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 is 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 > 0:00:33and every year it's adding around £50 to your insurance bill.
0:00:33 > 0:00:35But insurers are fighting back,
0:00:35 > 0:00:39exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.
0:00:39 > 0:00:41Armed with covert surveillance systems...
0:00:41 > 0:00:44The subject out of the vehicle.
0:00:44 > 0:00:46..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
0:00:49 > 0:00:51..and a number of highly skilled police units...
0:00:51 > 0:00:53Police! Stay where you are!
0:00:53 > 0:00:55..they are catching the criminals red-handed.
0:00:55 > 0:00:56Just don't lie to us.
0:00:58 > 0:01:01All those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle
0:01:01 > 0:01:04are now caught in the act and claimed and shamed.
0:01:10 > 0:01:16Today, the Met Police Traffic Unit hunt for a crash-for-cash suspect...
0:01:16 > 0:01:18One particular person that I'm looking for.
0:01:18 > 0:01:20If he's identified, then I will go and arrest him.
0:01:20 > 0:01:22I've a warrant...
0:01:22 > 0:01:24..a claimant's story falls apart...
0:01:33 > 0:01:37..and a trip-and-slip claim is grounded by CCTV.
0:01:37 > 0:01:40When we first saw the footage, you can't help but chuckle
0:01:40 > 0:01:43at its ridiculous attempts to invent a claim.
0:01:48 > 0:01:49Now, as we all know,
0:01:49 > 0:01:52when we get behind the wheel, driving does have its dangers.
0:01:52 > 0:01:57But one of the greatest risks on our roads are crash-for-cash gangs.
0:01:57 > 0:02:00They're ruthless, they're convincing and they don't care who gets hurt.
0:02:00 > 0:02:02Here's how it works.
0:02:03 > 0:02:07First, the gang choose a victim, then they move their two cars
0:02:07 > 0:02:10into position in front of the target.
0:02:10 > 0:02:13Gang car number one then slams on its brakes.
0:02:13 > 0:02:16Gang car two reacts by breaking hard,
0:02:16 > 0:02:19resulting in a rear-end shunt from the victim.
0:02:19 > 0:02:22Gang car one then turns off at the nearest possible exit,
0:02:22 > 0:02:25pretending to be unaware of the crash,
0:02:25 > 0:02:27leaving the victim supposedly at fault for the damage
0:02:27 > 0:02:29to gang car two.
0:02:29 > 0:02:33The gang then exaggerates the amount of damage and injury
0:02:33 > 0:02:35in order to get more compensation.
0:02:36 > 0:02:39It's so well practised that you might not even realise
0:02:39 > 0:02:43you've been a victim, but the police are fighting back.
0:02:43 > 0:02:46The Met's Roads & Transport Policing Unit
0:02:46 > 0:02:49has built its reputation on smashing organised criminal gangs
0:02:49 > 0:02:51operating crash-for-cash rings.
0:02:51 > 0:02:54In this next case they were approached by a large retailer.
0:02:54 > 0:02:57The company was concerned about a series of incidents
0:02:57 > 0:02:59involving their delivery vans.
0:03:03 > 0:03:05DI Dave Hindmarsh heads up the proactive team
0:03:05 > 0:03:07for the Traffic Command.
0:03:07 > 0:03:09This fraud first came to light
0:03:09 > 0:03:11by one of the well-known supermarkets...
0:03:11 > 0:03:13came to ourselves, the Met Police.
0:03:13 > 0:03:15They believed they had a problem
0:03:15 > 0:03:17with one of their distribution centres
0:03:17 > 0:03:20and the fact it has a disproportionate amount of collisions,
0:03:20 > 0:03:23which they now believed to be suspicious.
0:03:25 > 0:03:29But it soon became clear this was no ordinary crash-for-cash operation.
0:03:29 > 0:03:32Something strange was afoot.
0:03:32 > 0:03:36The suspicious collisions and claims were varied.
0:03:36 > 0:03:39There was the usual induced collision that we see quite a lot,
0:03:39 > 0:03:42with a vehicle running into the back of another.
0:03:42 > 0:03:44But there were also some other collisions
0:03:44 > 0:03:48which were vehicles reversing round corners into parked cars,
0:03:48 > 0:03:49which we hadn't seen before.
0:03:49 > 0:03:54So it was quite unusual to have two different sets of circumstances.
0:03:54 > 0:03:57Either way, a considerable amount of money was at stake.
0:03:57 > 0:03:59In terms of the claims that were coming in,
0:03:59 > 0:04:01they were for personal injury, whiplash,
0:04:01 > 0:04:03pre-accident value for the vehicle,
0:04:03 > 0:04:05credit hire for a replacement vehicle
0:04:05 > 0:04:08whilst the other one was being repaired or had been written off.
0:04:08 > 0:04:12They were averaging around about £20,000-£30,000 per claim.
0:04:12 > 0:04:15But as yet they didn't know how many bogus collisions
0:04:15 > 0:04:18they were dealing with or how to connect the main suspects.
0:04:18 > 0:04:21We were investigating this for some time
0:04:21 > 0:04:24and we were a bit confused because some of the links
0:04:24 > 0:04:26weren't there where we would expect them to be,
0:04:26 > 0:04:30and then there was a slight eureka moment by the officer involved
0:04:30 > 0:04:33in the case when we actually identified there were two gangs
0:04:33 > 0:04:36who had actually targeted the supermarket chain
0:04:36 > 0:04:38independent of each other,
0:04:38 > 0:04:43which was why we couldn't find links with every single person involved.
0:04:43 > 0:04:48We'd never come across two different gangs who weren't working
0:04:48 > 0:04:51with each other, didn't know about each other
0:04:51 > 0:04:52targeting the same victim.
0:04:52 > 0:04:55It was quite unusual from our point of view.
0:04:55 > 0:04:58This unprecedented coincidence explained the two different types
0:04:58 > 0:05:00of circumstances.
0:05:00 > 0:05:03The team then looked into the individuals associated
0:05:03 > 0:05:05with each group.
0:05:05 > 0:05:07One of the organised gangs,
0:05:07 > 0:05:10we identified the ringleader as Bashir Zairi.
0:05:10 > 0:05:12Zairi was an interesting character.
0:05:12 > 0:05:18In fact, he had used various derivatives of his name
0:05:18 > 0:05:22to become involved in what appeared to be about 100 collisions
0:05:22 > 0:05:30and, all told, he'd made about £279,000 out of those collisions.
0:05:30 > 0:05:32A breathtaking amount of money.
0:05:32 > 0:05:35The next step for DI Hindmarsh's team was to raid addresses
0:05:35 > 0:05:38they suspected were connected to Zairi
0:05:38 > 0:05:40and the raft of sham claims.
0:05:40 > 0:05:43We couldn't initially pin what address he resided at,
0:05:43 > 0:05:47so we decided we would execute some search warrants at two addresses
0:05:47 > 0:05:50in north London. Those addresses had been used significantly
0:05:50 > 0:05:54in a number of the collision claims, so it was a good place to start.
0:05:54 > 0:05:57The magistrates gave us two search warrants
0:05:57 > 0:05:59and we executed those both on the same day.
0:06:01 > 0:06:04So, early on the morning of 27th March, 2013,
0:06:04 > 0:06:08a squad of officers from the Met Police's Traffic Enforcement Department
0:06:08 > 0:06:09executed the two warrants.
0:06:11 > 0:06:15Dave's colleague, DC Anthony Recchia gives a briefing before the raid.
0:06:15 > 0:06:17We're going to divide into two teams,
0:06:17 > 0:06:20hit the two addresses, which are opposite each other.
0:06:20 > 0:06:23There's one particular person that I'm looking for.
0:06:23 > 0:06:24Bashir Zairi.
0:06:24 > 0:06:27If he's identified and he's there, then I will go and arrest him.
0:06:28 > 0:06:31Briefing over, the officers travel to the raid locations.
0:06:33 > 0:06:35Any operation comes with risks.
0:06:35 > 0:06:38They have no idea what they're going to find
0:06:38 > 0:06:40or who might be lying in wait.
0:06:40 > 0:06:42Still to come...
0:06:42 > 0:06:44I've got a warrant to search your address.
0:06:44 > 0:06:47..the Traffic Unit officers make a crucial discovery...
0:06:47 > 0:06:49In a nutshell, these two addresses
0:06:49 > 0:06:53are involved in about 100 fraudulent road traffic claims.
0:06:53 > 0:06:57..and a personal injury claimant's story doesn't stand up.
0:06:57 > 0:06:59We see a huge range of cases,
0:06:59 > 0:07:02and CCTV can sometimes be a little bit 50/50,
0:07:02 > 0:07:06but this was absolutely 100% compelling and damning.
0:07:12 > 0:07:15Photography is a pastime that's now easier than ever
0:07:15 > 0:07:17with smartphones and apps.
0:07:17 > 0:07:18But take a look at this.
0:07:21 > 0:07:25Did you know that muggins here contains a wealth of information,
0:07:25 > 0:07:26or metadata?
0:07:26 > 0:07:28For example, the date and time you took it
0:07:28 > 0:07:31to the location, down to the street name.
0:07:31 > 0:07:34It instantly puts fraud investigators in the picture
0:07:34 > 0:07:38and can be used to shoot down false claims.
0:07:41 > 0:07:44Simon Cook is the Head of Special Investigations at Cega,
0:07:44 > 0:07:48a company that deals with all sorts of travel insurance claims,
0:07:48 > 0:07:51from medical emergencies to mislaid gadgets.
0:07:51 > 0:07:56A customer contacted us to make a claim for a lost watch,
0:07:56 > 0:07:59which he unfortunately lost while swimming on holiday in France.
0:07:59 > 0:08:03The woman then went into detail about the circumstances of the loss.
0:08:30 > 0:08:33The customer told us that the incident happened on a Sunday.
0:08:33 > 0:08:36She also said that this was a triathlon watch,
0:08:36 > 0:08:40but she specifically made reference to not competing in a triathlon
0:08:40 > 0:08:42at the time of losing the watch.
0:09:14 > 0:09:16We thought that was extremely strange
0:09:16 > 0:09:18cos we hadn't even asked a question about that.
0:09:18 > 0:09:20Hey, there might have been a reason
0:09:20 > 0:09:22why she wanted to set the record straight.
0:09:22 > 0:09:25This is significant because the customer's policy
0:09:25 > 0:09:29doesn't provide cover if she was taking part in a race.
0:09:29 > 0:09:32To a fraud expert like Simon, it suggested that there was more
0:09:32 > 0:09:35going on than met the eye.
0:09:35 > 0:09:37As part of the standard claims procedure,
0:09:37 > 0:09:39we ask the customer to provide us
0:09:39 > 0:09:42with some form of proof-of-ownership documentation.
0:09:42 > 0:09:45We thought she probably should have had something to support the watch,
0:09:45 > 0:09:50as the actual item would be still within a 12-month warranty period.
0:09:50 > 0:09:53Not an unreasonable assumption for a top-of-the-range watch.
0:09:53 > 0:09:57The customer had a think about it and stated initially
0:09:57 > 0:09:59that she didn't have anything at all
0:09:59 > 0:10:01to support the ownership of the watch.
0:10:01 > 0:10:04However, it wasn't long before they heard from her again.
0:10:04 > 0:10:07In the meantime, things seem to have changed.
0:10:07 > 0:10:08After a short period of time,
0:10:08 > 0:10:11the customer sent us a completed claim form
0:10:11 > 0:10:15and she also sent us a photograph which actually showed the box,
0:10:15 > 0:10:18the guarantee and all other documents that related to the watch.
0:10:18 > 0:10:22This was the last thing Simon and the team were expecting.
0:10:22 > 0:10:24We thought that was particularly strange
0:10:24 > 0:10:28because the customer had made a specific point during the first call
0:10:28 > 0:10:30saying that she'd thrown away the box
0:10:30 > 0:10:33and all the other documents relating to its purchase.
0:10:33 > 0:10:35Although it seemed suspicious,
0:10:35 > 0:10:38it WAS possible that it could have been an old photo taken
0:10:38 > 0:10:41before the items were thrown away.
0:10:41 > 0:10:44There was only one way to find out.
0:10:44 > 0:10:48As part of our review, we check the properties, or metadata,
0:10:48 > 0:10:52of the photograph and noted that the photograph had in fact been taken
0:10:52 > 0:10:53after the incident date
0:10:53 > 0:10:56and it had been taken at a different address
0:10:56 > 0:10:58to the customer's home address.
0:10:58 > 0:11:01Now, either the customer had access to a time machine
0:11:01 > 0:11:04or her story was seriously off track.
0:11:04 > 0:11:07This is when the claim was referred to our Special Investigations Unit.
0:11:09 > 0:11:12They wasted no time looking into what the customer was doing
0:11:12 > 0:11:15on what day during her French break.
0:11:15 > 0:11:17We decided to conduct some internet research,
0:11:17 > 0:11:22which quickly found the customer's name as listed as competing
0:11:22 > 0:11:25in a race in France at the time she claimed she'd lost the watch,
0:11:25 > 0:11:28and therefore the watch must have been lost at the time
0:11:28 > 0:11:30she was in the triathlon.
0:11:30 > 0:11:34This completely contradicted what the customer had told Cega.
0:11:34 > 0:11:37The fact the customer specifically told us she wasn't taking part
0:11:37 > 0:11:40in a triathlon tends to support that she knew
0:11:40 > 0:11:42she wouldn't be covered for this incident.
0:11:42 > 0:11:46No cover meant she wouldn't have been entitled to a pay-out.
0:11:46 > 0:11:48It looked as though the claim had run its course,
0:11:48 > 0:11:50but Cega needed to be sure.
0:11:52 > 0:11:55Based on the level of evidence we had obtained,
0:11:55 > 0:11:57we decided we were going to need to speak with the customer
0:11:57 > 0:11:59by way of telephone interview.
0:11:59 > 0:12:02They started by asking the claimant what should have been
0:12:02 > 0:12:05an easy question - the date of the loss.
0:12:05 > 0:12:09At this point, the customer had in fact given a different date
0:12:09 > 0:12:12to the date that she originally provided to us
0:12:12 > 0:12:14during the initial call.
0:12:52 > 0:12:55We challenged the customer on this particular point,
0:12:55 > 0:12:56regarding the date,
0:12:56 > 0:12:58and the call went particularly quiet.
0:13:00 > 0:13:02It was a straightforward question
0:13:02 > 0:13:06and yet the claimant struggled to give a straight answer.
0:13:06 > 0:13:08For fraud experts like Simon and his team,
0:13:08 > 0:13:10umming, ahing and pausing
0:13:10 > 0:13:13are classic signs of someone trying to buy time.
0:13:13 > 0:13:14If a story is genuine,
0:13:14 > 0:13:18then there's no reason for a claimant to be hesitant.
0:13:18 > 0:13:19Things had started badly
0:13:19 > 0:13:21and unfortunately for our claimant here,
0:13:21 > 0:13:24they only got worse when she was asked about the photograph.
0:14:07 > 0:14:09After further deliberation,
0:14:09 > 0:14:11she stated her husband's friend
0:14:11 > 0:14:15had probably taken the photograph of his own watch
0:14:15 > 0:14:18to give to her in order to support her claim.
0:14:52 > 0:14:56It was now clear that the watch claim's days were numbered.
0:14:56 > 0:15:01The customer clearly misrepresented the facts about her participating
0:15:01 > 0:15:02in the triathlon.
0:15:02 > 0:15:03In addition to this,
0:15:03 > 0:15:07she had provided us with false information regarding the photograph
0:15:07 > 0:15:08she had sent us.
0:15:08 > 0:15:11And she had nothing to say for herself when she was confronted
0:15:11 > 0:15:12with her dishonesty.
0:15:37 > 0:15:40She'd admitted that she had been less than honest
0:15:40 > 0:15:43and this cast doubt on her entire story.
0:15:43 > 0:15:46This could have had very serious consequences.
0:15:46 > 0:15:50Cega had no choice but to call time on the watch claim.
0:15:50 > 0:15:53We declined the claim and invoked the relevant fraud condition on the policy
0:15:53 > 0:15:56and we didn't ever hear from the customer again.
0:15:56 > 0:15:59To be perfectly honest, I would have been amazed if we had heard from her.
0:16:04 > 0:16:08Most of us wouldn't dream of getting behind the wheel
0:16:08 > 0:16:09without insurance,
0:16:09 > 0:16:11but lots of people think differently.
0:16:11 > 0:16:13It's estimated that there are
0:16:13 > 0:16:16one million uninsured vehicles in the UK.
0:16:16 > 0:16:18And hit-and-run accidents are on the rise.
0:16:18 > 0:16:21If you've been the victim of a hit-and-run driver,
0:16:21 > 0:16:22well, you're not on your own.
0:16:22 > 0:16:27You can apply for compensation to the Motor Insurers' Bureau, or MIB.
0:16:29 > 0:16:33Such applications are subject to a set of strict guidelines.
0:16:33 > 0:16:36The MIB's Head of Technical is Paul Ryman-Tubb.
0:16:36 > 0:16:39One of the rules within the agreement
0:16:39 > 0:16:42relating to hit-and-run accidents is that the claim has to be made to MIB
0:16:42 > 0:16:44within three years.
0:16:44 > 0:16:49The majority of victims make a claim soon after an accident occurs.
0:16:49 > 0:16:51But there are some exceptions.
0:16:51 > 0:16:56We received first notification of this claim, February 2013.
0:16:56 > 0:16:59The claim form described an accident in August 2010.
0:16:59 > 0:17:02It had happened two and a half years before,
0:17:02 > 0:17:04meaning it was still within the three-year limit.
0:17:04 > 0:17:06So, within the claim form,
0:17:06 > 0:17:08Simon Rule said that he was crossing the road
0:17:08 > 0:17:11when he was hit by a vehicle that then left the scene of the accident,
0:17:11 > 0:17:14leaving him with some very serious injuries.
0:17:14 > 0:17:16With the claimant being so badly hurt,
0:17:16 > 0:17:20the potential cost of compensation was considerable.
0:17:20 > 0:17:22The claim could have been worth several hundred thousand pounds,
0:17:22 > 0:17:24possibly up to £1 million.
0:17:24 > 0:17:27According to the claimant, in the period since the accident,
0:17:27 > 0:17:31his condition hadn't improved.
0:17:31 > 0:17:34Two and a half years later, he was saying that he was still suffering
0:17:34 > 0:17:37significantly from the injuries.
0:17:37 > 0:17:38He was still facing surgery
0:17:38 > 0:17:41and still needed considerable care and assistance.
0:17:41 > 0:17:44Since the claim had been made within the three-year time limit,
0:17:44 > 0:17:46everything appeared to be in order.
0:17:46 > 0:17:49We had no reason to doubt the claim at all at this stage.
0:17:49 > 0:17:53We receive lots of claims involving hit-and-run drivers
0:17:53 > 0:17:55and this was just another claim that we received.
0:17:55 > 0:17:59If, on an investigation, we had been satisfied that it was caused
0:17:59 > 0:18:01by the hit-and-run driver,
0:18:01 > 0:18:04then we would have been paying compensation to Mr Rule.
0:18:04 > 0:18:08But that's a big if. An investigation was duly launched.
0:18:08 > 0:18:11One of the first things that we do on almost every case
0:18:11 > 0:18:14is apply for a copy of the police report.
0:18:14 > 0:18:16That gives us really important information,
0:18:16 > 0:18:20normally taken at the time or thereabouts, of the accident
0:18:20 > 0:18:23and independently verifying exactly what's happened.
0:18:23 > 0:18:26The response was cause for major concern.
0:18:26 > 0:18:29The information that we received from the police
0:18:29 > 0:18:31was alarmingly different to what we were being told.
0:18:31 > 0:18:36What it was describing was an incident where Mr Rule's car
0:18:36 > 0:18:38started to roll down a hill
0:18:38 > 0:18:41because he hadn't set the handbrake correctly and,
0:18:41 > 0:18:43in an attempt to stop it rolling away,
0:18:43 > 0:18:45he was injured by his own vehicle.
0:18:45 > 0:18:47He had effectively run himself over.
0:18:47 > 0:18:51And there was no mention of another driver or a hit-and-run.
0:18:51 > 0:18:54What's more, the incident happened much earlier than claimed.
0:18:55 > 0:18:59Exactly a year before the accident that was reported to us.
0:18:59 > 0:19:02Meaning it had happened three and a half years previously,
0:19:02 > 0:19:04and was therefore outside the time limit.
0:19:05 > 0:19:09So he had lied about the date, he had lied about the circumstances,
0:19:09 > 0:19:11and he had lied about running himself over.
0:19:11 > 0:19:15Something tells me nothing about this claim was true.
0:19:15 > 0:19:17We wrote to the claimant's solicitors,
0:19:17 > 0:19:20explaining firstly that it was out of time, and secondly,
0:19:20 > 0:19:24that the circumstances were very different to those claimed
0:19:24 > 0:19:25on the claim form,
0:19:25 > 0:19:30and in fact it would appear that the incident was entirely Mr Rule's fault.
0:19:30 > 0:19:32The claim was rejected and, predictably,
0:19:32 > 0:19:35they heard nothing more from the solicitors.
0:19:35 > 0:19:37But the MIB weren't prepared to park the case.
0:19:37 > 0:19:40They passed the details to the police.
0:19:40 > 0:19:45We were then contacted by an officer investigating the potential fraud,
0:19:45 > 0:19:48who told us that, on initial discussions with Mr Rule,
0:19:48 > 0:19:50he denied making a claim to MIB at all.
0:19:50 > 0:19:55But there could be no doubt that Mr Rule had attempted to make a claim.
0:19:55 > 0:19:57We were quite surprised to hear that he was denying making a claim.
0:19:57 > 0:20:01He had signed a claim form and sent it into us via his solicitors.
0:20:01 > 0:20:05To make absolutely sure, the form was sent to forensics.
0:20:05 > 0:20:08They had carried out some analysis of the claim form,
0:20:08 > 0:20:10found Mr Rule's fingerprints on it
0:20:10 > 0:20:13and so they were continuing with their prosecution.
0:20:13 > 0:20:17He was brought to justice and ended up with a suspended sentence
0:20:17 > 0:20:21of two years and ordered to pay a fine of £600 and court costs.
0:20:21 > 0:20:24And there was a further irony.
0:20:24 > 0:20:26It later transpired that Mr Rule's vehicle
0:20:26 > 0:20:29should never have been on the road in the first place,
0:20:29 > 0:20:30because it was in fact uninsured.
0:20:30 > 0:20:32We, in fact, have received claims
0:20:32 > 0:20:35from the owners of some of the parked vehicles that it hit
0:20:35 > 0:20:36as it rolled down the road.
0:20:36 > 0:20:39For Paul Ryman-Tubb, the biggest concern
0:20:39 > 0:20:41is the knock-on effect of fraud.
0:20:41 > 0:20:46MIB and insurers have to put time and resource and effort
0:20:46 > 0:20:50into investigating fraudulent claims.
0:20:50 > 0:20:51All of that resource could, of course,
0:20:51 > 0:20:54be better spent compensating genuine victims.
0:21:02 > 0:21:03Still to come...
0:21:05 > 0:21:08Fraudsters can no longer walk away from false claims.
0:21:08 > 0:21:10Where we do get an award for damages,
0:21:10 > 0:21:14we will look to go after a fraudster's assets,
0:21:14 > 0:21:17his home, his car, even an attachment to earnings
0:21:17 > 0:21:19for those that actually do work.
0:21:19 > 0:21:22And a woman pays a high price for her greed.
0:21:22 > 0:21:25This is a case where we have a lady
0:21:25 > 0:21:28who is of a reasonable standing in the community.
0:21:28 > 0:21:29She now has a tarnished record.
0:21:35 > 0:21:39Earlier, the Met's Roads & Policing Unit were investigating
0:21:39 > 0:21:43a suspected crash-for-cash fraudster called Bashir Zairi.
0:21:43 > 0:21:46They are now ready to move in and put a stop to his scam.
0:21:48 > 0:21:52Two addresses. One of the premises is a semidetached house.
0:21:52 > 0:21:55It's just a car park on the left here.
0:21:55 > 0:21:57And the other premises is one of these flats in here.
0:21:57 > 0:21:59It's 7am when they arrive,
0:21:59 > 0:22:05and both of the addresses are hit simultaneously.
0:22:05 > 0:22:06Good morning.
0:22:06 > 0:22:07Police.
0:22:07 > 0:22:09Morning, police. Let us in?
0:22:09 > 0:22:11We've got a warrant to search your address.
0:22:11 > 0:22:13Go upstairs. Go.
0:22:13 > 0:22:15At both locations, the inhabitants cooperate
0:22:15 > 0:22:17and allow the officers entry.
0:22:17 > 0:22:21We'll just have a quick look, and if I'm happy that it's safe,
0:22:21 > 0:22:23we will let you get up and get dressed on your own, is that OK?
0:22:23 > 0:22:26Unfortunately, there's no sign of the main suspect.
0:22:26 > 0:22:28The person we're looking for is not present.
0:22:28 > 0:22:30But other people are.
0:22:30 > 0:22:33There is correspondence which relates to that person
0:22:33 > 0:22:35that we're looking for the premises,
0:22:35 > 0:22:37so we are just going to start our search now.
0:22:37 > 0:22:38With Zairi not present,
0:22:38 > 0:22:40the success of the raid rests
0:22:40 > 0:22:43on whether the team can find documentary evidence
0:22:43 > 0:22:45to strengthen the case against him.
0:22:45 > 0:22:47Hello? All right.
0:22:47 > 0:22:50Police officer. Anyone else in this room with you?
0:22:50 > 0:22:53We are looking for any documentation relating to the claims.
0:22:53 > 0:22:56That could be physical documentation, bits of paper,
0:22:56 > 0:23:01it may well be e-mails or documents that have been stored digitally,
0:23:01 > 0:23:04so that could well be on laptops or computers.
0:23:04 > 0:23:06So far, the search has turned up
0:23:06 > 0:23:09lots of potential pieces of evidence.
0:23:09 > 0:23:1120 minutes into the raid, DI Hindmarsh
0:23:11 > 0:23:14has made an important discovery.
0:23:14 > 0:23:16We've identified another address,
0:23:16 > 0:23:18which officers are just on their way to now,
0:23:18 > 0:23:19to find hopefully our subject.
0:23:19 > 0:23:21If all goes well,
0:23:21 > 0:23:23they will soon have their main suspect
0:23:23 > 0:23:26and several sacks of evidence.
0:23:26 > 0:23:30We've seized all the media equipment, laptops, computers,
0:23:30 > 0:23:33mobile telephones, because that will assist us.
0:23:33 > 0:23:38In a nutshell, these two addresses are involved in about 100 fraudulent
0:23:38 > 0:23:42- road traffic claims.- With the search over, the officers return to base.
0:23:43 > 0:23:45The evidence collected on the raid
0:23:45 > 0:23:47meant that they could prove the connection
0:23:47 > 0:23:49between the properties and Zairi,
0:23:49 > 0:23:52even when he was using a slightly different identity.
0:23:52 > 0:23:55Because they were derivatives of his name,
0:23:55 > 0:23:57it could have been open to him to say that that was not him.
0:23:58 > 0:24:00But the paper documents,
0:24:00 > 0:24:05they proved the link with Mr Zairi to those addresses.
0:24:05 > 0:24:08It was exactly what the team had set out to find.
0:24:08 > 0:24:13In terms of the two raids, they were very successful.
0:24:13 > 0:24:16The fact that we managed to recover some significant evidence.
0:24:16 > 0:24:19And there was also a result for the officers trailing Zairi.
0:24:19 > 0:24:22We were able to find another address in North London
0:24:22 > 0:24:25that a couple of our uniformed colleagues who were present with us,
0:24:25 > 0:24:29who left for that address and were able to arrest and detain Bashir
0:24:29 > 0:24:31that morning. So it was a good bit of work.
0:24:32 > 0:24:35But this was just the start.
0:24:35 > 0:24:37It takes years, unfortunately,
0:24:37 > 0:24:42from the inception of a case and the conclusion at the court.
0:24:42 > 0:24:44In the months and years that followed the raid,
0:24:44 > 0:24:47Dave and his team worked steadily to build a case against Zairi.
0:24:48 > 0:24:50It transpired that he had attempted
0:24:50 > 0:24:53to gain a considerable amount of money.
0:24:53 > 0:24:58He had claimed about £313,000
0:24:58 > 0:25:03but actually only got around £279,000 himself.
0:25:03 > 0:25:05Zairi eventually appeared at court
0:25:05 > 0:25:09and all the hard work that had been put into the investigation paid off.
0:25:09 > 0:25:14He pleaded guilty. He realised that the evidence against him
0:25:14 > 0:25:15was overwhelming.
0:25:15 > 0:25:18Taking into account how much money he'd tried to claim,
0:25:18 > 0:25:19the judge came down hard.
0:25:22 > 0:25:25Mr Zairi was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
0:25:26 > 0:25:28A significant custodial period
0:25:28 > 0:25:31and something that is becoming more common.
0:25:31 > 0:25:33The courts have become more alive
0:25:33 > 0:25:38to induced commissions and the sentencing has started to go up.
0:25:38 > 0:25:41This is down to the realisation that crash for cash
0:25:41 > 0:25:45- isn't just about the money. - There is also the human cost.
0:25:45 > 0:25:47People are going out there, causing crashes.
0:25:47 > 0:25:50They do not know what the outcome is going to be.
0:25:50 > 0:25:54Someone could be seriously injured or, in fact, killed.
0:25:54 > 0:25:55With Zairi behind bars,
0:25:55 > 0:25:58the force is in the process of recovering the money
0:25:58 > 0:25:59that was paid out.
0:26:00 > 0:26:03There could have been serious consequences
0:26:03 > 0:26:06if the supermarket hadn't realised something was wrong.
0:26:06 > 0:26:10Had they not noticed the issue and come to the Met Police,
0:26:10 > 0:26:12then that would have continued,
0:26:12 > 0:26:14and who knows where it would have led to?
0:26:24 > 0:26:27Now, like most people, I am guilty of having a good old moan
0:26:27 > 0:26:30about health and safety. But at the end of the day,
0:26:30 > 0:26:31it's there to protect us.
0:26:31 > 0:26:34And if we are injured because our employers
0:26:34 > 0:26:37haven't provided a safe working environment, then it's right
0:26:37 > 0:26:39that we are entitled to compensation.
0:26:39 > 0:26:42But it's wrong when this is exploited by fraudsters.
0:26:49 > 0:26:53Scott Clayton is Zurich's claims fraud and investigations manager
0:26:53 > 0:26:57and he recently dealt with a workplace injury case.
0:26:57 > 0:26:59The claim that we received from Ms Quansah-Okoe
0:26:59 > 0:27:00was in respect of personal injury.
0:27:00 > 0:27:04She claimed that she fell within the canteen of Lambeth College
0:27:04 > 0:27:07on what she says was a wet floor.
0:27:07 > 0:27:10According to her, this was no mere stumble.
0:27:10 > 0:27:13The injury was quite serious that she was telling us she suffered.
0:27:13 > 0:27:18It was soft tissue injuries, damage to her wrist, leg, ankle and,
0:27:18 > 0:27:21believe it or not, she actually said that she had chipped a tooth.
0:27:21 > 0:27:23The claimant alleged she had required
0:27:23 > 0:27:26a considerable amount of treatment.
0:27:26 > 0:27:28Ms Quansah-Okoe suggested that she had been to hospital
0:27:28 > 0:27:29straight after the accident.
0:27:29 > 0:27:32She was off work for two or three weeks,
0:27:32 > 0:27:35and she had six bouts of physiotherapy treatment.
0:27:35 > 0:27:38All this added up to a tidy sum.
0:27:38 > 0:27:42We estimated the claim to be worth in the region of £8,000.
0:27:42 > 0:27:44So quite a considerable sum of money.
0:27:44 > 0:27:47But then again, she was saying that she was considerably injured.
0:27:47 > 0:27:49With so much money on the line,
0:27:49 > 0:27:51the claimant was asked to provide more detail
0:27:51 > 0:27:54about how the accident had actually happened.
0:27:54 > 0:27:56She mentioned that the floor was wet,
0:27:56 > 0:27:58and she only noticed that the floor was wet
0:27:58 > 0:28:01when she actually felt the wetness on her dress.
0:28:01 > 0:28:05So she was saying that the college canteen floor was wet
0:28:05 > 0:28:08and that caused her to slip and be injured.
0:28:08 > 0:28:10According to her version of events,
0:28:10 > 0:28:13the college had been negligent and was therefore liable.
0:28:13 > 0:28:16On the surface, this looked like a claim that, certainly,
0:28:16 > 0:28:19we would consider paying, because of the nature of the injuries,
0:28:19 > 0:28:20and what caused them.
0:28:20 > 0:28:23What made this case different was that Lambeth College,
0:28:23 > 0:28:28when they submitted the claim, also enclosed some CCTV footage.
0:28:28 > 0:28:30The footage changed everything.
0:28:31 > 0:28:35Once the insurance company had looked at the CCTV
0:28:35 > 0:28:38and looked at what Ms Quansah-Okoe was claiming,
0:28:38 > 0:28:39they had obvious concerns,
0:28:39 > 0:28:43so they passed the claim on to IFED for investigation.
0:28:43 > 0:28:45IFED is the City of London Police's
0:28:45 > 0:28:48insurance fraud enforcement department,
0:28:48 > 0:28:50headed up by DCI Oli Little.
0:28:50 > 0:28:52He reviewed the footage.
0:28:52 > 0:28:54I think, given the injuries that she is claiming for,
0:28:54 > 0:28:57we would expect to see someone at least lose their footing
0:28:57 > 0:28:58really suddenly and fall down.
0:28:58 > 0:29:01One of those ones where you look at it and you go, "Ooh!
0:29:01 > 0:29:04"That must have hurt." But there is nothing like that here.
0:29:04 > 0:29:07And judging by the injuries, she has given herself quite a battering.
0:29:07 > 0:29:09So the fact that she said she chipped a tooth,
0:29:09 > 0:29:12she must have slammed her face on the floor.
0:29:12 > 0:29:15That sort of footage isn't normally that pleasant to watch.
0:29:15 > 0:29:18What we did see was something entirely different.
0:29:18 > 0:29:22So different that it completely turned the case on its head.
0:29:22 > 0:29:26She walks into the canteen fairly briskly.
0:29:26 > 0:29:30Then she notices that the chap's mopping the floor.
0:29:30 > 0:29:33So what she's probably done, in my opinion,
0:29:33 > 0:29:36is that during that period of time when she slows down,
0:29:36 > 0:29:37she's thought herself,
0:29:37 > 0:29:41"Here's an opportunity for me to invent an incident
0:29:41 > 0:29:42"and claim compensation."
0:29:44 > 0:29:46And that's where the idea's come into her head.
0:29:46 > 0:29:49And, as you can see, she approaches that post.
0:29:50 > 0:29:54The bags come down really carefully, down to the knees,
0:29:54 > 0:29:56and then there's that sort of final flourish at the end.
0:29:56 > 0:29:59That's nothing like what you would expect to see
0:29:59 > 0:30:03if somebody's got injuries head to toe, broken teeth,
0:30:03 > 0:30:05it's just complete invention.
0:30:05 > 0:30:09The footage completely undermined the case and her credibility.
0:30:09 > 0:30:11When we first saw the footage,
0:30:11 > 0:30:15you can't help but chuckle at its ridiculous attempts
0:30:15 > 0:30:17to invent a claim.
0:30:17 > 0:30:20But there was a serious side to the situation, too.
0:30:20 > 0:30:22The CCTV was absolutely crucial
0:30:22 > 0:30:24because it told us exactly what happened
0:30:24 > 0:30:27and, in effect, demonstrated that it was a fraudulent claim.
0:30:27 > 0:30:29As far as Zurich was concerned,
0:30:29 > 0:30:33her chance of a pay-out was now absolutely zero.
0:30:33 > 0:30:37So, we shared the footage with her solicitors
0:30:37 > 0:30:40and the claim was discontinued.
0:30:40 > 0:30:42But the consequences didn't end there.
0:30:42 > 0:30:46If Ms Quansah-Okoe thought she could just walk away from the claim,
0:30:46 > 0:30:48she was wrong.
0:30:48 > 0:30:50Such was the ridiculous nature of this claim
0:30:50 > 0:30:52and the evidence that we had,
0:30:52 > 0:30:55we felt this was definitely a good case to refer to IFED.
0:30:55 > 0:31:00IFED agreed, and decided to pay the claimant a little visit.
0:31:00 > 0:31:03When we arrested Ms Quansah-Okoe, I think she was quite shocked.
0:31:03 > 0:31:05Maybe she thought, like a lot of people do,
0:31:05 > 0:31:08"What's the worst that can happen if I put this claim in?
0:31:08 > 0:31:11"They will just say no." She didn't expect to get arrested.
0:31:11 > 0:31:14She didn't expect to get interviewed by the police.
0:31:14 > 0:31:16But that's exactly what happened.
0:31:16 > 0:31:19Ms Quansah-Okoe was eventually charged
0:31:19 > 0:31:21with fraud by false representation.
0:31:21 > 0:31:26You would have thought that she may have decided that the game was up,
0:31:26 > 0:31:29but, no, undeterred, she proceeded right through a criminal trial.
0:31:29 > 0:31:32The case was heard at the Old Bailey.
0:31:32 > 0:31:37She pled not guilty, despite the overwhelming evidence against her.
0:31:37 > 0:31:42With her star turn caught on CCTV, the outcome was never in doubt.
0:31:42 > 0:31:45And a jury found her guilty and she was sentenced
0:31:45 > 0:31:47to 80 hours' community service
0:31:47 > 0:31:50and ordered to pay £500 towards the cost of running the case.
0:31:50 > 0:31:53Perhaps she'll spend that doing some mopping.
0:31:53 > 0:31:55Or perhaps working on her acting skills.
0:31:56 > 0:31:58We see a huge range of cases,
0:31:58 > 0:32:01and CCTV can sometimes be a little bit 50/50,
0:32:01 > 0:32:06but this was absolutely 100% compelling and damning.
0:32:06 > 0:32:08Insurers like Zurich are determined
0:32:08 > 0:32:10to put a stop to the compensation culture.
0:32:10 > 0:32:13For us, it was the conviction that mattered,
0:32:13 > 0:32:17because it sends a message that people who try and invent these type
0:32:17 > 0:32:20of incidents to claim compensation should be warned that,
0:32:20 > 0:32:21if you're caught,
0:32:21 > 0:32:23then you end up feeling the full force of the law.
0:32:28 > 0:32:30Now, in normal circumstances,
0:32:30 > 0:32:33fraudsters wanting to submit fake accident claims
0:32:33 > 0:32:36have to shell out for actual motor policies.
0:32:36 > 0:32:39These upfront costs can be a deterrent in themselves,
0:32:39 > 0:32:43so free cover is particularly appealing to scammers.
0:32:43 > 0:32:46This is especially true of drive-away policies.
0:32:49 > 0:32:52These policies allow scammers to claim pay-outs for accidents
0:32:52 > 0:32:55that never happened involving cars they never owned.
0:32:57 > 0:33:00Sarah Hill is the head of fraud at lawyers BLM.
0:33:00 > 0:33:06You could take out seven days' free comprehensive motor insurance cover,
0:33:06 > 0:33:08which would allow you to, for instance,
0:33:08 > 0:33:12if you are purchasing a new vehicle, obtain that vehicle, be covered,
0:33:12 > 0:33:14insured on it to drive it away.
0:33:14 > 0:33:17And that was on the basis that you would then go on
0:33:17 > 0:33:20- to look for a full quote. - In other words,
0:33:20 > 0:33:23the seven-day policies function as a type of marketing tool,
0:33:23 > 0:33:25not unlike a free sample.
0:33:27 > 0:33:29Tom Gardiner is the head of fraud at Aviva,
0:33:29 > 0:33:32one of the insurers providing this type of product.
0:33:33 > 0:33:36When the data surrounding some of these seven-day policies
0:33:36 > 0:33:39was analysed, his team noticed an alarming trend.
0:33:40 > 0:33:44The initial thing that alerted us to this case was our claim centre
0:33:44 > 0:33:49noticed that the same person was reporting multiple claims.
0:33:49 > 0:33:52We then quickly went on to link other claims
0:33:52 > 0:33:54to the same telephone number,
0:33:54 > 0:33:56e-mail address and credit card.
0:33:56 > 0:33:59It turned out a whole network of people was involved.
0:33:59 > 0:34:03Suspicions were also raised because the accidents all happened
0:34:03 > 0:34:05within the brief, seven-day timeframe.
0:34:05 > 0:34:08Obviously very unlikely that the same person
0:34:08 > 0:34:10would have so many accidents
0:34:10 > 0:34:12in such a short space of time.
0:34:12 > 0:34:16Either they were incredibly unlucky, or there was something more sinister
0:34:16 > 0:34:19going on. When they took a closer look at the accidents,
0:34:19 > 0:34:22they made a startling discovery.
0:34:22 > 0:34:24This was all just a paper exercise.
0:34:24 > 0:34:27No accidents had taken place.
0:34:27 > 0:34:28They were all fabricated.
0:34:28 > 0:34:30This is how it worked -
0:34:30 > 0:34:31claims would be submitted
0:34:31 > 0:34:34where a car insured on a seven-day policy was
0:34:34 > 0:34:36said to have gone into the back of another.
0:34:36 > 0:34:40The driver of the other car would then claim compensation
0:34:40 > 0:34:43for personal injury on the free seven-day policy.
0:34:43 > 0:34:47And the bill for the fraudulent claim was footed by the insurers.
0:34:47 > 0:34:50Not only were the accidents fake,
0:34:50 > 0:34:53the gang had never owned the cars involved.
0:34:53 > 0:34:57They would be identifying genuine vehicles.
0:34:57 > 0:34:58They just didn't belong to them.
0:34:59 > 0:35:02Instead, they sourced registration numbers
0:35:02 > 0:35:05from car auction websites and lied to the insurers,
0:35:05 > 0:35:07saying they owned they cars when they didn't.
0:35:09 > 0:35:12The free policies meant there was no initial financial outlay,
0:35:12 > 0:35:15so there was nothing to stop them making more claims,
0:35:15 > 0:35:17mostly for whiplash.
0:35:17 > 0:35:2073 claims in total for injury and damage
0:35:20 > 0:35:23were presented to the insurance company.
0:35:23 > 0:35:26What would have been paid out if these claims had been genuine
0:35:26 > 0:35:28was in the region of £500,000.
0:35:28 > 0:35:31They had tried to cover their tracks
0:35:31 > 0:35:33by using stolen identities and credit cards,
0:35:33 > 0:35:36but inevitably, there were loose ends.
0:35:36 > 0:35:38They were all purporting to be different individuals,
0:35:38 > 0:35:40yet you would have the same credit card
0:35:40 > 0:35:42being used to set those policies,
0:35:42 > 0:35:43which is very unusual.
0:35:43 > 0:35:46Interestingly, the same e-mail address
0:35:46 > 0:35:50between the non-fault parties and the fault parties.
0:35:50 > 0:35:52We even had, on one accident,
0:35:52 > 0:35:56the same address being used across two different policies,
0:35:56 > 0:36:00so there was lots of things to link all of the accidents together.
0:36:00 > 0:36:02Since the fraudsters didn't own the cars
0:36:02 > 0:36:03and the accidents never happened,
0:36:03 > 0:36:08Tom's team were able to identify and stop the suspect claims.
0:36:08 > 0:36:10Despite the fact that we had avoided all the claims,
0:36:10 > 0:36:13we were not content to let it rest there.
0:36:13 > 0:36:15Aviva worked closely with lawyers BLM
0:36:15 > 0:36:19to come up with a strategy to bring the fraudsters to justice.
0:36:19 > 0:36:22We were advised that we had strong evidence on a number of cases
0:36:22 > 0:36:26and we decided to bring a civil action against 15 of the claimants.
0:36:26 > 0:36:31What we looked to do was to recover the costs that the insurance company
0:36:31 > 0:36:34had incurred in investigating these claims
0:36:34 > 0:36:36and also defending these claims,
0:36:36 > 0:36:39because they were entitled to recover back
0:36:39 > 0:36:41what they had lost as a result of this scam.
0:36:41 > 0:36:45A civil action was then brought against the 15 claimants.
0:36:45 > 0:36:49A lot of them didn't take legal representation.
0:36:49 > 0:36:51They effectively buried their heads in the sand.
0:36:51 > 0:36:53I think they were hoping this would just go away.
0:36:53 > 0:36:56They were certainly not expecting such a proactive strategy
0:36:56 > 0:36:58by the insurance company.
0:36:58 > 0:37:00A proportion admitted their guilt.
0:37:00 > 0:37:03But some persevered, and the case went to trial.
0:37:03 > 0:37:06None of them had put in a defence to the claim,
0:37:06 > 0:37:09so it was simply a matter of the judge assessing
0:37:09 > 0:37:12what damages the insurance company should be awarded.
0:37:12 > 0:37:15Nine times out of ten, that would have been the end of it.
0:37:15 > 0:37:17But not in this case.
0:37:17 > 0:37:19It was quite interesting, actually, the trial,
0:37:19 > 0:37:23because it wasn't without its drama.
0:37:23 > 0:37:26One of the individuals that we brought a claim against
0:37:26 > 0:37:30turned up with his wife and tried to protest his innocence.
0:37:30 > 0:37:34The judge actually told him that he found the evidence overwhelming
0:37:34 > 0:37:36in this case, in terms of the fraud.
0:37:36 > 0:37:40Unsurprisingly, the result didn't exactly go their way.
0:37:40 > 0:37:42We were pleased with the outcome of the hearing.
0:37:42 > 0:37:45We got judgments against 15 people
0:37:45 > 0:37:48and we were awarded costs and damages
0:37:48 > 0:37:50of over £90,000.
0:37:50 > 0:37:53The fraudsters were hit where it hurts the most -
0:37:53 > 0:37:54in the pocket.
0:37:54 > 0:37:58And where we do get an award for damages, we will look to go
0:37:58 > 0:38:02after a fraudster's assets, his home, his car,
0:38:02 > 0:38:05even an attachment to earnings for those that actually do work.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08It's quite frequently our experience that the fraudsters are
0:38:08 > 0:38:12full-time criminals and don't actually hold down a full-time job.
0:38:12 > 0:38:13It's a stark warning to fraudsters
0:38:13 > 0:38:17who think they might be able to get away with a similar scam.
0:38:17 > 0:38:20In this case, not being content with avoiding the claims,
0:38:20 > 0:38:24we have gone on in taking further action against the claimants,
0:38:24 > 0:38:26which we hope will act as a deterrent in the future.
0:38:31 > 0:38:34Moving house is one of the most stressful things you can do.
0:38:34 > 0:38:39But imagine how much worse it is if your possessions get damaged.
0:38:39 > 0:38:41When this happened to one unlucky woman,
0:38:41 > 0:38:43she got in touch with her insurer to make a claim.
0:38:49 > 0:38:54Mike Brown is Direct Line Group's head of counter-fraud intelligence.
0:38:54 > 0:38:59The policy owner in this case was moving home and, in transit,
0:38:59 > 0:39:04she reported the fridge freezer and some perishables were damaged.
0:39:04 > 0:39:10Two iPads, a television and some equine equipment, ie a saddle,
0:39:10 > 0:39:12the spine of the saddle, had been broken.
0:39:12 > 0:39:15The claim on this occasion was approximately £4,000.
0:39:15 > 0:39:19It was particularly unfortunate that all the items damaged in the move
0:39:19 > 0:39:21were of high value.
0:39:22 > 0:39:25The claims handler asked the policyholder
0:39:25 > 0:39:27what she'd done with the damaged items.
0:39:27 > 0:39:30The two iPads she'd given to a family member
0:39:30 > 0:39:33with alleged electrical expertise.
0:39:33 > 0:39:37They deemed that both the iPads were beyond repair
0:39:37 > 0:39:40and had disposed of them.
0:39:40 > 0:39:41With the iPads binned,
0:39:41 > 0:39:44there was no way to independently check the level of damage.
0:39:46 > 0:39:48As part of the standard claims procedure,
0:39:48 > 0:39:50she was asked if she had any paperwork
0:39:50 > 0:39:53for the other electrical items.
0:39:53 > 0:39:57She was unable to produce an invoice for the fridge freezer.
0:39:57 > 0:39:59She said she was given that as a gift.
0:39:59 > 0:40:02And there were question marks about the other items
0:40:02 > 0:40:04that had allegedly been damaged.
0:40:04 > 0:40:07What this policy owner was unable to do
0:40:07 > 0:40:11was to produce any meaningful documentation
0:40:11 > 0:40:16which, in the claims handler's view, had any veracity.
0:40:16 > 0:40:19However, the one item that was backed up with an invoice
0:40:19 > 0:40:21was the saddle.
0:40:21 > 0:40:24These concerns meant that her past claims history
0:40:24 > 0:40:26was "trotted" out for inspection.
0:40:26 > 0:40:28It soon transpired that this particular claimant
0:40:28 > 0:40:32had a previous claim two years previous
0:40:32 > 0:40:37in respect of equine products and suspicions were then raised
0:40:37 > 0:40:42in respect of, again, a saddle was being claimed,
0:40:42 > 0:40:44and it's not a cheap product.
0:40:44 > 0:40:46That is putting it mildly.
0:40:46 > 0:40:50The previous claim came to over £10,000 for two saddles.
0:40:50 > 0:40:56This made both claims worth a grand total of £14,000.
0:40:56 > 0:40:59The money at stake warranted close examination of the paperwork.
0:41:01 > 0:41:03Concerns were raised when we looked at the invoices
0:41:03 > 0:41:05and receipts that were put forward.
0:41:05 > 0:41:07There were some basic errors.
0:41:07 > 0:41:10Lack of address, some professional grammatical errors,
0:41:10 > 0:41:11numerical errors.
0:41:12 > 0:41:15There could only be one conclusion.
0:41:15 > 0:41:17The receipts were fraudulent.
0:41:18 > 0:41:20This is a case of greed,
0:41:20 > 0:41:24a means to secure funds from the insurance company,
0:41:24 > 0:41:25Direct Line Group,
0:41:25 > 0:41:29to replace products that they didn't want to pay for themselves.
0:41:29 > 0:41:33But if the policyholder thought she could ride off into the sunset
0:41:33 > 0:41:37with no consequences, she was sorely mistaken.
0:41:37 > 0:41:40Mike and his team passed on their findings to the authorities.
0:41:40 > 0:41:44The policy owner was arrested and interviewed
0:41:44 > 0:41:48in respect of the 2013 claim and the 2014 claim,
0:41:48 > 0:41:52where she has made a full and frank admission of guilt.
0:41:54 > 0:41:59She has been given a police caution with a condition that she repays
0:41:59 > 0:42:04the £14,000 that has been paid by Direct Line Group to her.
0:42:04 > 0:42:06So the odds have dramatically changed
0:42:06 > 0:42:10and she is now going to have to refund her undeserved pay-outs
0:42:10 > 0:42:11for the two claims.
0:42:11 > 0:42:15Unfortunately, this is something that Mike sees all too often.
0:42:15 > 0:42:19Most people who seek to defraud an insurance company
0:42:19 > 0:42:21will utilise the complaints procedure
0:42:21 > 0:42:25as a tactic to frustrate the ongoing investigation.
0:42:25 > 0:42:27It is deemed as a known tactic.
0:42:27 > 0:42:30They view that as, "Well, if they are dealing with a complaint,
0:42:30 > 0:42:32"they will take their eye off the ball."
0:42:32 > 0:42:33Clearly, we did not.
0:42:33 > 0:42:36If anything, it spurred them on.
0:42:36 > 0:42:40This is a case where we have a lady who is of a reasonable standing
0:42:40 > 0:42:43in the community. She now has a tarnished record.
0:42:43 > 0:42:46The message is quite clear.
0:42:46 > 0:42:48Just cos you may have succeeded previously,
0:42:48 > 0:42:50doesn't mean to say you will succeed again.
0:42:50 > 0:42:53And you may find yourself worse off than when you started.
0:42:58 > 0:43:02From organised criminal gangs to exaggerated household claims,
0:43:02 > 0:43:05insurance fraud hits all of us in the pocket.
0:43:05 > 0:43:07But instead of getting away with it,
0:43:07 > 0:43:11more and more of these fraudsters have been claimed and shamed.