > 0:05:30Some of the people were getting...
0:05:30 > 0:05:32Which car they were in, they were getting that wrong.
0:05:32 > 0:05:35They were using old addresses for Jason Brown when they were
0:05:35 > 0:05:38asked to say what details they'd just swapped.
0:05:38 > 0:05:43It even transpired that another car - the premium for that
0:05:43 > 0:05:46insurance was paid by Jason Brown himself.
0:05:46 > 0:05:50The multiple inconsistencies and the apparent links back to Brown
0:05:50 > 0:05:52called the whole claim into question.
0:05:52 > 0:05:55We started to have suspicions that this, in fact,
0:05:55 > 0:06:00was a staged motor accident, so we contacted Mr Brown.
0:06:56 > 0:07:01He ignored our letters. We tried to call him, he ignored our calls.
0:07:01 > 0:07:02After a few months,
0:07:02 > 0:07:04all the claims for the whiplash injuries were dropped.
0:07:04 > 0:07:06Thought that was the end of the matter,
0:07:06 > 0:07:10and it was a year later when Greater Manchester Police contacted us.
0:07:11 > 0:07:13Still to come -
0:07:13 > 0:07:17the police uncover yet more of Brown's insurance fraud shenanigans.
0:07:17 > 0:07:19He's just become over-confident with the fact that
0:07:19 > 0:07:24he can get away with it, but didn't think it through properly.
0:07:24 > 0:07:26And sometimes, love hurts.
0:07:26 > 0:07:29A woman finds herself with a criminal conviction after an
0:07:29 > 0:07:31attempt to protect her boyfriend.
0:07:31 > 0:07:33Think before you act.
0:07:38 > 0:07:41Now, when you pop down to the shops, the last thing on your mind
0:07:41 > 0:07:46is getting hurt, but accidents can and do happen anywhere.
0:07:46 > 0:07:48Most shops make sure they have insurance,
0:07:48 > 0:07:50so if someone is injured on their premises,
0:07:50 > 0:07:52and it's in some way deemed to be the shop's fault,
0:07:52 > 0:07:55then the injured person can be properly compensated,
0:07:55 > 0:07:58and the pay-outs can be quite hefty.
0:08:04 > 0:08:08Royal Sun Alliance provides insurance for many retailers,
0:08:08 > 0:08:11and it's John Beadle's job to make sure that, when someone makes
0:08:11 > 0:08:15a claim against one of his clients, it's 100% legit.
0:08:16 > 0:08:22It's not unusual for people to put in spurious claims alleging
0:08:22 > 0:08:26that they'd suffered injury in premises such as supermarkets,
0:08:26 > 0:08:28and numerous other locations,
0:08:28 > 0:08:32but all these premises are routinely covered by CCTV,
0:08:32 > 0:08:34and it is amazing, really,
0:08:34 > 0:08:38that people still attempt to make these kind of allegations,
0:08:38 > 0:08:44which are clearly refuted by a simple review of the CCTV footage.
0:08:44 > 0:08:46So, when you're out doing your shopping,
0:08:46 > 0:08:48never forget Big Brother is watching you.
0:08:50 > 0:08:54Back in 2015, one of John Beadle's team members received
0:08:54 > 0:08:57a call from a man who had fallen over in a shop that RSA cover.
0:08:59 > 0:09:01So, in this particular case,
0:09:01 > 0:09:04the allegation was that they'd entered a betting shop,
0:09:04 > 0:09:06from a well-known high street chain,
0:09:06 > 0:09:11and had slipped on a wet floor, causing injury.
0:09:12 > 0:09:16It was slightly unbelievable, but not impossible.
0:09:16 > 0:09:19I guess somebody could have spilled a drink,
0:09:19 > 0:09:21or it might have been raining outside
0:09:21 > 0:09:24but, of course, the first thing we would do in such circumstances
0:09:24 > 0:09:27would be to review the CCTV.
0:09:29 > 0:09:31Unbeknownst to the claimant,
0:09:31 > 0:09:34the betting shop was covered by CCTV cameras.
0:09:34 > 0:09:36And from the moment they reviewed the footage,
0:09:36 > 0:09:39the odds were firmly stacked against this particular gambler.
0:09:45 > 0:09:48You see, they didn't slip on the wet floor at all.
0:09:48 > 0:09:52It was a mistake by the person in sitting down on his stool,
0:09:52 > 0:09:54which caused him to fall.
0:09:54 > 0:09:58The gentleman just puts the stool too far in,
0:09:58 > 0:10:03and when he goes to sit down, he actually falls off the back of it.
0:10:03 > 0:10:06The claimant clearly hadn't known that he was being watched
0:10:06 > 0:10:10by security cameras, and this was his major slip-up.
0:10:10 > 0:10:11Frankly, when we first got this claim,
0:10:11 > 0:10:15we couldn't believe that the person was making it,
0:10:15 > 0:10:19because it's quite clear what the cause of the accident was,
0:10:19 > 0:10:22and it was nobody's fault but his own.
0:10:22 > 0:10:26When confronted with the evidence, the claimant understood that,
0:10:26 > 0:10:28like him, the story just didn't stand up.
0:10:30 > 0:10:33We told him that, as a result of this investigation,
0:10:33 > 0:10:36we would not be paying this claim,
0:10:36 > 0:10:39and he clearly must have thought twice about it,
0:10:39 > 0:10:41and the claim went away.
0:10:41 > 0:10:45John's investigations had put a stop to RSA having to pay out
0:10:45 > 0:10:50compensation of around £6,000 for this clearly dishonest claim.
0:10:51 > 0:10:56Insurers are wise to this type of spurious claim.
0:10:56 > 0:11:00We will investigate each and every case fully.
0:11:00 > 0:11:03There is no quick pot of gold available here.
0:11:05 > 0:11:09My advice to people is - don't do this, you will get caught,
0:11:09 > 0:11:13and there can be severe penalties if you are found guilty of fraud.
0:11:19 > 0:11:22Now, coming back from a lovely, relaxing holiday to find
0:11:22 > 0:11:25your luggage has been lost is something we all dread.
0:11:25 > 0:11:28That growing panic as it becomes clear that the carousel
0:11:28 > 0:11:30is never going to spit out your suitcase,
0:11:30 > 0:11:33and all you can do is watch as, one by one, your fellow travellers
0:11:33 > 0:11:37mosey off with their bags, leaving you standing there all alone.
0:11:37 > 0:11:39If you think I'm being dramatic, well, you'd be right,
0:11:39 > 0:11:41but believe me, it happens.
0:11:46 > 0:11:49This is what recently happened to a man flying back from
0:11:49 > 0:11:50his holiday in Europe.
0:11:53 > 0:11:56Luckily, though, this clever chap had thought to take out
0:11:56 > 0:11:59travel insurance, and he put in a claim for his lost luggage.
0:12:02 > 0:12:04The case was handled by Claire Mitten,
0:12:04 > 0:12:07an Operations Director at I-Cog Claims Management.
0:12:09 > 0:12:13I-Cog are a fraud detection company that specialise in exposing
0:12:13 > 0:12:17dishonest claims. Their operatives are trained in the technique
0:12:17 > 0:12:19of conversation management.
0:12:19 > 0:12:21Just by talking to someone on the phone,
0:12:21 > 0:12:24they can tell if that person is being genuine.
0:12:25 > 0:12:28In other words, they're human lie detectors.
0:12:29 > 0:12:32The case of the missing luggage was referred to Claire
0:12:32 > 0:12:35- to be thoroughly unpacked. - When the claim was presented to us,
0:12:35 > 0:12:37it actually looked like it could be a genuine claim.
0:12:37 > 0:12:40He'd had confirmation from the airline in relation to
0:12:40 > 0:12:42the luggage going missing.
0:12:42 > 0:12:44We'd also received his boarding passes and his tickets
0:12:44 > 0:12:48to confirm he had actually travelled to Paris at the time.
0:12:48 > 0:12:52So the claimant's luggage had genuinely disappeared, but it was
0:12:52 > 0:12:56the detail of what was inside that gave Claire pause for thought.
0:12:56 > 0:12:59It was when we got to talk about the items that were supposedly in
0:12:59 > 0:13:01his suitcase that alarm bells started to ring,
0:13:01 > 0:13:04and we actually realised that he couldn't even describe
0:13:04 > 0:13:06the simplest of items to us,
0:13:06 > 0:13:09so whereas somebody would be able to explain to you,
0:13:09 > 0:13:13"It was a patterned shirt, it was a striped shirt," he was only
0:13:13 > 0:13:16able to tell us, "It was black, it was brown and it was plain."
0:13:16 > 0:13:19However, one thing the claimant COULD remember about
0:13:19 > 0:13:23his clothes was that some of them were very expensive indeed.
0:13:23 > 0:13:25The claim in total was worth £4,000.
0:13:25 > 0:13:29£2,000 of that was clothing, especially designer labels,
0:13:29 > 0:13:31with £2,000 worth of cash.
0:13:31 > 0:13:34There was also some female shoes that he was claiming for, when
0:13:34 > 0:13:39actually he travelled alone, so this didn't make any sense to us either.
0:13:39 > 0:13:43Hey, doesn't everyone wear stilettos in Paris?
0:13:43 > 0:13:46Anyway, understandably, the insurance company asked their
0:13:46 > 0:13:50customer if he had proof of purchase for any of the lost items.
0:13:50 > 0:13:52We received an array of receipts from the insured.
0:13:52 > 0:13:56One was from a high street store, which was genuine,
0:13:56 > 0:13:59and we believe these items HAD been in his suitcase at the time.
0:13:59 > 0:14:01The other one was from an online retailer.
0:14:01 > 0:14:04Again, it was genuine, it was exactly how we expected it to look.
0:14:04 > 0:14:07However, when he came on to the other items,
0:14:07 > 0:14:11such as the designer labels, the receipts were very interesting.
0:14:11 > 0:14:15- Interesting is one way of putting it.- For starters,
0:14:15 > 0:14:18they were both presented to us on an A4 piece of paper.
0:14:18 > 0:14:20Very unusual, in this day and age,
0:14:20 > 0:14:23for a receipt of this nature to be like this.
0:14:23 > 0:14:25There were spelling mistakes.
0:14:25 > 0:14:28He was claiming for suits, so a three-piece suit,
0:14:28 > 0:14:31but he actually put on the receipt that the shop sold SUITES,
0:14:31 > 0:14:33as in three-piece suites.
0:14:33 > 0:14:34He even spelt Gucci wrong.
0:14:36 > 0:14:39At the bottom of the receipts, he'd also intended to put,
0:14:39 > 0:14:41"Thank you for your business,"
0:14:41 > 0:14:44but unfortunately he'd actually put, "Thank you for YOU business".
0:14:44 > 0:14:46Two companies wouldn't make this mistake.
0:14:46 > 0:14:49Armed with these clothing receipts in hand, Claire called
0:14:49 > 0:14:52the claimant in the hope he'd own up to faking the receipts.
0:15:55 > 0:15:57When we discussed our concerns with the insured,
0:15:57 > 0:16:00his behaviour changed quite dramatically.
0:16:00 > 0:16:04He started to gabble, to the point that he was actually losing control.
0:16:04 > 0:16:06He was also using delaying tactics,
0:16:06 > 0:16:08so he was asking us to put information in writing.
0:16:08 > 0:16:10He was trying to buy himself some time to think about
0:16:10 > 0:16:12what he wanted to say.
0:16:36 > 0:16:39The claimant was sticking firmly to his story,
0:16:39 > 0:16:43as yet unprepared for the damning evidence Claire had up her sleeve.
0:18:11 > 0:18:16Unbelievably, he wasn't willing to admit that he'd faked the receipts.
0:18:16 > 0:18:19This guy may have been one of the most stubborn claimants Claire
0:18:19 > 0:18:22had come across, but it's fair to say he wasn't one of the brightest.
0:18:22 > 0:18:25And there would be another huge mistake in his claim
0:18:25 > 0:18:28that made a mockery of the whole episode.
0:18:30 > 0:18:32Not only did we have the problem with the receipts,
0:18:32 > 0:18:36there was also quite a clear problem with the dates that he'd provided.
0:18:36 > 0:18:39The luggage was actually lost in January 2014,
0:18:39 > 0:18:43but the items he says, or alleged, he had bought were purchased
0:18:43 > 0:18:47in December 2014, so 12 months after the incident actually occurred.
0:18:49 > 0:18:51Yep, you heard right.
0:18:51 > 0:18:55Rather incredibly, the claimant was trying to get money back
0:18:55 > 0:18:59for clothes he hadn't yet bought when his suitcase was lost.
0:18:59 > 0:19:00Claire put this to him.
0:20:02 > 0:20:04The claimant wasn't budging from his story.
0:20:04 > 0:20:07Despite a thorough dressing down from Claire,
0:20:07 > 0:20:10he wasn't willing to admit any wrongdoing.
0:20:10 > 0:20:13At the beginning of the call, when I planned my call,
0:20:13 > 0:20:16I had no doubt that the insured would actually confess that these
0:20:16 > 0:20:19were fraudulent receipts that he'd created himself.
0:20:19 > 0:20:21I also thought, if he didn't go down that route,
0:20:21 > 0:20:23he would look to withdraw his claim.
0:20:23 > 0:20:25He continued throughout the whole call.
0:20:25 > 0:20:28He did not give in, he was not going to give himself up, really,
0:20:28 > 0:20:30and say that he had made a fraudulent claim.
0:20:30 > 0:20:33I was really surprised by this, at the end of the call.
0:20:33 > 0:20:36Claire may have been impressed by the customer's resilience,
0:20:36 > 0:20:40but she wasn't taken with his skill as a master forger.
0:20:40 > 0:20:43In relation to the fraudulent receipts that I've seen before,
0:20:43 > 0:20:46these were probably some of the worst I've seen.
0:20:46 > 0:20:48In fact, they were almost quite comical.
0:20:48 > 0:20:49There wasn't just one mistake,
0:20:49 > 0:20:53it was absolutely riddled with mistakes, from spelling to grammar.
0:20:53 > 0:20:56It was just quite embarrassing for the insured, really.
0:20:56 > 0:20:59Even though Claire hadn't been able to get an admission of guilt,
0:20:59 > 0:21:03she recommended to his insurers not to pay the claimant a penny.
0:21:04 > 0:21:07With the type of work that we do here at I-Cog,
0:21:07 > 0:21:10you will get found out if it's an exaggerated claim.
0:21:10 > 0:21:13You might think it's easy just to add on an extra mobile phone,
0:21:13 > 0:21:15just add on an extra item of clothing, or whatever,
0:21:15 > 0:21:17but the way that we ask the questions and the way that we
0:21:17 > 0:21:19get information from you,
0:21:19 > 0:21:22we will be able to understand that these claims are exaggerated.
0:21:28 > 0:21:32Coming up - a DIY enthusiast who attempted to defraud
0:21:32 > 0:21:36his insurance sees his claim come crumbling down.
0:21:36 > 0:21:38Not only would we have to cancel the policy,
0:21:38 > 0:21:41but we'd also have to seek the money back,
0:21:41 > 0:21:44for the sums that we paid for the replacement of the items.
0:21:49 > 0:21:52Now, despite what you might see in the movies,
0:21:52 > 0:21:55these days, it's not that easy to steal a car.
0:21:55 > 0:21:58Hi-tech security features are now standard, but if a thief gets
0:21:58 > 0:22:02hold of your keys, well, there's not much you can do about it.
0:22:09 > 0:22:12Mike Brown is Direct Line Group's Head of Counter Fraud Intelligence.
0:22:12 > 0:22:17His company recently dealt with a claim for a stolen car.
0:22:17 > 0:22:19The circumstances, as portrayed by Miss Kitchen,
0:22:19 > 0:22:24is actually she'd returned home from work that evening, had a shower, and
0:22:24 > 0:22:30it was while she was in the shower, she alleges, her keys were stolen
0:22:30 > 0:22:33by an unknown intruder, and on looking out the window,
0:22:33 > 0:22:34she saw that her car had gone.
0:22:34 > 0:22:37An audacious theft, to say the least. However,
0:22:37 > 0:22:42the mystery surrounding the fate of her car was quickly cleaned up.
0:22:42 > 0:22:45Subsequently, then, what happened was there was then
0:22:45 > 0:22:50communications by Thames Valley Police with Direct Line,
0:22:50 > 0:22:52in respect of her vehicle,
0:22:52 > 0:22:56which had been involved in a single vehicle road traffic accident.
0:22:56 > 0:22:57So, the thief had come into her house,
0:22:57 > 0:23:01taken the keys while she was in the shower, and then crashed her car.
0:23:01 > 0:23:04Although no-one had been injured, and no other vehicle involved,
0:23:04 > 0:23:06the damage was significant.
0:23:06 > 0:23:08The claim was £4,000.
0:23:08 > 0:23:09Right from the start,
0:23:09 > 0:23:13there was something questionable about the account of the keys.
0:23:13 > 0:23:16You know, this young lady had come in, having a shower,
0:23:16 > 0:23:17as it was alleged,
0:23:17 > 0:23:20and at the same time somebody had walked into her flat, removed
0:23:20 > 0:23:24the keys from the dining room table, and subsequently stolen the vehicle.
0:23:24 > 0:23:26The whole story did not connect.
0:23:26 > 0:23:30These concerns were only intensified when Direct Line liaised
0:23:30 > 0:23:32with Thames Valley Police.
0:23:32 > 0:23:34Their investigation into the collision turned
0:23:34 > 0:23:36Miss Kitchen's story on its head.
0:23:39 > 0:23:42They genuinely believed that the driver of the vehicle
0:23:42 > 0:23:45at the time of the accident was, in fact, her partner.
0:23:47 > 0:23:51This information robbed her burglary story of any truth.
0:23:51 > 0:23:54The so-called thief that "stole" her car, then crashed it,
0:23:54 > 0:23:58was her own boyfriend, who then fled the scene.
0:23:58 > 0:24:01The circumstances of the accident are, as yet, unknown,
0:24:01 > 0:24:05but it would appear, and be extremely questionable,
0:24:05 > 0:24:09as to why her partner left the scene of the incident.
0:24:09 > 0:24:13The motivation for the stolen keys story was to protect her partner,
0:24:13 > 0:24:17and to ensure that she wasn't out of pocket when it came to the repairs.
0:24:17 > 0:24:20It would appear from the circumstances, as we are led
0:24:20 > 0:24:22to believe by the police,
0:24:22 > 0:24:27that a payment would not have been honoured by Direct Line Group,
0:24:27 > 0:24:30if the true facts had been made at the time of the claim.
0:24:30 > 0:24:32But the truth did come out,
0:24:32 > 0:24:35and the police don't take kindly to being lied to.
0:24:35 > 0:24:38When we analyse what has occurred,
0:24:38 > 0:24:41you've got Miss Kitchen making a false statement of claim,
0:24:41 > 0:24:44which is fraud by false representation,
0:24:44 > 0:24:48and then you have the distraction of the police services themselves.
0:24:48 > 0:24:52Police resources are strapped at the best of times, and when they are
0:24:52 > 0:24:56distracted investigating malicious complaints,
0:24:56 > 0:24:59it is the genuine public that suffer,
0:24:59 > 0:25:03and those who are generally in need of the emergency services.
0:25:03 > 0:25:07In view of this, the decision was taken to prosecute the claimant.
0:25:07 > 0:25:11Miss Kitchen appeared before the Crown Court in December last year.
0:25:11 > 0:25:14She was given a 12-month community order,
0:25:14 > 0:25:19and also ordered to undertake 150 hours' unpaid work.
0:25:19 > 0:25:22It also entitles Miss Kitchen to be entered onto
0:25:22 > 0:25:24the insurance fraud register.
0:25:24 > 0:25:29The industry as a whole are entitled to search that register when
0:25:29 > 0:25:34considering risks when onboarding a policy holder.
0:25:34 > 0:25:37In other words, it could affect her chances of getting insurance,
0:25:37 > 0:25:39loans, or a mortgage.
0:25:39 > 0:25:44By concocting a key theft story, Miss Kitchen has paid a heavy price.
0:25:44 > 0:25:49Honesty is always the best policy, and, you know, think before you act.
0:25:51 > 0:25:55If your intentions are to deceit or defraud Direct Line Group,
0:25:55 > 0:25:57then all I will say is - be warned.
0:25:57 > 0:26:00We have the tactics, we have the methods, we have the skills,
0:26:00 > 0:26:02and the knowledge.
0:26:02 > 0:26:05You will be identified, and you will be held to account.
0:26:15 > 0:26:19Earlier on, we examined a case where a simple speed camera investigation
0:26:19 > 0:26:24led to the exposure of professional insurance fraudster, Jason Brown.
0:26:24 > 0:26:26Brown owned a claims management company,
0:26:26 > 0:26:28called Optimum Claim Solutions,
0:26:28 > 0:26:31that was proving to be involved in an array of fraudulent scams,
0:26:31 > 0:26:35including claims for accidents that were totally imaginary.
0:26:41 > 0:26:43Things weren't looking good for Brown.
0:26:43 > 0:26:45He was already in custody at Greater Manchester Police,
0:26:45 > 0:26:49when his solicitor turned up with arms full of evidence
0:26:49 > 0:26:51he thought would help the case.
0:26:51 > 0:26:54A bundle of files were left at the front desk.
0:26:54 > 0:27:00Because these files were left, I looked at them.
0:27:00 > 0:27:03And Graham didn't like what he saw.
0:27:03 > 0:27:06One of the cases involved in this fraud was this same Mercedes
0:27:06 > 0:27:09that had activated these speed cameras.
0:27:09 > 0:27:14This car had allegedly been involved in a collision, in Failsworth,
0:27:14 > 0:27:18what we call a three-car shunt, and the Mercedes was the fault car.
0:27:18 > 0:27:20And the person recorded as being the driver of the Mercedes at
0:27:20 > 0:27:22that time was the registered keeper.
0:27:22 > 0:27:25I knew, because I'd previously interviewed him,
0:27:25 > 0:27:28that he'd never had possession of that car, so straightaway,
0:27:28 > 0:27:31this accident was likely to be a fraudulent one.
0:27:31 > 0:27:34Another red flag was the high occupancy rate of the vehicles,
0:27:34 > 0:27:37in particular the first car, which was a people carrier.
0:27:37 > 0:27:39It's supposed to have had seven people in it, and I think
0:27:39 > 0:27:42there were seven claimants to the insurance company for
0:27:42 > 0:27:44personal injuries in relation to that vehicle.
0:27:44 > 0:27:47And there were another two personal injury claims
0:27:47 > 0:27:48from the middle vehicle.
0:27:48 > 0:27:51The more claims, the bigger the pay-out.
0:27:52 > 0:27:54As if this wasn't enough to discredit the claim,
0:27:54 > 0:27:57there was a final nail in the coffin.
0:27:57 > 0:27:59As it transpired in the inquiry,
0:27:59 > 0:28:02all three of those vehicles were insured by Jason Brown.
0:28:05 > 0:28:08Well, the whole job was clearly fraudulent.
0:28:10 > 0:28:13The three-car collision in Failsworth was another
0:28:13 > 0:28:15made-up accident, and, of course,
0:28:15 > 0:28:18the seven people claiming to be injured were full of lies, too.
0:28:20 > 0:28:22But it was just the tip of the iceberg.
0:28:22 > 0:28:24Graham recovered another 400 files from
0:28:24 > 0:28:27a residential address linked to Brown.
0:28:27 > 0:28:33The scale of the fraud was massive. Around £225,000.
0:28:33 > 0:28:36Another scam that Brown was pulling off was duping multiple insurers
0:28:36 > 0:28:40into paying for the same hire car to act as a replacement vehicle.
0:28:40 > 0:28:42One car appeared on numerous claims.
0:28:44 > 0:28:47That particular vehicle, on one occasion,
0:28:47 > 0:28:50was allegedly out on hire to two people at the same time.
0:28:50 > 0:28:53One of those, for the value,
0:28:53 > 0:28:57or the value put in to the insurance company, was £40,000 plus.
0:28:57 > 0:29:00The evidence was mounting substantially against
0:29:00 > 0:29:03Jason Brown, when Graham's investigations uncovered
0:29:03 > 0:29:07yet another accident that looked likely to be fictitious,
0:29:07 > 0:29:09this time involving two cars.
0:29:12 > 0:29:16One of the drivers was a man called Billy Barnett, who had also
0:29:16 > 0:29:20featured as a passenger in the previous Failsworth collision.
0:29:20 > 0:29:22Billy Barnett was Jason Brown's step-son.
0:29:25 > 0:29:28Graham managed to get hold of the original phone call between
0:29:28 > 0:29:30Billy Barnett and the insurance company.
0:29:53 > 0:29:55The most striking thing about the phone call
0:29:55 > 0:29:57is that it's not actually Barnett.
0:29:57 > 0:30:00It's Brown, pretending to be Barnett.
0:30:00 > 0:30:03My feelings are that he's just become over-confident
0:30:03 > 0:30:06with the fact that he can get away with it,
0:30:06 > 0:30:09so I think he felt brave in making this telephone conversation,
0:30:09 > 0:30:11and felt he could ad lib his way through it,
0:30:11 > 0:30:13but didn't think it through properly.
0:30:13 > 0:30:16Brown's arrogance also extended to the methods
0:30:16 > 0:30:19he used to recruit people to take part in his scam,
0:30:19 > 0:30:23revealed when Graham interviewed the alleged injured passengers.
0:30:23 > 0:30:28The majority said that they were recruited whilst they were
0:30:28 > 0:30:32out drinking in a pub, or stopped on the street.
0:30:32 > 0:30:35What they were saying is, yeah, they did commit the fraud,
0:30:35 > 0:30:39but they were recruited for it actively.
0:30:39 > 0:30:42The person doing the recruiting was Jason Brown.
0:30:42 > 0:30:46In the space of 12 months, Graham's work had mushroomed from
0:30:46 > 0:30:50a case of speeding fines into fraud on an exceptional scale.
0:30:51 > 0:30:54During the course of this investigation,
0:30:54 > 0:30:56I arrested 24 suspects.
0:30:56 > 0:31:03There were 154 statements taken, and around 1,000 exhibits.
0:31:03 > 0:31:05The ringleader, Jason Brown,
0:31:05 > 0:31:09and others who had played an active part, were brought to justice.
0:31:09 > 0:31:12There was no arguing with the evidence against them.
0:31:12 > 0:31:17Everybody that was charged with the fraud-related offences
0:31:17 > 0:31:18pleaded guilty.
0:31:18 > 0:31:23The judge came down hard on the ringleader of the £225,000 scam.
0:31:23 > 0:31:26Jason Brown, the main man in the inquiry,
0:31:26 > 0:31:29was sentenced to five years and two months.
0:31:29 > 0:31:32And every penny he dishonestly made will have to be returned.
0:31:34 > 0:31:37If he doesn't pay back the £200,000,
0:31:37 > 0:31:41then that will ultimately result in him serving an extra term of
0:31:41 > 0:31:45imprisonment, and the figure will remain with him for life.
0:31:45 > 0:31:48It was a fitting end to Graham's 30-year police career.
0:31:48 > 0:31:51He has since retired from the force.
0:31:51 > 0:31:54It was ultimately going to be me last inquiry.
0:31:54 > 0:31:57It didn't set out that way, when I first took the case,
0:31:57 > 0:32:00because I didn't think it was going to turn into what it did turn into.
0:32:00 > 0:32:04Were it not for the speed fines, Jason Brown might have got away with
0:32:04 > 0:32:08his scam for longer, but he didn't count on the determination
0:32:08 > 0:32:10of Graham and his team to bring him to justice.
0:32:16 > 0:32:20Now, everything is bigger in the US, nowhere more than in Texas,
0:32:20 > 0:32:22the Lone Star State.
0:32:22 > 0:32:24For Texan fraudsters,
0:32:24 > 0:32:27it's not enough to simply fake a personal injury.
0:32:27 > 0:32:29They go further.
0:32:29 > 0:32:30Much further.
0:32:39 > 0:32:42A few years ago, a tragic motor accident claimed the life of
0:32:42 > 0:32:45Clayton Daniels, husband of Molly Daniels.
0:32:48 > 0:32:52He died when his car burst into flames after leaving the road,
0:32:52 > 0:32:54and plummeting down a cliff.
0:32:57 > 0:32:59The fire was so intense
0:32:59 > 0:33:02that Clayton's body was burned beyond recognition.
0:33:03 > 0:33:06Molly and her two young children were left devastated.
0:33:10 > 0:33:15Luckily, Clayton had taken out a 110,000 life insurance policy,
0:33:15 > 0:33:18so Molly and the kids wouldn't have to struggle.
0:33:21 > 0:33:23In fact, far from going to pieces,
0:33:23 > 0:33:26Molly seemed to take the heartbreaking loss in her stride.
0:33:29 > 0:33:32A Texas Ranger, who spoke to her, noted that she was strangely calm
0:33:32 > 0:33:34throughout the interview,
0:33:34 > 0:33:37and, only a few weeks later, it emerged that Molly
0:33:37 > 0:33:42had embarked on a new relationship, with a man called Jake Gregg.
0:33:42 > 0:33:45But the new life Molly had created was a fiction,
0:33:45 > 0:33:48and the whole thing was about to crash and burn.
0:33:52 > 0:33:56Right from the start, there had been question marks about the accident.
0:33:56 > 0:33:58No skid marks had been found on the road,
0:33:58 > 0:34:01indicating that there had been no attempt to brake,
0:34:01 > 0:34:04and the fire that destroyed the car had originated in the
0:34:04 > 0:34:07driver's seat, not the fuel tank.
0:34:07 > 0:34:10What's more, it had been accelerated by lighter fluid.
0:34:14 > 0:34:16But what really brought the insurance claim to
0:34:16 > 0:34:19a dead halt was evidence from the body in the car.
0:34:20 > 0:34:23Investigators took one DNA sample from the corpse,
0:34:23 > 0:34:26and one from Clayton Daniels' mother.
0:34:26 > 0:34:29There should have been a match, but when the results came back,
0:34:29 > 0:34:31there was a shock in store.
0:34:31 > 0:34:34The body wasn't Daniels'.
0:34:36 > 0:34:39The police went back to search the new couple's home, and found a
0:34:39 > 0:34:43forged birth certificate and a fake driver's licence under the name
0:34:43 > 0:34:46Jacob Alexander Gregg.
0:34:46 > 0:34:48So, who was Molly's new man?
0:34:51 > 0:34:53Step forward...Clayton Daniels.
0:34:54 > 0:34:58The fiery car accident had been staged to get an insurance pay-out.
0:34:58 > 0:35:00Afterwards, Clayton had laid low,
0:35:00 > 0:35:05and then re-emerged with a different hairdo and a new identity,
0:35:05 > 0:35:08but that still left the question of the body in the car.
0:35:12 > 0:35:15And here's where things took a much darker turn.
0:35:17 > 0:35:21It turned out that Clayton had done the unthinkable -
0:35:21 > 0:35:24he had dug up the grave of an 81-year-old woman,
0:35:24 > 0:35:28called Charlotte Davis, who had been dead for six months.
0:35:28 > 0:35:31He had then dressed her body in his clothes, placed her in the car,
0:35:31 > 0:35:35set it alight, and then pushed it off the edge of the cliff.
0:35:38 > 0:35:40When police investigated Clayton further,
0:35:40 > 0:35:43it emerged that he was also wanted for skipping bail
0:35:43 > 0:35:46after pleading guilty to other serious crimes.
0:35:48 > 0:35:49Molly revealed her true colours
0:35:49 > 0:35:53when she tried to explain why they targeted Charlotte.
0:35:53 > 0:35:56According to her, "We felt, because she was older,
0:35:56 > 0:35:58"there would not be much family impact, if any."
0:36:01 > 0:36:05But the jury totally disagreed when the case went to trial.
0:36:07 > 0:36:10They awarded Molly the maximum sentence for her crimes,
0:36:10 > 0:36:1320 years behind bars.
0:36:13 > 0:36:17Clayton also received 20 years for insurance fraud, 15 years for arson,
0:36:17 > 0:36:21and ten for desecration of a cemetery, to be served concurrently.
0:36:29 > 0:36:31Coming home to find out that you've been broken into
0:36:31 > 0:36:33is always distressing.
0:36:33 > 0:36:37It is a horrible feeling, knowing someone has been inside your house.
0:36:37 > 0:36:40Taking out home insurance helps soften the blow,
0:36:40 > 0:36:41in case of a theft,
0:36:41 > 0:36:44and gives us the peace of mind that, if we're broken into,
0:36:44 > 0:36:48we'll be reimbursed financially, or any stolen items replaced.
0:36:52 > 0:36:55In October 2014, Lloyds Banking Group received a call from
0:36:55 > 0:36:57a customer called Paul Monday,
0:36:57 > 0:37:02who'd taken out contents insurance with them back in 2009.
0:37:02 > 0:37:05Paul was calling to let them know about a burglary at his property.
0:37:17 > 0:37:19David Berry, the technical fraud manager
0:37:19 > 0:37:22at Lloyds Banking Group was involved with the case.
0:37:24 > 0:37:26When we first had the claim presented to us
0:37:26 > 0:37:28everything looked perfectly in order,
0:37:28 > 0:37:31everything appeared to be genuinely stated, so to all intents
0:37:31 > 0:37:34and purposes, nothing at all looked wrong with the claim.
0:38:03 > 0:38:06So, basically, the sort of things you'd expect to find
0:38:06 > 0:38:08in a garden shed.
0:38:08 > 0:38:11However, there was one unusual item on the list of what was taken.
0:38:22 > 0:38:25Fair enough, not an everyday piece of sports equipment,
0:38:25 > 0:38:28but Paul Monday was claiming he had a monoski
0:38:28 > 0:38:29nicked from the back of his shed.
0:38:50 > 0:38:52Paul Monday was a happy customer.
0:38:52 > 0:38:54All his stolen tools would be covered
0:38:54 > 0:38:57and replaced with brand-new ones.
0:38:57 > 0:39:00However a few weeks later the team informed him
0:39:00 > 0:39:02that his monoski was not covered,
0:39:02 > 0:39:06as it needed a specialist sporting equipment policy
0:39:06 > 0:39:09and it was then that the tide started to turn.
0:39:09 > 0:39:12Monday suddenly seemed to remember a further item that had been
0:39:12 > 0:39:15stolen from his shed - a drill.
0:39:15 > 0:39:18When we explained that we couldn't cover the monoski,
0:39:18 > 0:39:21the customer asked us to consider the claim for the drill
0:39:21 > 0:39:23and explained, when we asked him why he hadn't told us
0:39:23 > 0:39:26about the drill previously, that he believed he'd already reached
0:39:26 > 0:39:29the limit of cover when actually he hadn't.
0:39:29 > 0:39:32It seemed plausible enough so the team asked Monday whether
0:39:32 > 0:39:35he had anything to prove his ownership of the drill
0:39:35 > 0:39:38and he responded by supplying a photo.
0:39:39 > 0:39:41But suspicions had been roused
0:39:41 > 0:39:46and the team bored down into the detail of the image of the drill.
0:39:46 > 0:39:49EXIF data or property data held on digital images
0:39:49 > 0:39:52is very simple to access.
0:39:52 > 0:39:56You click on the properties of the digital image and it will
0:39:56 > 0:40:00provide you with information such as the date on which the photo
0:40:00 > 0:40:03was taken, it will provide you with a time to the actual second,
0:40:03 > 0:40:06some of them will actually even provide you with the GPS
0:40:06 > 0:40:08location of where the photo was taken, as well.
0:40:10 > 0:40:13What they found out from analysing Paul Monday's drill photo
0:40:13 > 0:40:16opened up a massive hole in his story.
0:40:18 > 0:40:20It was absolutely key.
0:40:20 > 0:40:23It told us that the photograph had been presented and taken
0:40:23 > 0:40:27after the item was said to have been stolen.
0:40:27 > 0:40:31So, miraculously, Monday had managed to snap a shot of his drill
0:40:31 > 0:40:32after the burglary.
0:40:32 > 0:40:36The team confronted him with this evidence.
0:40:36 > 0:40:39The customer wasn't immediately able to explain that but after
0:40:39 > 0:40:43some further discussion he did actually admit to us that he'd
0:40:43 > 0:40:48taken a standard image from the internet, he'd presented it to us
0:40:48 > 0:40:51as the item that he had claimed for and he hadn't actually
0:40:51 > 0:40:54considered what the consequences of that might have been.
0:40:54 > 0:40:58And the consequences were really bad for this particular scammer.
0:40:58 > 0:41:02We explained to the customer that he had committed fraud in terms
0:41:02 > 0:41:06of the conditions of the policy and that the repercussion of that
0:41:06 > 0:41:09would mean that not only would we have to cancel the policy
0:41:09 > 0:41:14but we'd also have to seek the money back for sums we had paid
0:41:14 > 0:41:17for the replacement of the items that he'd already received.
0:41:17 > 0:41:19Paul Monday was less than impressed.
0:41:19 > 0:41:24The customer complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service
0:41:24 > 0:41:27and, in fact, the Ombudsman, on looking at all of the facts
0:41:27 > 0:41:28presented by both the customer
0:41:28 > 0:41:32and ourselves in terms of how we reach that decision, concluded that
0:41:32 > 0:41:36we had actually made a fair decision and that the claim shouldn't stand.
0:41:36 > 0:41:39Monday's objections had been overruled and he was instructed
0:41:39 > 0:41:42to play nearly £1,500 back to Lloyds -
0:41:42 > 0:41:45the value of all the new tools he had received.
0:41:46 > 0:41:48But it didn't end there.
0:41:48 > 0:41:52The case was referred to the City of London police's
0:41:52 > 0:41:54Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department
0:41:54 > 0:41:58and Monday found himself in front of a magistrates' court.
0:41:58 > 0:42:00He pleaded guilty in court to charges
0:42:00 > 0:42:05of fraud by false representation and as a result of that
0:42:05 > 0:42:07he received a 12-month conditional discharge.
0:42:07 > 0:42:11It may have been that Paul Monday's shed had genuinely been broken into,
0:42:11 > 0:42:15but by lying to his insurers and providing false evidence
0:42:15 > 0:42:18he's ended up owing them nearly £1,500
0:42:18 > 0:42:22and has a permanent criminal record to boot.
0:42:31 > 0:42:35Nobody likes paying more than we have to for everyday services,
0:42:35 > 0:42:38but this is exactly what's happening with insurance fraud.
0:42:38 > 0:42:41Scammers and conmen are swindling their way to pay-outs
0:42:41 > 0:42:42that they don't deserve.
0:42:42 > 0:42:45The knock-on effect is that the extra costs result in ever
0:42:45 > 0:42:47increasing premiums.
0:42:47 > 0:42:50We're getting hit in the pocket and it's not just organised
0:42:50 > 0:42:51criminal gangs to blame.
0:42:51 > 0:42:55Exaggerated household claims also take their toll.
0:42:55 > 0:42:57But instead of getting away with it,
0:42:57 > 0:43:01more and more of these fraudsters are being Claimed And Shamed.