Episode 4 Claimed and Shamed

TYRES SCREECH

Insurance fraud in the UK has hit epidemic levels.

It's costing us more than £1.3 billion every year -

that's almost £3.6 million every day.

Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries, even phantom pets.

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

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

But insurers are fighting back,

exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.

Armed with covert surveillance systems...

That's the subject out the vehicle.

..sophisticated data analysis techniques...

TYRES SCREECH

Police!

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

Police! Don't move, stay where you are!

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

Just don't lie to us.

All those conmen,

scammers and cheats on the fiddle are now caught in the act

and Claimed and Shamed.

A chancer is caught out when his fake documents don't fool the

insurance company.

Phone records prove pivotal when a man's stories simply don't tally.

There was no evidence of any calls being made to a recovery garage...

..on the evening of the alleged breakdown.

And a bogus car crash story is rumbled when investigators turn to

CCTV footage.

At no time could we visually see the Fiesta or the

Vauxhall Vectra ever entering the bowling alley's car park.

Before going abroad, it's a good idea to take out travel insurance.

It can be a life-saver if your flight is cancelled, you lose your

wallet, or you need urgent medical attention.

But insurance can be used incorrectly.

Miles away from home,

some con artists think they can get away with scamming their insurance

company, believing their fraudulent claims are less likely to be scrutinised.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

While for most of us travel insurance is one of those things

that we take out hoping that we won't ever need to use,

there are some people out there who view these policies as a cash cow

that they can milk again, and again, and again.

Someone who knows all too well about this kind of unscrupulous behaviour

is Simon Powell at insurance company Endsleigh.

Back in 2014,

they received a claim from a customer who said he'd been the

victim of a crime while on holiday.

It was for a bag that was stolen on a tuk-tuk,

and it consisted of a laptop,

various different clothing items and toiletries,

which amounted to £1,600.

Possibly the worst start to a holiday.

Fortunately, Endsleigh's policyholder was covered for the

loss, so he phoned to get the ball rolling with his claim.

Ordinarily, claiming to be the victim of a three-wheeled bandit

would raise eyebrows.

But as this was Sri Lanka,

where tuk-tuks are on the street in their thousands,

it seemed perfectly plausible.

From the information that had been provided, the claim appeared

genuine, and actually, for this type of claim,

you felt some sympathy for the customer.

However, when Endsleigh received the claim form and supporting documents,

that sympathy began to turn into suspicion.

The customer provided documentation in the form of a police report,

and also itinerary, in terms of the actual visit.

But at this stage, they also added on £250 for a cash withdrawal,

and additional clothing items which were worth over £600.

Straight away, you're questioning in terms of why the customer didn't

add the cash withdrawal and the additional clothing when they

initially reported the claim to us.

It's a fair comment.

Forgetting a few pairs of socks or a T-shirt is one thing,

but £250 in cash and another £600-worth of clothes just didn't add up.

And that wasn't the only concern with the claim.

When we looked in further detail and investigated the various

documentation that had been supported,

then it was clear that some of the documents had actually been doctored.

There was a date stamp on a police report, that was clear, had been

changed from 2012 to 2014.

The date of the actual incident was confirmed as Wednesday the 26th,

whereby there wasn't a Wednesday 26th in 2014.

There was in 2012.

So there were all kinds of inconsistencies in terms of the documentation

that the customer provided us with.

With those inconsistencies piling up,

it was time to get some answers from the claimant himself.

Oh.

For Simon and his team,

the customer's stunted and stuttering responses spoke volumes.

Straight away, you could tell that the customer started to hesitate and

some of the responses that they actually gave just didn't tie up

with the actual incident circumstances that had been provided.

With documents that appeared to be have been changed from 2012 to 2014,

and £850-worth of items added to the claim,

the insurance company thought they knew exactly what was going on.

It appeared that potentially the customer had previously claimed for

this, and had claimed in 2012,

so what they were potentially looking to do was just lodge another

claim, exactly the same as the one that they'd previously done,

using the same evidence, the same police report, the same documentation -

but doctor the documents to be able to support the fact that this claim

happened in 2014 and not in 2012.

So, due to the inconsistencies on this particular claim,

we not only declined the claim but we also added it on to the IFIG

list, which is the Insurance Fraud Investigators Group...

..and also onto our own database,

and from this we were contacted by another insurer that confirmed that

they'd got a duplicate case almost exactly the same.

The phone call between Endsleigh and the other insurer the customer was

also attempting to claim with, was the final nail in the coffin.

It was crystal clear that this chancer had targeted both Endsleigh

and the other company, but his sloppiness and greed were his undoing.

However, as Simon explains,

this could have been just the tip of the iceberg.

This confirmed our concerns that this was a fraudulent claim, and

that not only had they lodged a fraudulent claim with us,

but they were also potentially lodging multiple fraudulent claims

with other insurance companies.

Hopefully, as a result of picking this one up and repudiating it,

not only did we stop this claim, but also the other claim with the other

insurance company, as well,

so hopefully this customer will no longer be making fraudulent cases.

A claimant involves his own unsuspecting father in a scam to

maximise his gain.

For me, this demonstrates that Niku was fuelled by greed...

..and didn't care who suffered as a result.

And in the USA,

a fraudster's barbaric attempt to cheat the system results in a

life-changing injury for his victim.

The UK is home to the fourth-largest insurance industry in the world,

behind America, Japan and China,

paying out £40 million every day in motor and property claims alone.

Most of us have standard types of insurance for our home,

our car and for travelling abroad,

but today you can take out a policy to protect yourself from almost anything -

from an alien invasion, to an attack from the Loch Ness Monster.

Some types of cover, like car insurance, are compulsory.

Others, like caravan insurance, for example, aren't.

But if you don't protect high-value items like this and they're stolen,

you could be left high and dry.

For more unusual items,

you might need to contact a specialist company like Towergate.

They insure items that others won't touch, from boats, to

horses, to skydiving trips,

and recently had a claim from a Mr Wright regarding the theft of his insured caravan.

The customer told us that he was returning from his holiday and that

he was taking his caravan back to where he kept it in storage.

He then told us that, on the way to storage,

he had actually broken down and had pulled in.

He'd had a problem with his vehicle before and he knew what the

problem was, and he felt that by pulling into a lay-by he could fix

the problem and then take the caravan back to its storage place.

Unable to repair his broken motor,

Mr Wright phoned his breakdown service.

A recovery vehicle was unavailable,

so the policyholder left the vehicle, with the caravan attached to it,

overnight. When the policyholder returned the following morning,

the caravan had gone.

Wow! That's a pretty big loss.

Luckily, this gentleman had insured his prized possession.

The full sum insured for the caravan was £30,000,

plus there was unspecified contents cover as well.

So, in all, it was a £35,000 claim.

But as the initial call progressed, something didn't seem quite right.

£35,000 is a significant caravan loss.

However, the customer seemed very relaxed about this.

The claims handler was also concerned that the customer was

extremely interested in how much he would be paid, very early in the call.

Towergate decided to refer the case to the policy underwriters, Allianz,

to talk through their concerns.

When claims come into Allianz,

we make sure that we go through kind of a validation process.

And during that process we have to carry out some standard investigations.

The initial background check that was carried out in this case

established that the individual concerned had a number of

County Court judgments against their name.

This indicated to us that there were some financial problems with the

individual concerned, and therefore it's something that we

wanted to have a look into in a bit more detail.

Allianz also checked Mr Wright's mobile phone records for the day in

question, expecting to find the call to the breakdown service.

Unfortunately, there was no evidence of any calls being made to a

recovery garage on the evening of the alleged breakdown, in order to

try and secure the vehicle and the caravan into safe storage.

With alarm bells ringing,

Allianz decided to contact the dealer who sold the caravan to Mr Wright,

to check it actually existed.

Whilst they confirmed that the sale was genuine,

they also confirmed that, due to nonpayment of financials,

they'd actually issued a High Court summons against the policyholder for recovery of outstanding finance.

So, as a result of these enquiries,

we established that the policyholder had in fact County Court judgments

close to £10,000 that were against their name,

and £1,700 of which related to the caravan in question.

It was all starting to make wheelie good sense.

Allianz then made contact with the caravan site Mr Wright said he'd

visited the weekend before the alleged theft.

The purpose of contacting the site was to validate the policyholder's

story that he was actually on site over that weekend.

To our surprise, what we actually established was that,

whilst they had the caravan on site over that weekend,

at no point did the policyholder actually attend site.

But what they found out next was astonishing.

The real surprise was when they went on to say that they still actually

had the caravan on site,

and it actually had never left that site over the weekend.

And at this point, we realised that the caravan was still in the

possession of the policyholder.

So the theft had been staged to claim the insurance money.

Discussion was taken with Towergate

to report the matter to the police for further action.

Mr Wright was arrested, and quickly admitted he had made up the

circumstances of the claim

in an attempt to get the money to pay off his debts.

At court, the policyholder pleaded guilty to insurance fraud.

The policyholder was then sentenced to six months' imprisonment,

which was suspended for 12 months...

..on the order that he was to wear an electronic tag between the hours

of 8am and 8pm every day.

It was a great result for both Towergate and Allianz,

who'd worked hard to ensure this fraudster got what he deserved.

In circumstances like this,

people may feel that insurance fraud is a quick win,

an easy way to make money, and

perhaps don't understand the severity of the punishment attached to the crime.

It's therefore great in these circumstances when a severe sentence is handed down.

This really helps us, as an insurance

industry, showcase the implications

of what insurance fraud looks like to individuals, and therefore

hopefully deter people from bringing claims of this nature in the future.

Sometimes people will go to astonishing lengths to commit

carefully planned fraud,

but what's even more shocking is when they involve innocent friends

or their own family members, all in pursuit of making a few quid.

We're all told how important it is to give accurate details when

filling out forms for an insurance policy.

But what if those details were deliberately changed after they'd

been submitted to an insurance broker,

reducing the premium, but completely invalidating the policy?

When insurance companies uncover suspect claims,

they're passed on to the Insurance Fraud Bureau, or IFB.

Jason Potter is head of investigations there

and was contacted by a motor insurer who thought they had a bogus claim.

An alert was received within the Insurance Fraud Bureau that a

suspicious accident had been received by the insurer,

and they would like us to assess whether that linked to any other

incidents that we were aware of.

The IFB investigated the case and found that someone posing as an

insurance broker was taking out policies on behalf of his clients.

Unbeknown to them,

he was then changing their details in order to get cheaper cover,

therefore completely invalidating the insurance.

This is known as ghost broking.

The usual scam would be to approach the individual,

gather their information and then take money for that service.

This can range from £100 to £1,000.

They'll then engage with a legitimate insurer, in order to

facilitate cover. However, what they will do is change the information

that the individual gave them in the first instance to fictitious

information, in order to reduce the overall cost of the insurance.

The ghost broker will go on his way and the victim will go out onto the

road and drive as if they are insured,

when in fact there's no cover in force.

So, let me get this straight.

Step one - get details from innocent members of the public.

Step two - charge a brokerage fee to take out the policies on their behalf.

Step three, manipulate the details to get cheaper cover.

Got it.

The man behind this particular scam was Hojat Niku,

but he wasn't just acting as a ghost broker -

he was also approaching insurers directly and making fictitious

claims against the policies he'd taken out.

The spectrum of claims that Niku was trying to make, involved personal

injury, vehicle damage, storage...

..and hire costs.

Ultimately, what he wanted to do was maximise his financial benefit out of this scam.

Overall, Niku's claims affected 25 different insurance companies and

countless innocent victims.

The people that Niku targeted were largely from a Turkish and Iranian

background. They were not fully familiar with the UK insurance industry.

Therefore, the majority of these individuals would have assumed that

Niku was acting in their best interests,

and providing them with legitimate insurance cover, to enable them to

use the roads. If they had been stopped by the police...

..they would have been prosecuted for no insurance.

They would have received a heavy fine and points on their licence.

Worst of all, Mr Niku was so greedy he even took out a claim against a

policy belonging to one of his own family members.

In one instance,

he stooped so low as to try and

instigate a claim on his father's policy.

For me, this demonstrates that Niku was fuelled by greed

and didn't care who suffered as a result of his necessity...

..to instigate fraudulent claims.

But when he phoned the insurance company, pretending to be his

father, he hit a stumbling block.

Unfortunately for Niku,

the insurer's security questions caught him out.

On three separate occasions,

he couldn't answer a simple question as to what his father's date of

birth was. In the end, the insurer simply asked him, "How old are you?"

and he even got that wrong.

Jason and his team fed the information they'd gathered to the City of London Police.

The extent of the claims that we sent to Ifed were valued at around £140,000,

which they then focused upon, in order to take forward to prosecution.

The case proceeded to trial and Niku pleaded guilty.

As a result, he received 21 months' imprisonment.

That was suspended for two years.

From our perspective, that was a good result.

It justified the hard work that the Insurance Fraud Bureau, Ifed

and the insurance industry had put into this case.

Jason has one final piece of advice to anyone looking to take out a car insurance policy.

To ensure that you are liaising with a legitimate source of insurance...

..please check that brokers are registered with the FCA,

use price comparison websites, or, if going direct to an insurer,

make sure that they are members of the Motor Insurers Bureau.

Every year, there are around 180,000 accidents on Britain's roads resulting in injury.

But sometimes you don't even have to be on the road to experience a car

crash, as about two thirds of us have had our vehicle damaged in a car park.

When accidents happen,

insurance policies are there to protect both parties.

Sadly, some people see them as an opportunity to make money.

But often their stories are ill-conceived and badly executed,

and eventually they do get found out.

Direct Line recently dealt with a case where, initially, everything

seemed to be above board.

Mr Jiwarski claimed that on the 27th of April, 2016,

he was reversing out of a parking bay at the bowling alley in Derby,

and, in doing so, he collided with a Vauxhall Vectra...

..which contained three occupants.

Mr Jiwarski reported minor damage to his vehicle, and the other party,

the Dosang family, said minor damage had been done to theirs.

Having received versions of events from both Mr Jiwarski and the Dosang family,

the events appeared to tally very closely with each other.

Nothing was untoward.

Both parties were also claiming for injury.

In this type of low-speed accident, minor bruising would be pushing it,

but all four occupants were claiming for soft tissue damage,

akin to a much higher-speed accident.

Soft tissue injuries, in a situation such as this

where you've got a vehicle reversing steadily out of a parking space into

what would be a slow-moving vehicle driving around a car park...

..it would be unrealistic to expect any persons to sustain the level of

soft tissue injuries that was being portrayed.

In total, the claims added up to just over £29,000,

but Direct Line weren't exactly bowled over by the individual

stories, and had no intention of paying out just yet.

With those concerns in mind, the first phase is to refer this claim,

for further validation, to our counter-fraud department.

Their examination revealed that the damages to both vehicles were not

consistent with what was being reported on the claims form,

so if we were to reconstruct the accident and put the vehicles back

in situ, as outlined in the claim, then the damage would not correlate.

With the ball in their court, the next step was to contact the bowling

alley where the accident took place.

Fortunately, we were able to view CCTV

footage of their external car park.

We've gone back to the time and date in question, and here we are

looking at the location of the alleged accident,

and I am waiting to see a Ford Fiesta reverse out of the parking

bay and into a Vauxhall Vectra.

They waited...

..and waited...

..and waited.

There is no Ford Fiesta or Vauxhall

Vectra at the location on the specific time and date.

It is not there.

Maybe they'd got the day right but hadn't remembered the

time of the accident correctly.

We examined the CCTV further,

several hours either side of the time and date in question,

and at no time could we visually see

the Fiesta or the Vauxhall Vectra ever

entering the bowling alley's car park.

So we know neither party visited the car park,

but did they even go bowling?

This particular alley operates on a pre-booked basis only,

so Direct Line asked to see the records for that day.

Upon inspection, neither Mr Jiwarski nor the Dosang family

had pre-booked any bowling facilities for the day in question of the accident,

which means the whole thing is a sham, it's a lie,

the accident never took place,

the vehicles were never on site,

and neither the Dosangs or Jiwarski visited that location.

It was a classic case of, "Three strikes and you're out..."

..and a blatant attempt to defraud Direct Line.

The evidence was handed to Staffordshire Police, who conducted an investigation.

They arrested all four of the claimants and subsequently charged

them with conspiracy to defraud.

They then appeared at Stafford Crown Court and received custodial sentences.

Both drivers received, in terms of imprisonment, one of ten months, one of nine months.

The passengers, albeit a lesser part, received four months apiece, albeit suspended.

Clearly this sends a significant message to those who would seek to

commit insurance fraud at whatever level.

It is not a victimless crime and you

will receive custodial prison sentences,

and your lives will be changed forever.

Still to come -

a conniving couple attempt to profit from an audacious bus scam.

So you know that an impact has taken place,

but it wasn't a case of the bus hitting the car in the rear.

Now, we all like to be in control of our own finances,

even if we're not very good at it sometimes.

But if we become ill and are unable to cope,

friends and family often step in to help out.

These are the people we trust the most,

so they'd seem like the perfect candidates for the job.

Unfortunately, some fraudsters will abuse this trust, to make money.

And if you think it's bad in the UK,

the lengths some fraudsters go to on the other side of the Atlantic is simply incredible.

In America, the cost of insurance fraud is estimated to be over 40 billion a year.

That's more than 30 times that of the UK.

In Sumter County, South Carolina,

David Player and Michael Weaver had a long-standing friendship.

Weaver had learning difficulties, so Player would often care for him.

To any outsider, Player was the perfect companion for Weaver,

and the two had a strong bond.

Player was also friends with another man, Gerald Harding,

and the three of them tended to hang out together.

In May 2008,

Player and Harding rushed Weaver to the emergency room at a local

medical centre in Sumter.

They told the nurse that Weaver had been helping to trim trees on

Player's property, when his left forearm had been completely severed.

It turned out they'd been using a pole saw to chop off branches,

while Weaver pulled them aside to stop them getting caught up.

The saw had suddenly slipped at the wrong moment,

cutting Weaver's hand off.

It appeared to be an unfortunate accident,

but one that would change Weaver's life forever.

When the emergency room nurse examined the injury, she noticed the

cut itself was surprisingly clean,

with little damage to the surrounding tissue,

as would be expected with a saw accident.

Doctors later attempted to reattach Weaver's hand.

But the operation was sadly unsuccessful,

and it had to be amputated.

Luckily, Player had taken out insurance policies on behalf of his

vulnerable friend, Weaver, for whom he had power of attorney.

These consisted of multiple accidental death

and dismemberment policies...

..as well as a 400,000 liability policy on his own property.

The insurance company quickly settled the claim on his property

for 375,000, and began processing the claims for Weaver.

Player received payment without any problem at all, and claimed he

placed the money into accounts largely for the benefit of Weaver.

Altogether, he received over 671,000 -

around £540,000.

So, a hefty pay-out,

but seemingly well-deserved for a life-changing injury.

But what happened next was to throw everything into disrepute.

The following year, Player and his wife went through a divorce.

While clearing out the house, she discovered a briefcase belonging to

her estranged husband.

It contained around 30 credit cards, all in Weaver's name...

..as well as the details of the accidental death and dismemberment

policies Player had taken out on his behalf.

Some named Player as the beneficiary.

The ex-wife handed the evidence over to her attorney,

who then passed it on to the FBI.

It wasn't until the FBI began their investigations that they discovered

Player had indeed been playing the system and had taken out the credit cards in Weaver's name.

The vulnerable Weaver had unknowingly become a victim of his friend's scam.

When interviewed, Weaver denied all knowledge of the accounts.

He also denied giving Player permission to open accounts in the first place.

The investigator discovered that Player had used the money from the claims to buy a house for his son,

to build on his own existing property,

and to even purchase a car for his friend, Harding.

Little, if any, of the proceeds had been spent on Weaver.

Harding was brought in for interview and when confronted with his

original statement, he refuted it.

Harding claimed he'd been part of a scam led by Player to make

fraudulent insurance claims based on the amputation of Weaver's hand.

He told investigators how they'd tied Weaver's arm to a branch and

deliberately cut off his hand with a pole saw.

Harding claimed the scheme had been designed by Player for his own

financial benefit, and, together with Weaver,

had been enticed into it with the promise of a monetary reward.

Four years after the incident, the

FBI had all the evidence they needed.

Player was finally found guilty of fraud and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

He was also ordered to pay back the...

Harding pleaded guilty to fraud and received a three-year sentence for his role.

In this cruel and heartless case,

a man unable to fully care for himself put all his trust in a close friend.

But what his friend did was to abuse this trust beyond belief,

not only by inflicting a debilitating injury on him, but also

by stealing the compensation money that had been intended for Weaver.

It just goes to show that sometimes it's the people you least expect

and those who you have the closest bond with

that can end up being your worst enemies.

Fraudsters will try anything to make a quick bit of cash, from damaging

their own property to causing physical harm to themselves.

There are around 130,000 fraudulent claims made every year.

Incredibly, £2 billion-worth is believed to go undetected.

But insurance companies are finding more and more ways of disproving

fraudulent claims, largely thanks to improvements in technology.

CCTV footage has rumbled many a fraudster,

providing vital evidence in claims that may otherwise have been accepted.

It's something which Lee Ingram at FirstGroup is all too familiar with.

We received a claim following an incident that occurred between one

of our buses and a car that had been stationary at a set of traffic lights.

They were alleging that we'd hit them in the rear whilst they were stationary.

The injuries ranged from soft tissue injuries to the shoulders,

neck and back,

through to some minor chest injuries.

They're typically indicative of

the sort of injuries you would see from this type of rear-end collision.

All told, this claim would have been worth around about £15,000,

including the personal injury, damage to the vehicle and

legal costs.

It seemed like a pretty straightforward case.

Rear-end collisions are fairly common, so no eyebrows were raised.

Lee and his team set about investigating the claim by getting

statements from both the bus and car drivers.

The only problem was, they didn't quite match up.

In this case,

the driver's report differed slightly from the allegations being

made by the claimant, so we thought, "This is one that we need to have a bit of a deeper look at."

Luckily, they had the perfect tool at their disposal.

The easiest way of clearing up any differences in opinion or disputes

is to have a look at the CCTV footage,

so we quickly downloaded that and we had a look at it,

to see what it was going to show us.

All FirstGroup buses are fitted with onboard CCTV cameras,

which come in very handy when stories simply don't match.

So the claim has been put in,

alleging that we've struck a vehicle in the rear at traffic lights,

and we can see the vehicles approaching the traffic lights here,

so what I'm expecting to see is the car coming to the lights, stopping,

and then the bus not stopping, and just striking the car in the rear.

But on closer inspection, the camera's painted a very different picture.

What we actually see is something completely different.

The bus does pull up behind the car and it stops.

They're both there for a little bit,

neither vehicle moving.

And then, slowly, very slowly,

almost imperceptibly,

you see the claimant's vehicle

start to roll backwards.

You can actually see a slight bump occur...

..so you know that an impact has taken place, but it wasn't a case of

the bus hitting the car in the rear.

From this camera angle, we can see the bus is at a standstill.

And if you look to the right, here comes the car rolling into the bus.

Let's check another angle.

Yeah, no mistake.

It's the car that hits the bus.

At this point, the footage itself lays waste to any potential

allegations that have been made by the claimant.

There's just no way that it follows the circumstances they've described.

So, the initial claim was rejected.

But this chancer wasn't prepared to give up easily.

When we went back to the claimant and told them what the CCTV was

showing, they said that the driver of the bus was looking at some

paperwork immediately before the collision.

Now, looking at the CCTV footage,

no way was the driver looking at any paperwork before this incident happened.

This is just, really, a sad attempt to try and discredit the

driver and to muddy the waters of what actually caused the accident to happen.

So first of all,

they claimed the bus hit them while they were stationary,

then we find out it wasn't the bus that hit the car,

but the other way around, and then

they try and blame the accident on

the bus driver, saying he was looking at paperwork

when the incident happened...

None of which is true.

It could have ended there,

but it seems this couple were hell-bent on winning the case and

had one more trick up their sleeves.

They also said that the road was flat, so they couldn't have rolled back.

Now, looking at the footage and the evidence that we had,

we can quite clearly show that the bus was stationary,

so the only real cause of the collision was the car rolling back into the bus.

With nothing else around the bus actually moving,

the CCTV footage had once again come up trumps.

We turned down the claim again,

saying that we didn't accept that the road was flat.

We were quite happy that the bus was stationary at all times and it was

their vehicle that had rolled back into the bus and not the other way round.

It seems this couple had finally run out of options, and had been

left without a leg to stand on.

For Lee, it was another dodgy claim put to bed.

Whenever we get claims that are presented to us and we have

sufficient evidence to suggest that the claim is anything other than

genuine, we will always fight these claims.

There's no way we're going to just pay out on a claim when we've got

evidence to suggest that this person is not being completely honest.

Insurance fraud in this country costs all of us money, but the days

of no-questions-asked pay-outs are numbered.

Insurers are using ever-more sophisticated technology to identify,

track and prosecute fraudsters, and courts are using new powers to put

these criminals behind bars.