direct commercial & dwf law llp counter fraud success …...sylver v kilnbridge dwf:...

66784228-3

Direct

Commercial &

DWF Law LLP

Counter Fraud

Success StoriesQ1 2019

66784228-3 2

Executive Summary Q1 2019 3

Contacts 4

Counter Fraud Successes Q1 2019 5

Contents

Find out more about DWF

www.dwf.law

Click here to enter [email protected]

www.linkedin.com/company/dwf

@Click here to enter twitter handle

Brexit

hub www.dwf.law/brexit

66784228-3 3

Executive Summary Q1 2019

These cases can be discussed by contacting DWF's dedicated Fraud and Financial Crime Team

– £348,548.56 total fraud savings against presented claims

– £42,500 hire charges saved against presented claims

– 25 case successes

– 54 suspected fraudulent claimant denied

– 5 claims utilised dash cam

66784228-3 4

Contacts

Meet DWF's dedicated Fraud and Financial Crime Team for Direct Commercial Ltd

Lorraine Carolan

Partner

T +44 121 200 0485

M +44 7734 778215

E [email protected]

Mathew Lynch

Director - Manager

T +44 20 7645 9558

M +44 7795 527778

E [email protected]

Lucy Bevan

Senior Associate

T +44 161 603 5115

E [email protected]

Sue Potts

Associate

T +44 151 907 3088

E [email protected]

Craig Budworth

Senior Associate

T +44 151 907 3198

E [email protected]

Ben Harper

Specialist Manager

T +44 161 838 0087

E [email protected]

Linda Avan

Senior Intelligence Investigator

T +44 151 907 3106

M +44 7712 402164

E [email protected]

Emma Parker

Data Analyst

T +44 151 907 3441

E [email protected]

66784228-3 5

Counter Fraud Successes Q1

2019

Case Summary

Mr Izzat Joyan v Bywaters (Leyton) Ltd

DWF: 2019226-2, Lucy Bevan

DCL: A2015/001925

Fraud Type: Liability, causation & exaggerated damage dispute

Outcome: Repudiated Pre Litigation

Headline: Claim for significant hire, recovery & storage yet

evidence that the vehicle was roadworthy.

Overview: The Claimant was inconsistent in his reporting of the

accident circumstances & was not medically examined until 13

months post-accident. The special damages claim was repudiated

as the vehicle was roadworthy yet he claimed storage and credit

hire and significant specific disclosure was requested.

Following the repudiation the claim was withdrawn prior to the issue

of proceedings and no payments were made.

Technical Interest: Evidences the importance of early repudiations

and pressure with disclosure to avoid litigation.

Savings against presented claims:

Details Amount

PI £2,500.00

Hire £6,923.50

S&R £1,325.00

Claimant's costs £3,125.73

Total £14,092.43

Sylver v Kilnbridge

DWF: 2019226-124, Craig Budworth

DCL: A2017/009202

Fraud Type: Liability & LVI


Headline: Claimant caught out by CCTV footage.

Overview:

This was a changing lanes dispute with causation concerns. CCTV

footage supported the named driver on both liability and minimal

contact. The footage was disclosed at an early stage and the

Claimant withdrew his claim pre issue demonstrating the

importance of CCTV footage in fighting fraudulent claims.

Technical:

Disclosure of CCTV / dash cam footage must be considered

carefully and tactically. In this case given that the footage

supported both liability and causation it was right to disclose at an

early stage with a repudiation.


Details Amount

PI £2,500.00

PAV £2,000.00


Total £6,016.00

Oms Chopra v PDS Holdings Ltd


DCL: A2016/006334

Fraud Type: No impact & Phantom

Outcome: Discontinued Pre Trial

Headline: 5 claims discontinued following dash cam footage which

undermined any collision

Overview: The named driver denied any impact and further denied

any third party passengers whereas 4 claims were presented. The

named driver was proofed in conference where he confirmed he

had reason to physically look inside the vehicle as he was

concerned the third party was involved in lorry jacking which. Dash

cam footage assisted as it did not show any visible impact and

whilst the footage was of low quality DWF internal accident

reconstruction expert slowed the footage down by frame which

assisted in supporting there being no passengers. Tactically the

footage was not disclosed until witness exchange, to pin the

66784228-3 6

Claimants evidence, and DWF successfully applied to rely on an

Amended Defence pleading fundamental dishonesty. The litigated

Claimant offered to drop hands and following review of recovery

prospects we negotiated the discontinuance on the basis that the 4

passenger claims were withdrawn.

Technical Interest: The dash cam footage was withheld so as not

to taint the Claimant’s evidence on liability and occupancy (the 4

passenger claims not having issued) and the accident

reconstruction expert was utilised to gain evidence for cross

examination the footage.


Details Amount

PI £16,550.00

PAV £2,926.52

Physio £570.00


Total £29,482.21

Mohammed Ali v ETA Logistics


DCL: A2016/002288

Fraud Type: Phantom occupancy & exaggeration.

Outcome: Strike Out post witness exchange

Headline: Claim struck out following evidence that the Claimant

was not in the vehicle at the material time and DWF successful

application for an Unless Order

Overview: The Claimant pleaded that he occupied his stationary

vehicle when it was hit supported by a medical report stating the

same, however, he had served a previous medical report of the

same date in which he reported that he was outside of the vehicle.

This was supported by the named driver who said he was changing

a tyre and was not near the car on impact. Further, DWF obtained

the police report which confirmed the named driver’s evidence &

the Claimant signed a statement stating that he was not injured.

Despite relying on a witness statement where he confirmed he was

changing a tyre and not in the vehicle he failed to amend his

pleadings. His representatives came off record and DWF filed an

application for specific disclosure. The application was granted and

the Claimant failed to comply with an Unless Order for specific

disclosure and written intention to proceed.

Technical Interest: DWF filed an application for specific disclosure

and notice of intention pre-trial in order to obtain a technical

success and QOCS reversal, without the further costs of preparing

for and attending a trial.


Details Amount

PI £3,000.00

PAV £970.0

Misc £50.00


Total £9,136.80

Iancu Tuidea v Ionut Negoita

DWF: 2019226-47, Ben Harper

DCL: A2017/000505

Fraud Type: Staged / Contrived

Outcome: Withdrawn Pre Litigation

Headline: 4 claims withdrawn following Part 18s in case where links

were established between the parties.

Overview: A third party Claimant had obtained a quote in respect

of the insured vehicle pre-accident. DWF intelligence searches

further strengthened links between the parties. Part 18 requests

were issued pre issue on all parties to demonstrate their concealing

the links. The driver provided replies in which he denied any link

and following the same all claims were withdrawn.

66784228-3 7

Technical Interest: This claim featured a pop up firm. The Lawyer’s

Firm, and with only relatively minor challenge with Part 18s –

holding the repudiation tactically - the claims were abandoned.


Details Amount

PI £10,000.00

PAV £1,400.00

Hire £5,000.00

NHS £2,712.00


Total £24,980.00

Solomon Osei-Mensah v Polish Village

Bread

DWF: 2019226-113, Sue Potts

DCL: A2018/000007

Fraud Type: Causation and occupancy.


Headlines: Phantom passenger claims repudiated with support of

third party driver.

Overview: The third party driver denied any passengers yet claims

were presented from 3 alleged passengers. The phantom claims

were fully repudiated.


Details Amount

PI £9,000.00

Misc £150.00


Total £12,408.00

Ismet Can v J O’Doherty Haulage


DCL: A2016/000756

Fraud Type: Induced


Headline: "Slam on” withdrawn following investigation

Overview: The Claimant alleged that he slowed down to give way

to a bus parked at a bus stop. Images provided did not match the

allegations and the named driver denied there was any bus or

reason for the Claimant to slam on. The named driver felt this was

a "crash for cash” scam. This was supported by an independent

witness. DWF intelligence searches also located credibility

evidence against the Claimant. Further information was requested

of the Claimant to clarify his allegations regarding the bus and

subsequently his claim was withdrawn.


Details Amount

PI £2,500.00

PAV £996.07


Total ££4,996.07

Rubina Sameer v Balin Distribution Ltd


DCL: A2014/005926

Liability Type: Liability & Phantom Occupancy


Headline: Claim discontinued with payment of costs following

successful application to amend Defence to plead fundamental

dishonesty

Overview: The Claimant claimed to be a passenger in the third

party vehicle which the named driver denied. Whilst the named

driver’s evidence alone on liability and occupancy was not as

strong as we would have liked; the concerns as to occupancy were

supported by the Claimant’s medical records which suggested that

the knee and wrist injuries were pre / post index accident and could

not be attributed to the index accident.

Post exchange and disclosure DWF successfully applied to rely on

an Amended Defence pleading fundamental dishonesty and the

Claimant approached with a drop hands offer. This was not

accepted given that the Claimant had the opportunity to drop hands

earlier in the proceedings and DWF placed on notice that if the

66784228-3 8

claim was discontinued an application would be made for

fundamental dishonesty. The parties agreed for costs recovery in

the sum of £1,000.00.

Recovery: £1,000.00.

Technical Interest: Agreements on costs can be agreed outside of

QOCS by way of a Tomlin Order and enforced in contract.


Details Amount

PI £10,000.00

Physio £455.00


Total £18,423.20

Masood Ali v Marston Green Logistics


DCL: A2016/000281



Headline: Claim withdrawn following Part 18 request / concerns the

incident was staged.

Overview: There were concerns that the incident was staged. A

search was carried out on the third party vehicle on the day of the

collision but prior to the time it was alleged to have occurred. A s29

DPA reply from Experian confirmed it was by a company linked to

the engineer. A Part 18 request was issued to pin the Claimant

down to the time of the accident. Following the request the claim

was withdrawn.

Technical Interest: Whilst a Part 18 request cannot be compelled

by application pre litigation it is a useful method of asserting

pressure on Claimants / obtaining early information.


Details Amount

PI £2,500.00

PAV £6,120.00

Hire - £5,000.00


Total £16,120.00

Dale McCall v Nijjar Dairies


DCL: A2015/005649

Fraud Type: Causation & occupancy


Headline: Withdrawn claim from own insured employee

Overview: Own insured passenger claim with initial occupancy

concerns. Occupancy was confirmed with the Policyholder but no

report of any injury from their employee. Suspected that this was

a reaction claim from the passenger who left their employ and the

claim was withdrawn following requests for disclosure to support

the alleged claim.


Details Amount

PI £3,000.00

Claimant's costs £840.00

Total £3,840.00

66784228-3 9

Jessica Denbigh v E P Refigeration Ltd


DCL: A2017/001424

Fraud Type: Causation & occupancy


Headline: 5 PI claims withdrawn owing to occupancy concerns

Overview: Engineering evidence was obtained from Acume which

supported causation and the named driver reported that he saw the

head of one small child in the vehicle but could not support there

being 3 other children in the car. Medical records were sought and

the Claimants accepted an offer for payment of vehicle damage on

the condition that the PI claims were withdrawn.


Details Amount

PI £12,500.00


Total £18,629.47

Kamil Miah v Prime Halal Poulty & Meat


DCL: A2017/007911

Fraud Type: Phantom Occupancy

Outcome: Repudiation Pre Issue

Headline: Claim repudiated following CCTV footage which

disputed his occupancy.

Overview: CCTV footage was obtained from the third party coach

which did not support the Claimant’s occupancy. Proof of a travel

ticket was requested and the Claimant withdrew his claim.


Details Amount

PI £2,500.00

NHS £675.00


Total £4,275.00

Hamidulla Keshtmand v Glasgow Car

Movers Ltd


DCL: A2015/004329

Fraud Type: Exaggeration


Headline: Entire claim discontinued following disclosure of

Claimant’s medical records which evidenced that he was "not

physically hurt” despite a significant PI claim where he thought he

was going to die.

Overview: The Claimant alleged that the named driver reversed

into collision with his Mercedes. The named driver failed to report

the incident and following a period of unrelated illness absence he

denied any involvement but failed to assist with enquiries having

left the employ of the Policyholder company.

Notwithstanding the named driver’s failure to assist, the claim was

defended on exaggerated injury. The Claimant denied any

accident history which was false and significantly exaggerated his

claim claiming that he thought he was "going to die” in a reversing

collision. DWF pushed for medical records disclosure to evidence

further credibility concerns which revealed that he attended his GP

1 month post-accident where he said he was not physically hurt but

had trouble sleeping. The claim was formally repudiated pre-trial

and the Claimant discontinued his claim including vehicle damage.

Technical Interest:

Without disclosure of the Claimant’s medical records this claim

would likely have settled and this evidences the importance of

obtaining medical records in undermining the claim and utilising this

and a threat of fundamental dishonesty to withdraw an otherwise

potentially genuine vehicle damage claim.

Details Amount

PI £3,450.00

PAV £2,679.07

Misc £40.00


Total £10,640.00

66784228-3 10

Janaka Kankanmge v Paramore Ltd


DCL: A2017/001289

Fraud Type: Liability dispute & deliberate secondary impact

Outcome: Repudiation Pre Litigation

Headline: Claim repudiated on evidence that the Claimant

deliberately slammed on his brakes.

Overview: The incident involved 2 impacts and dash cam footage

suggested that the second incident was caused deliberately by the

Claimant slamming on. A repudiation was issued and the claim

was withdrawn pre litigation.


Details Amount

PI £6,000.00

Misc £100.00

NHS £1,770.00


Total £10,006.00

Joanne Bostock v P B Donoghue Ltd


DCL: A2017/004036

Fraud Type: Fabricated Injury


Headline: 2 claims withdrawn following successful PADA for

medical records.

Overview: The claim was formally repudiated following the

Claimant’s denial on two occasions via telephone and email that

either Claimant was injured and following a successful pre action

disclosure application for medical records which supported the

concerns.

Technical Interest: This case demonstrates how applications for

pre action disclosure can secure the evidence required to fully

repudiate a claim prior to the issue of proceedings.

Details Amount

PI £7,500.00


Total £12,000.00

Bishwas Raj v Robsons of Spalding Ltd

DWF: 2019226-125, Craig Budworth

DCL: A2017/006172

Fraud Type: Phantom occupancy


Headline: Claims withdrawn following call recording from driver

denying passengers.

Overview: Claims were intimated by 2 passengers yet there was a

call recording from the third party driver stating that he was the sole

occupancy and no medical attendances from the phantoms. The

named driver however supported 3 occupants, although the

Claimants withdrew their claims.


Details Amount

PI £8.000.00

Physio £957.00

Misc £30.00


Total £12,151.88

66784228-3 11

Gheorghe Duman v ECM Ltd


DCL: A2015/003651

Fraud Type: Phantom passenger


Headline: Claimants’ caught as phantom occupants thanks to

driver’s photographs of folded down rear seats

Overview: Two claims were submitted for personally injury from

alleged third party occupants whereas the named driver saw that

the vehicle was empty and there were a number of people sat

outside a property when the impact occurred. The claims were

formally repudiated following Part 18 replies from one Claimant

who stated that he was a rear seat passenger whereas

photographs taken at the scene evidenced that the rear seats had

been folded down / taken out.

Technical Interest: Evidence of the use of Part 18 requests pre-

issue to tie down the Claimant’s evidence to issue an early

repudiation.


Details Amount

PI £11,000.00

S&R £1,618.80


Total £15,618.80

Ravinderjit Sangha v S & D Meat &

Poultry


DCL: A2017/005573

Fraud Type: Liability & Late Notification


Headline: Suspected farmed claim withdrawn.

Overview: This was a potential farmed claim linked to Operation

Orchid involving Q C Law. Disclosure was requested from the

Claimant and the claim was withdrawn pre-issue.


Details Amount

PI £2,500.00


Total £3,436.00

Waqas Khalid v M Lutt & Sons


DCL: A2017/002580

Fraud Type: Roadworthy vehicle / special damages claimed


Headline: Hire, recovery & storage charges withdrawn following

repudiation.

Overview: DWF secured the withdrawal of the special damages

claimed as the Claimant’s insurer confirmed that the vehicle was

roadworthy and mobile and the mileage had increased during the

period of credit hire.

Savings against presented claims: Total £5,280.00

66784228-3 12

Ahmed Sabbgh-Parry v Speedlight Limited


DCL: A2014/000471



Headline: Convicted drugs criminal withdrawn claim following

evidence of dishonesty and credibility in a suspected staged claim.

Overview: DWF intelligence identified that the Claimant had been

prosecuted for heroin trafficking and that Allan English, the

engineer who inspected the vehicle was the registered keeper of

the third party vehicle, the vehicle had been MOT’d on the date of

the accident and evidence of financial distress. A formal

repudiation was issued setting out the concerns and the claim was

withdrawn pre issue.

Technical Interest: Whilst no links were established between the

parties early intelligence lead to a successful repudiation on the

basis of the parties credibility evidence.


Details Amount

PI £2,600.00

PAV £12,500.00

Hire £5,000.00

S&R £2,50.00


Total £26,600.00

Zeshan Baig v Metro Foods


DCL: A2016/003835

Fraud Type: Induced


Headline: Claim withdrawn following Part 18s in dash cam "slam

on” case

Overview: The insured vehicle was fitted with a dash cam which

showed the third party vehicle come to a sudden stop when there

was no apparent reason to do so. Tactically the dash cam was

withheld and Part 18s were raised to pin the Claimant to his

allegations. The Claimant failed to respond and abandoned his

claim including a £7,500.00 credit hire claim.


Details Amount

PI £2,500.00

Hire £7,500.00

S&R £2,000.00

NHS £647.00


Total £16,147.00

Barthomiej Ordon v North London Courier


DCL: A2016/001856

Fraud Type: Phantom Occupancy


Headline: 4 claims withdrawn following admissions that 2 were not

in the vehicle and evidence from an engineer that the vehicle could

only hold 3 occupants.

Overview: 4 claims for PI were submitted yet the named driver

claimed that there was the sole driver in the vehicle at the material

time. DWF intelligence located that a passenger featured in an

Operation as to bogus psych reports and there was evidence that

the passenger would have been aware it was bogus. Further the

vehicle had a refrigerated rear and could only fit 3 occupants.

Following repudiation 2 occupants confirmed they were not in the

vehicle and all claims were abandoned.


Details Amount

PI £10,000.00


Total £16,000.00

Lewis Seldon v Andrew Dickens


DCL: A2016/000072

Fraud Type: Causation / Exaggeration


Headline: DWF intelligence undermined PI claim where Claimant

played in amateur football matches in prognosis period.

66784228-3 13

Overview: The Policyholder rolled into the rear of third party

vehicle. He denied that injury could have been caused. Whilst the

damage to the third party vehicle was significant and undermined

an LVI defence, DWF intelligence identified that the Claimant

featured in another DWF fraud public liability claim and further that

he featured in a line up for a number of Sunday League matches

for Cardiff Eagles amateur football team during the prognosis,

including one where he was reported to have scored a goal.

The Claimant denied his involvement and claimed another player

played under his name. Following DWF’s request for sight of his

medical records, his player records and a statement from the team

manager, the claim was withdrawn pre-litigation resulting in a fraud

saving for PI, loss of earnings, physiotherapy and two passenger

claims.

Technical Interest: Showcases the importance of early intelligence

and credibility evidence against the Claimant to secure a success

even where other aspects of the claim fall support settlement.


Details Amount

PI £8,600.00

LOE £622.46

Physio £402.60


Total £13,525.06

Ashley Smith v TKG Limited


DCL: A2016/000629



Headline: 7 claims withdrawn following repudiation on staged

concerns / accident history

Overview: The insured driver disappeared post-accident and your

Policyholder was unable to establish contact with him. DWF

intelligence identified that 3 of the parties across both vehicles had

prior claims repudiated due to fraud concerns and there was

criminal activity. The staged concerns were supported by a

request from the third party for footage from the insured vehicle,

the existence of which was never disclosed, and which caused

suspicions as to the named driving waiting to pull out at a junction.

Technical Interest: Liability was admitted and offers were made

and accepted, however, no payments were made and all claims

abandoned after a strong repudiation on the basis of the above

concerns highlighting the importance of intelligence.


Details Amount

PI £18,000.00

Hire £6,385.44

S&R £1,887.60


Total £33,422.84

Mr Lawrence Etim v Heverin Haulage Ltd


DCL: A2015/003495

Fraud Type: Induced


Headline: DWF intelligence uncovers Operational links and DWF

cases linking the Claimant to induced accidents.

Overview: The Claimant alleged that the named driver hit the side

of his vehicle when turning a corner. The named driver alleged that

the Claimant undertook him in a bus lane and tried to move ahead,

hitting his vehicle. The circumstances did not fit a typical induced

incident but could have been a botched attempt. These concerns

were further supported by DWF intelligence which identified that

the Claimant featured in 2 prior DWF claims including a suspected

induced claim which was discontinued and formed part of various

Operations concerned with induced accidents. The claims were

repudiated on liability and were withdrawn pre litigation.

66784228-3 14

Technical Interest: Whilst the incident circumstances alone would

not wholly support inducement, DWF intelligence was key in

supporting the continued investigation of the claims due to

identified accident history and Operations.


Details Amount

PI £2,500.00

PAV £4,332.00

Hire £1,500.00

S&R £1,000.00


Total £11,322.00

Total fraud savings are £348,548.76

© DWF 2019. DWF is a legal business operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Our lawyers are subject to the rules of the regulatory body with

whom they are admitted. For further information about these entities and DWF’s structure, please refer to the Legal Notices page on our website. All rights reserved. www.dwf.law

66784228-3

Beyond borders, sectors

and expectations

DWF is a global legal business, connecting expert services with innovative

thinkers across diverse sectors. Like us, our clients recognise that the world is

changing fast and the old rules no longer apply.

That’s why we’re always finding agile ways to tackle new challenges together.

But we don’t simply claim to be different. We prove it through every detail of

our work, across every level. We go beyond conventions and expectations.

Join us on the journey.

direct commercial & dwf law llp counter fraud success …...sylver v kilnbridge dwf:...

Documents