Episode 8 Claimed and Shamed

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...

Subject out of the vehicle.

..sophisticated data analysis techniques...

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

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

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

Just don't lie to us.

All those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle

are now caught in the act and claimed and shamed.

..a chancer's ruse is rumbled when CCTV footage comes to light...

We were completely shocked that the claimant had the nerve to submit

a personal injury claim when it was quite clear that he wasn't even

in the car and he couldn't possibly have been injured.

..a woman's holiday hoax is exposed thanks to her

childish counterfeit skills...

My daughter could have completed them considerably better,

and she's eight years old.

..and it's bad news for a burglary claim

when insurers clock a fatal flaw.

Our agent recognised headlines in that newspaper,

and thought that they were more recent than the photograph

could potentially have been taken.

The most common and expensive type of insurance fraud

is bogus car claims.

Now, many of these claims start out as genuine cases,

but when unscrupulous claimants see an opportunity

to line their pockets,

the temptation to exaggerate or even make up

entirely fictitious circumstances can be too great.

Thinking they can get away with it,

they'll go to extreme lengths to prove their case is genuine,

refusing to give up even when faced with the hard evidence

that says otherwise.

Simon Roylance heads up the claims crime prevention team

at LV Insurance, and recently dealt with a case where one claimant

went above and beyond to prove their case was genuine.

Our customer contacted us to advise that she'd been in an accident

in a car park.

She said that as she was reversing from a parking bay,

she made contact with the front of another vehicle

that was parked in a bay opposite.

This vehicle was owned and allegedly driven by the claimant.

So, all in all, this was pretty much the most common type of car accident

that motor insurers see on a daily basis.

Whilst there was no damage to our customer's vehicle,

we did offer to deal with repairs to the third-party vehicle.

We got this in to a repairer,

and dealt with the claim in the sum of about £1,100.

But if LV thought they had settled the claim and the case was closed,

then they were wrong.

At around the same time, we received a letter

from a solicitor stating that the claimant

had sustained injuries in the accident

to his neck, back and arms.

These appear to be typical kind of whiplash injuries that we see

in road traffic accidents.

Once again, this was all standard stuff.

LV's policyholder had admitted she had reversed into another car,

and the impact must have injured the man behind the wheel of the car

she had hit.

As this guy was now claiming for injuries on top of the repairs

to his car, LV decided to give their policyholder

a quick call to see if her account

suggested the impact was sufficient to have injured him.

When we spoke to our customer,

she was really quite adamant that the claimant wasn't even in the car

at the time, and she did seem very certain about this.

As discrepancies in versions of events go,

this one was a whopper.

Fortunately, there was a sure-fire way of establishing

who was telling the truth and who was not.

The car park was covered by CCTV cameras, and as luck would have it,

they captured the entire sequence of events.

On the right of the picture, you've got the store.

Just in front of the store is the claimant's car, which is parked up.

In the parking bay opposite is our customer's vehicle,

and you see that she soon starts to reverse manoeuvre

out of her parking bay.

She keeps reversing,

and makes slight contact with the front of the claimant's vehicle.

But as you can see throughout this time,

the claimant has been stood alongside his car.

He's not been in the vehicle.

And you can actually see him trying to catch our customer's attention

after she's collided with his car.

The footage provided indisputable proof that LV's policyholder

was telling the truth,

and that the man was attempting to make a fraudulent claim.

When we first looked at the CCTV footage,

we were completely shocked that the claimant had the nerve to submit

a personal injury claim when it was quite clear that he wasn't even

in the car, and he couldn't possibly have been injured.

We advised the claimant's solicitors that we wouldn't be making

any payments, because we didn't accept that their client

was in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

With evidence like that,

LV would be forgiven for thinking it was case closed.

Well, think again.

We were then completely taken aback a few months later

to receive a medical report from the claimant's solicitor

stating that he had been to see his GP twice since the accident

regarding neck and back pain,

and furthermore it said that it had taken 18 months to recover

from his injuries. But we already knew that he wasn't in the car

in the first place.

Claiming it would take 18 months to recover from injuries

he'd never sustained, this guy had more front than Brighton.

But LV had heard enough.

We then contacted the claimant's solicitors and made it clear

to them that we didn't accept that their client was in the vehicle

at the time, and so we wouldn't be making any payments

for his compensation claim.

But they weren't prepared to leave it there, and referred the case

to the insurance fraud enforcement department

at the City of London Police.

IFED went out to interview the claimant.

Initially, he stuck to his story, but when they showed him the CCTV,

he eventually admitted that he'd made the whole thing up.

The consequences for the claimant where that we repudiated

his injury claim, worth up to around 5,000 in full.

As a result of IFED's investigation, he received a police caution,

and he's now got a criminal record.

Justice had been served.

But this case is a stark reminder of how unscrupulous

some people really are.

Whilst most claims are genuine,

it's not uncommon for us to come across examples

of opportunistic fraud like this, where a claimant has

spotted an opportunity in the most trivial of circumstances

to gain for their own personal benefit.

..an opportunist is caught out when his friends and family

fail to side with his story...

The witness evidence indicated that he had actually tried to slide down

the banister, and he hadn't fallen down something that was

defective in any way.

..and a man attempting to cash in from a housing fire

sees his claim go up in smoke.

We actually found that he had only just purchased the property

last year, and therefore was not the legitimate owner of the premises

when it burned down in 2014.

Now, holidays are usually a time for us to relax and soak up the sun,

but if the worst should happen and we become ill,

then medical treatment abroad can be costly.

Travel insurance is there to put our minds at rest,

with policies covering everything from minor ailments

to surgical procedures.

But as if being away on holiday isn't enough of a treat,

there are some people out there who will use the experience

to try and pocket some extra cash at the expense

of their travel insurance policy.

Matthew Crawford-Thomas is a fraud manager at Collinson Group.

His team recently dealt with a claim from a customer

who had unfortunately succumbed to a rather common complaint

when travelling abroad.

We received the claim from the insured for circa £1,400

for medical expenses whilst in Zimbabwe for sickness and diarrhoea.

As with many other forms of insurance,

before the claim could be processed,

the insurer needed some form of proof that the treatment

had actually taken place.

We asked the administration team to supply us with

the original documentation.

After looking at the scans on our computer system,

it appeared that the documentation had actually been altered.

With his fraud radar on high alert,

Matthew employed a trick of the trade...

..a large magnifying glass known as a linen tester.

Originally used to check the quality of woven fabrics,

they are now used in the insurance industry to allow investigators

to closely examine documents and check they're legitimate.

Upon looking at the documents through the linen tester,

it was evident that additional sums

had been added to the receipts.

The three receipts that we concentrated on mainly

was for a taxi fare for less than seven miles,

yet it was for 200 US dollars.

The second receipt was from the Zimbabwean government,

which clearly was only for 4, and had been written,

"104".

And the third receipt was a receipt from the Zimbabwe hospital,

which after picking the Tippex off, clearly showed an amount of

4 rather than the 150 that she originally claimed for.

Wowzer. That's quite the increase.

It appeared that the amount on all eight receipts the woman had sent

to the insurance company had been altered,

boosting her claim to hundreds of dollars more

than she was entitled to.

It was time to phone the suspected forger

and challenge her on the dodgily doctored receipts.

The customer was insistent that she hadn't doctored the receipts,

yet the insurance company could clearly see that the amounts

on the receipts had been changed.

As far as Collinson were concerned, it was an easy decision.

Despite the strong evidence against her,

this customer still refused to admit the receipts weren't genuine.

So, Matthew and his team dug a little deeper into her past.

Once we'd found out that the insured's claim

was in fact fraudulent, we looked through our system,

and, lo and behold, found another claim for the individual.

We duly then retrieved the documents from our administration department,

and again found these to be doctored.

Just a year previously, the woman had been on another holiday

to Zimbabwe, and had claimed for medical expenses for that trip, too.

Only the first time, she hadn't been so greedy,

and had successfully received a pay-out of nearly £300.

With her first claim also showing signs of fraud,

it was time to share the good news with the claimant,

and take back what she wasn't entitled to.

It had taken a while, but the woman had been well and truly busted.

But incredibly, despite being found out,

she seemed hell-bent on keeping her policy in place,

just in case she wanted to do it again.

In another telephone call, she contacted us to say that

is her policy still valid, as she was going on holiday again?

Yet she'd already said to us that she didn't have enough money

to pay us back, so where she's getting her money from,

God only knows.

The insurers then wrote to the woman,

declining both claims and stating the repayment costs.

They never heard from her again.

The downfall for the insured person on this occasion were the documents.

They were a killer.

My daughter could have completed them considerably better,

and she's eight years old.

This leads me to believe that this was not an opportunistic fraud,

this was a cold, calculated effort to defraud insurers.

With two instances of fraud to her name,

the woman was fortunate to escape prosecution.

Next time, she might not be so lucky.

This type of fraud is not uncommon

within the travel insurance industry,

and I would say to anyone that attempting to make a claim

with my company for this particular type of fraud,

I would say, not on my watch!

Most household insurance claims are genuine.

They should be pretty simple.

The person claiming has suffered a loss

and wants to be compensated for it.

But even when claims start out as honest losses,

some people get carried away,

exaggerating the value of items or adding things to the list

that weren't stolen or damaged in the first place.

In order to settle claims of theft,

insurance companies usually require proof of ownership

such as receipts or guarantees.

But this is where fraudsters are often caught out,

by making simple mistakes that can end up invalidating

their whole claim.

Dave Berry deals with home insurance at Lloyds Banking Group,

and knows only too well that not every claim is entirely above board.

A customer reported that he had taken his dogs out for a walk.

He did that just before he was going to come back home to watch

a live game of football on the telly.

When he got back home,

he saw that his kitchen window had been forced open.

He went into the house,

also found that his patio doors were wide open

and that he'd been burgled.

After police had attended the crime scene,

the customer phoned Lloyds to make a claim.

There was no doubt this was hugely upsetting for the family involved.

Not only had their home been invaded,

but they were now around £15,000 out of pocket.

When we first received the claim, everything appeared in order.

We still needed to go through the process of identifying the value

of the items and their age so that

we could make sure the correct value was placed on the claim.

As is the case with any claim for valuables,

Lloyds needed proof that the family had owned them in the first place.

To help us validate the value of the claim and ownership of the items,

we ask our customers to provide whatever evidence of ownership

they might have retained. That could include manuals for electrical goods

or guarantees. It could include boxes.

It could include photographs, purchase receipts,

bank statements showing that they've paid cash for items,

a whole range of items are available that we will consider

to help us assess the value of the claim.

The customer gathered a variety of receipts and photographs

to give to his insurance company.

As the claim was so large,

Lloyds decided to visit the customer at home to go through the evidence

and put a final value on the items he was claiming for.

Our agents met with the customer,

and were discussing the value of the claim and looking at

the documentation that had been provided to them

in support of the claim.

One of those items was a photograph of the customer wearing a watch,

the watch that had been reported stolen.

The customer hadn't kept the receipt for the watch,

so had provided a photo of him wearing it instead.

But on closer inspection, the agent spotted something

that didn't seem quite right.

In the foreground of that photograph, though,

there was a copy of a newspaper.

Our agent recognised the headlines in that newspaper,

and thought that they were more recent

than the photograph could potentially have been taken.

When they made some enquiries into the date on which

that newspaper headline had appeared,

they had in fact been printed on the 8th of August,

which was some four days after the burglary was said to have occurred.

That indicated to us that because the photograph had been taken

after the burglary, that in fact the watch hasn't been stolen

at the time.

This revelation threw the validity of the entire claim into question.

Had the burglary even taken place,

or was the customer trying to claim for additional items

that hadn't been stolen?

We reported the matter to the insurance fraud enforcement department.

They interviewed the claimant,

and he admitted that he had exaggerated the claim,

that the watch hadn't been stolen, and as a result of that admission,

IFED agreed to deal with the matter by way of a police caution.

Many cases of insurance fraud start out as genuine claims,

but when some people see an opportunity to cash in,

the temptation to exaggerate their claim for a bumper pay-out

is just too great to resist.

It is possible that customers who do submit a fraudulent claim

don't realise that if they're caught,

there could be serious repercussions.

It could mean that their policy's cancelled.

It could mean the matter's reported to the police,

and if it is reported to the police,

that could result in either a custodial sentence,

a police caution, and on a longer term basis,

make it more difficult to secure financial products.

Accidents are part and parcel of everyday life.

In some cases, it genuinely isn't our fault -

a wet floor without a hazard sign,

or a trailing cable across a walkway.

Of course, sometimes we only have ourselves to blame.

However, there are some unscrupulous people out there who think

they can cheat the system by pointing the finger

in the wrong direction.

Nowadays, insurance companies have a plethora of hi-tech tools

at their disposal to combat spurious claims,

but sometimes it's good old-fashioned eyewitness accounts

that separate the wheat from the chaff

when it comes to solving tricky cases.

Ben McBean is a claims controller at insurance company QBE,

and recently dealt with a case where a night out went disastrously wrong.

The first thing we received on this claim were allegations

from the claimant that he was a visitor

to our insured nightclub's premises.

As he was descending the stairs, because the banister was so low,

he actually fell over the banister, and he fell a height of about

24 feet, straight to the ground.

The injuries that he sustained as a result of the fall

were a broken hip,

a fractured pelvis,

various broken ribs, and potentially a fractured leg.

He said that he could be in hospital for four months,

and obviously he wouldn't be able to work during this time.

A devastating accident,

and the last thing you'd expect to happen on a night out.

At first glance, it seemed like a legitimate claim.

Somebody who'd fallen a significant height

and sustain some really serious injuries.

Initially, we reserved £30,000 against the claim for the costs

and potential damages that we may have to pay out.

As it was a significant claim, QBE started to investigate,

and asked the claimant for proof to back up his story.

The evidence that the claimant provided was by way of

medical experts' reports,

and also he got engineering evidence to look mainly at the set-up

in the nightclub, whether the handrail for the banister,

whether that was the right height, and whether there were any defects.

QBE also carried out some detective work of their own,

and contacted the nightclub where the incident took place

to see if their account of the fall matched the claimant's.

The manager of the venue completed an accident report form

that he sent to us, which informed us that at the scene,

the claimant had actually apologised

for causing such a hassle.

You wouldn't really expect somebody who had sustained

really significant injuries to first think of apologising

for causing hassle to the owner of a nightclub.

It's certainly not the reaction you'd expect,

but it was when QBE were presented with the witness accounts

that the man's story really hit the skids.

The witness evidence from the accident scene indicated

that he'd actually try to slide down the banister,

and he hadn't fallen down something

that was defective in any way.

Essentially, the whole case comes down to whether he slid down

the banister or whether he fell because it was defective,

either there was a fault with it or it wasn't constructed

at the right height to start with.

They is a world of difference between a faulty banister

and a schoolboy prank gone wrong.

Obviously, once we'd identified that potentially we were dealing with

someone who may have lied to us,

we had to do some social media investigation.

On doing that, we'd identified quite a few comments from his friends

and family around his judgment being poor,

that he'd actually slid down the banister instead of fallen,

and they'd also called him various names such as muppet,

cretin and various other expletives.

With the evidence on social media backing up the eyewitness accounts,

QBE had no doubt that they were dealing with a fraudulent claim.

We decided we had sufficient evidence to run this to trial,

so we indicated to the claimant and his legal representatives

that we were going to defend it,

and produced the evidence that we had.

Surprisingly, they still decided to continue to trial with it.

Once the case had reached court,

yet more damning evidence came out of the woodwork.

At trial, quite interestingly,

we identified that there were A&E records which indicated

he'd actually slid down the banister,

which the claimant contested.

He said that maybe somebody had just made that up,

and hadn't recorded precisely what he actually said.

Right. So, with the eyewitness accounts,

his friends and family on social media

and now the A&E records all saying

the claimant had slid down the banister,

it'll come as no surprise that the judge was reluctant

to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The judge said of the claimant that he didn't believe

that his recollection was a true account of what actually happened,

and that was being quite charitable to him.

The claim was struck out of court,

and this chancer's attempt to cash in on his own recklessness

had well and truly crashed out.

QBE were very pleased with the outcome from the trial because,

whilst unfortunately somebody sustained

quite significant injuries, which we would never wish upon anyone,

you can't allow people just to point blame at innocent people

who aren't responsible.

Sadly, claims like this are becoming more and more common,

and it's honest policyholders that end up paying the price,

as insurers are forced to pass on the cost of dishonest claims

in the form of increased premiums.

Unfortunately, all the media used by solicitors

to create this whole "where there's blame, there's a claim" mentality

has created what ends up being a lot of fraudulent claims.

And insurers are spending a lot of time and money to defend them.

Still to come, a bus passenger fails to get his facts straight

when making a personal injury claim.

Shy of an American wrestler boarding the bus and body-slamming

the claimant to the floor, it couldn't have been

a lot more different to what we were told.

Buying property is a tricky and expensive business,

but if you play your cards right,

it can save you a lot of money in the long run.

Buildings insurance is usually put in place from the date of exchange,

and is there to protect the owner or owners should the property

fall victim to a fire or flood.

The good news is if your property is damaged, you're usually covered.

The bad news is some scammers see this

as an easy way of cashing in

by pretending they're the legal owner of a property

when in fact they never completed their purchase.

RSA is an insurance company that provides everything

from home and pet insurance

to policies for multinational businesses.

John Beadle is head of financial crime and counter fraud there,

and recently handled a case with an audacious individual.

A gentleman successfully bought a house

at auction for £35,000.

He paid a 10% deposit, £3,500,

and insured the house with us at RSA.

Unfortunately, six days after he purchased the house,

there was a catastrophic fire

at the premises, which virtually gutted it.

A fire is a homeowner's worst nightmare.

But it's times like these where a house insurance policy

can really come to the rescue.

The claim was originally registered with us

by this gentleman under his household policy,

but the sale actually didn't go through,

and he had his £3,500 deposit

he'd paid the auction house refunded,

and he withdrew the claim.

A lucky escape that thankfully hadn't left the man out of pocket.

RSA assumed they would hear nothing more from their customer,

and closed the files on the case.

As far as we were concerned, that was the end of the matter.

Um, but we were quite surprised when,

some two years later,

the gentleman then resurrected his claim,

which had now been set at £78,000

for complete refurbishment of the premises.

Now, the last time RSA had heard from the man,

his purchase of the property had fallen through, and he walked away.

So, how could he be claiming on it now?

This seemed rather strange,

to have heard nothing for two years,

and then have this claim for this

vast amount of money restated.

So, we began looking into the circumstances.

RSA checked the Land Registry records for the property

to see whether the claimant had actually been the legal owner

when the fire took place.

We've actually found that he had

only just purchased the property last year,

and therefore was not the legitimate owner of the premises

when it burned down in 2014.

RSA discover that their customer had purchased the damage property

two years after the fire at a reduced price of just £18,000,

yet here he was claiming £78,000 refurbishment.

Now, as we all know, insurance doesn't work like that,

and because the man didn't own the property at the time of the blaze,

he wasn't entitled to claim for the damage caused by it.

Put simply,

we didn't pay the claim, and had no intention of doing so,

and this gentleman will have to fund

the refurbishment of the house

that he's purchased out of his own funds.

Sounds fair enough to me,

but the sad reality is that when it comes to insurance cheats,

what's fair and right simply doesn't come into it.

But as this case demonstrates,

insurers are not a soft touch.

I think this was probably quite calculated

in the sense that when he did purchase the house,

now for a much reduced cost

because of the extent of the damage to it,

he thought he could just simply resurrect a two-year-old claim,

and that we would just pay that claim without any sort of checks.

Of course, he soon learned that, actually,

a simple check at the Land Registry would show

that he wasn't the owner of the premises.

As John explains, dishonest and opportunistic claims like these

affect all of us.

The point I'm trying to get across to people is

if you have a genuine claim,

we want to help you to get back on your feet,

or reinstate your damaged or your lost property

as quickly as possible.

People who try and invent claims

or exaggerate claims

just cause us a lot of time,

trouble and effort,

and of course cost us money,

which ultimately impacts all our honest customers.

So, my message is don't do it.

You'll get caught.

And leave us alone to service our honest customers.

Now, with Britain's roads getting more and more crowded,

many of us are turning to public transport to get around.

So, it's no wonder that over 12 million bus journeys

are made in the UK every day.

But the last thing we expect when we hop on board

is to end up sustaining an injury.

In the event that an accident does occur,

most buses are now fitted with CCTV cameras,

which can provide crucial evidence.

They're often used to prove genuine claims are just that,

but they also play a vital role in identifying the claims

which aren't so clear-cut.

Lee Ingram at First Group knows only too well how important CCTV can be,

especially in cases where it's one person's word against another.

This was a claim that was submitted to us by a firm of solicitors

on behalf of a couple that had boarded one of our buses.

It was a disabled couple, a lady in a wheelchair, a guy with a stick.

They've got on the bus.

He's helped his wife to the disabled and buggy access area.

He's then gone back to scan his ticket, and as he's walking

back to his seat, he's saying that the bus has pulled away,

causing him to fall over and hit his head off one of the seats.

When the claim was reported through to our customer services,

his partner had advised that he'd sustained a cut to his eye.

Now, we did a follow-up call from our customer services,

and at that time, we were told that the day after the accident,

he'd actually been admitted to hospital following difficulty

standing and speaking.

So, he'd been taken in with a concussion, a severe concussion,

and kept in for a week.

So, some quite serious injuries at that time.

First Group take passenger safety incredibly seriously,

and with a nasty injury to one of their passengers,

they were potentially facing a five figure pay-out.

This claim would have been valued in the region of £10,000,

including the injuries themselves

and the legal costs for pursuing the claim.

From the facts that Lee had been given,

this appeared to be a clear-cut case.

There are safety protocols in place to protect passengers,

and if they'd been broken, then First Group were liable.

Initial indication would suggest that this was a legitimate claim.

The bus driver should really have waited for any people

with disabilities to be seated before they pull away.

It's definitely something that we would want to look into

for that reason alone.

Lee's first port of call was to contact the bus driver.

When we asked our driver for their version of what actually happened,

the driver said,

"I don't recall actually moving away

"from that stop when that person fell over."

With the disabled passenger claiming the bus had driven off

and the bus driver alleging the bus had remained stationary,

there was only one way of finding out whose account was the real one.

You've guessed it - CCTV.

But while the bus's trusty all-seeing eye has been

the deciding factor in hundreds of claims over the years,

even a veteran like Lee was surprised by this case.

When I looked at the CCTV on this one,

it's a little bit of an eye-opener.

Shy of an American wrestler boarding the bus and body-slamming

the claimant to the floor,

it couldn't have been a lot more different to what we were told.

So, we can see the couple now, that they do board the bus.

She goes to sit down in the disabled area.

He's telling us that he's scanned his ticket, gone to sit down.

He's clearly forgotten lesson 101 on how to sit on a chair properly,

and he's failed spectacularly.

He's fallen off, spun round,

hit his head off the chair opposite.

Getting up, he's managed to hit his head again on the chair behind.

So, quite a serious fall indeed,

but if you look at the footage again...

..there's a rather large inconsistency

with the claimant's version of events...

..and that's putting it mildly,

because the bus is stationary the entire time.

He's clearly injured, and you can see how he's been injured,

but to say that's caused by the bus pulling away

is outrageous.

There is no way that the bus has moved.

That's not what caused him to fall at all.

It's the fact that he can't sit on a chair properly.

Based on what we'd seen in the CCTV footage

and what our driver had told us,

we can only conclude that this was an unfortunate accident,

and that this claimant was making an opportunist attempt

to make a claim for compensation

just because they've fallen over on the bus.

We're not going to pay those sorts of claims.

You need to show that someone has been negligent to be successful.

There was no negligence in this incident at all.

With evidence as compelling as this,

weighing up what to do with this claim

was one of the easiest decisions of Lee's career.

The CCTV, hand-in-hand with the driver's statement

clearly saying that she hadn't moved away,

causing this person to fall over,

makes it really easy to repudiate claims like this.

We sent the CCTV to the claimant's solicitors.

A week later, we received a letter from them saying

that they closed their file.

We never heard again from the claimant, and to be honest,

we don't expect to.

In light of the evidence, I'd say that's a fair assumption.

They say the camera never lies, but in this case,

it had actually exposed their lies.

I'm happy with the result of this particular case.

Not only did we not pay the claim anyway,

because we shouldn't have paid it,

these circumstances were preposterous,

but we've been in a position to support our driver and back her up,

because she did absolutely nothing wrong.

It's not nice to be investigated, and she's been exonerated,

quite rightly so.

But as satisfying as it is to crack cases like these,

it also highlights the depths some people will go

in the hope of some easy money.

These sorts of claims are ridiculous.

To allege something has happened that is clearly different

to what's actually happened just so you can make a claim

is actually disgraceful.

People shouldn't be allowed to get away with this,

which is why we investigate claims the way we do.

We will eventually find out that you're not telling the truth.

We're going to turn your claim down, and on occasion,

we will send these off for prosecution as well.

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.