Fraud update spring 2013.indd - Hill Dickinson

More documents

Recommendations

Info

fraud case update spring 2013 Welcome Welcome to the spring 2013 Hill Dickinson fraud case update. In this issue, we explore a selection of case summaries to keep you informed of our fraud team’s recent activity. Sharing this information will, we hope, be another useful contributor in our fight against fraud. If you have any questions relating to the points raised in this edition, or for more information on our fraud services in general, get in touch or visit: hilldickinson-fraud.com Peter Oakes Head of Fraud peter.oakes@hilldickinson.com Our engineer discovered not only that the damage between the three vehicles was inconsistent, but there was no damage at all to the front of the middle vehicle. Review of the claimants’ hospital records revealed that, despite each claimant saying that they were unable to leave the house for two weeks as a result of the accident, they did not seek medical attention for two weeks. However they were able to sign conditional fee agreements with their solicitors the day after the alleged accident. In light of these findings, we applied to amend the defence to plead the results of our investigations and clearly set out our concerns. The application was heard only three days before trial and was successful. As a result, the solicitors acting for the two of the claimants made a number of offers - including a very low offer for a payment towards their legal costs. Those solicitors eventually conceded defeat and made an application to be removed from record as acting for the claimants.The trial was set to proceed only three days later, with the claimants now unrepresented. Both of the claimants failed to attend trial and we persuaded the judge to strike out their claims. The court assessed our costs and awarded them in full. John Storey john.storey@hilldickinson.com Our reference: 960288.6257 County court: Bow Lawyer: Anna Matthews A number of claims were presented following an accident which we had no reason to think was not genuine. However, concerns were raised surrounding the involvement of one of the claimants in a motoring company, where intelligence confirmed he was a director. Further enquiries were made into the company which confirmed that it was defunct, but that it had nonetheless been utilised in connection with the index accident. The company was also linked to a repairer, who we were aware had been carrying out bogus repairs. The claimants disputed our allegations and demanded to see our intelligence. We advised that this information was available on a public register and that it should in any event be within the claimant’s knowledge as a director. Following representations, the court made a directions order requiring specifically that the claimant detail his links to the motor company in witness his evidence. The claimant failed to keep to the directions timetable and we made a without notice application. The court dealt with our application ex-parte and provided the claimants with seven days to comply. They failed to do so. All parties were then instructed to attend an ‘mention’ hearing. Given the claimant’s conduct and the defendant’s work highlighting this, the court maintained the claimants’ claims be struck out and refused leave to appeal. The defendant was awarded its full costs of both of the application and the claim. Anna Matthews anna.matthews@hilldickinson.com A lesson to fraudsters: at least try and make the story plausible! Our reference: 960288.5196 Lawyer: Michael Bickerstaffe The claimant alleged that the first defendant had skidded on ice and collided with the near side of the claimant’s vehicle. Both vehicles had multiple occupants. Claims for personal injury, repairs and over £20,000 of credit hire were made, however the claim for credit hire was discontinued following technical arguments raised in the defence. Amended particulars of claim were then filed and we responded with an amended defence pleading, fraud. The claimant had been involved in several previous accidents. The usual fraud indicators were present in his previous claims and the compensating insurers confirmed that in all instances the claimant had either discontinued his claims or had them struck out. We obtained permission to rely on engineering evidence, which stated that the damage to both vehicles showed no signs of lateral movement and the claimant’s vehicle could not have been moving when impacted. Furthermore damage was not consistent with the 2
fraud case update spring 2013 given circumstances and the engineer did not consider that the vehicles had collided as claimed. The claimant’s representatives tried to explain away many of the inconsistencies, but did so unconvincingly. For example, they said that the claimant had sold his shop to pay for repairs to his vehicle, but were unable to evidence this. The solicitors dealing with the sale of the claimant’s business were alleged to have paid the claimant in cash which was implausible. On application we obtained an order forcing the claimant to serve evidence of the sale of his business. A signed mandate from the buyer of the shop was eventually provided, but nothing was received from the solicitors that allegedly dealt with the sale. In November 2012, the claimant made a low Part 36 offer and then discussed a ‘drop hands’ offer in without prejudice negotiations. However, given that there were serious fraud concerns, numerous inconsistencies, engineering evidence in our favour and we had established that the claimant owned a business; the decision was made to proceed to trial. There was a very good possibility of recovering our costs if we were successful. At trial, our counsel elicited numerous discrepancies in the claimant’s version of events during cross-examination. It was clear that the claimant was not being truthful. While he had attended his GP a few days after the index accident complaining of a sore throat, he made no mention of a road traffic accident. This was despite his later claims that the sore throat was caused by the index accident. As a result, the district judge found that on balance of probabilities, the accident had not occurred as the claimant alleged. Interestingly, the claimant’s counsel announced prior to trial, that he does the majority of his work on a CFA basis - but had insisted on being paid up front for this case. Clearly even the claimant’s own counsel had concerns. Our counsel overheard the claimant’s representatives on the train on the way to trial discussing that the claimant was still in bed and had to be woken up in order to ensure that he would attend trial! Michael Bickerstaffe michael.bickerstaffe@hilldickinson.com Even on cases where liability is conceded, the Hill Dickinson credit hire team demonstrate how substantial savings can be made by identifying the right arguments. Our reference: 988122.3228 Lawyer: Rachel Jones This claim arose out of a fairly standard rear end shunt, where liability had been conceded. The claim comprised hire costs of £37,509.07 - together with a claim for storage costing £5,226- and the vehicle’s total loss claim, totalling £2,610. On review of the documentation, it was clear that these claims had been exaggerated. The total storage claim was for 173 days (including 147 days after the claimant was aware that the vehicle was a total loss) and continuing past the date that the hire ended. We were also able to argue that the claimant’s hire agreement was unenforceable as the terms and conditions did not comply with the Non Regulated Agreements Order 1989. It breached that provision as it included charges other than hire, such as CDW. The claimant’s solicitor believed we were wrong, but failed to explain why or to present us with evidence of the claimant’s impecuniosity. The claim was ultimately withdrawn. Rachel Jones rachel.jones@hilldickinson.com Contact Hill Dickinson has a team of 140 experienced counter fraud lawyers. Supported by Netfoil, Hill Dickinson’s market-leading counter fraud database, they are able to provide advice to insurers and corporate clients to assist in defeating fraudulent claims, to implement fraud prevention and detection initiatives and, where appropriate, to recover assets and payments made to fraudsters. For further information, please contact: Peter Oakes Head of Fraud peter.oakes@hilldickinson.com +44 (0)161 235 7436 +44 (0)7811 342698 Lisa Kelly Partner lisa.kelly@hilldickinson.com +44 (0)151 600 8958 Stuart Smith Partner stuart.smith@hilldickinson.com +44 (0)151 600 8891 Chris Hallett Head of Intelligence chris.hallett@hilldickinson.com 07901 876312 About Hill Dickinson The Hill Dickinson Group offers a comprehensive range of legal services from offices in Liverpool, Manchester, London, Chester, Sheffield, Piraeus, Singapore and Monaco. Collectively the firms have more than 1,400 people, including 190 partners. The information and any commentary contained in this newsletter are for general purposes only and do not constitute legal or any other type of professional advice. We do not accept and, to the extent permitted by law, exclude liability to any person for any loss which may arise from relying upon or otherwise using the information contained in this newsletter. Whilst every effort has been made when producing this newsletter, no liability is accepted for any error or omission. If you have a particular query or issue, we would strongly advise you to contact a member of the fraud team, who will be happy to provide specific advice, rather than relying on the information or comments in this newsletter. hilldickinson.com Liverpool Manchester London Chester Sheffield Piraeus Singapore Monaco ®
Page 1: spring 2013 fraud case update Confe

Fraud update spring 2013.indd - Hill Dickinson

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?