People who lie on claims forms

[amirzed]

There was a thread recently about some insurers pulling out of the private market due to continual losses, possible exascerbated (sp) by the fraud element.

Which makes me wonder why they don't do more about people who lie about their claims e.g.

My dad was driving into our drive and got hit by a car as he turned in, other car bounced off my dad's car and hit next doors wall and stopped. He then got out and apologised as he said he didn't realise what was happening till the impact, no braking no nothing. Meanwhile a lady had witnessed the whole thing and stopped to give her details to my Dad. About half an hour later we had managed to sweep up bits of car, get Dad's car on the side of the road and swap addresses. The other driver was a local lad and a 5th year medical student IIRC and his mum came to pick him up.

The next day I rung his insurance co. and asked if they could process the claim from their end as their driver had admitted liability. They told me to get a quote and wait for their client to ring in. Local Audi garage quoted 5.5k to fix (it was quite some damage) and said we could have a Polo once work was approved. Cool.

Wait a week and ring their insurance co. to be told that no, we will be contesting as our client has not admitted liability. Told to get in touch with my own insurance co. and not bother them again, they would only talk to another ins co. Fair enough, rung a management co. and had a vehicle dropped off the same day. Passat Tdi. Then it was a month to get their assessor out to agree the 5k odd quote, a month for Audi to get it booked and another month to get it fixed.

Thats 3 months of car hire.

As the mgt co. was getting nowhere with the claim I decided to get involved. Rung other drivers ins co. to be told the liability 'lies with your father' as he was reversing out the driveway and 'our client could not avoid the impact'. I pointed out that I was stood in the driveway as this happened and I had seen the whole thing and there was no 'reversing' taking place. Pointless argument ensues where i say your client is a complete liar, shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine if he can't even be trusted to tell the truth about an RTA etc etc, he tells me i'm nobody to say anything as i'm a related witness, i say 'yeah, but what about the other one?'

Turns out they had overlooked the other witness statement, I got it faxed over the same day and literally the next day they settled the claim.

The point of my rather boring and rambling story is this.

I offered to settle this directly where the repair centre gave me a free loan car and they had their clients story on the claim so they were unable to agree to this. This would have cost them 5.5k.

It actually cost them 5.5k, and 3 months of car hire. Even at £50 a day it would have been £4.5k. So they're at least 4.5k down.

Their client's claim form is a legal document (apparently) that contained material misstatements which cost his ins co. a decent amount of money. Why can't/won't they persue him for the extra costs his lies created?
And how can insurance companies moan about not making money when they won't chase up people like this?

Or am i getting something wrong?

Edited by amirzed on Tuesday 10th August 12:25

[off_again]

People lie, its as simple as that.

If its their fault, they will lie in an effort to save a few quid in increased premiums in the future. If its not their fault, they will lie to get money for an injury that never happened. Everyone does it (except me of course, I don't want to risk the potential issues long term) and its almost as if the general public thinks that Insurance companies are some sort of evil empire created to steal money....

To be hoenst, I have only had pretty good service from my insurance companies in the past. The liars who crashed into me, now thats a different matter.

I even heard about pet insurance fraud the other day. One vet claimed a pet needed £10k worth of hip work over a couple of years. Under pressure dropped it to £8k but with a deal. Took to a second vet as not happy with what was going on, told it was £600 worth of operation and maybe a further £200-£300 ongoing treatment. Seems that the first vet was running a scam to falsify the work needed, because pets cannot talk. Cheating little git..... and yes, reported and being investigated (not by me by the way).

[dilbert]

I'm not sure how you get driven into when turning into your drive, and it not be your fault.

If the turning is on your side of the road, then how do you get hit?
If the turning is not on your side of the road, then the other car has the right of way.

[Flintstone]

dilbert said:

If the turning is on your side of the road, then how do you get hit?

Other car on the wrong side of the road? As always we don't have the full story.

[Zod]

dilbert said:

I'm not sure how you get driven into when turning into your drive, and it not be your fault.

If the turning is on your side of the road, then how do you get hit?
If the turning is not on your side of the road, then the other car has the right of way.

You are turning in to your drive when another car turns into the road and drives straight into you because the driver is busy sending a text?

[arfur sleep]

dilbert said:

I'm not sure how you get driven into when turning into your drive, and it not be your fault.

If the turning is on your side of the road, then how do you get hit?

the driver of the car behind not paying attention, failing to see indicator and brake lights?
you turn left and they wallop your near side rear three quarter/rear end

[amirzed]

dilbert said:

I'm not sure how you get driven into when turning into your drive, and it not be your fault.

If the turning is on your side of the road, then how do you get hit?
If the turning is not on your side of the road, then the other car has the right of way.

turn into driveway on your side, indicate and slow down prior obviously. As you turn in the vehicle that was travelling behind you that hasn't braked at all is about to smash into the back of your car. Impacting vehicle in a panic swerves towards your drive, mounts the pavement, impacts your vehicle making a hole in the door, bending the wing and the wheel (wheel looked fine to me though) and then carries on down the pavement till it hits next door's wall and stops. And his airbag never came out. Weird I thought.

[amirzed]

arfur sleep said:

dilbert said:

I'm not sure how you get driven into when turning into your drive, and it not be your fault.

If the turning is on your side of the road, then how do you get hit?

the driver of the car behind not paying attention, failing to see indicator and brake lights?
you turn left and they wallop your near side rear three quarter/rear end

exactly

[Magog]

amirzed said:

Pointless argument ensues where i say your client is a complete liar, shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine if he can't even be trusted to tell the truth about an RTA etc etc

You should contact the GMC and also his University, he's clearly not the sort of person that should be practising as a doctor. This probably won't get you very far, but it might but the wind up him a bit.

[kazste]

My car was hit on my driveway by a delivery lorry delivering to me I was in the house and heard the crunch. They still tried to dispute this, until I pointed out I had a video of me leaving my house and the driver apologizing for hitting my car. I believe the company did take action against the driver for making a false legal statement.

But as said before remember that most people lie in order to achieve their goal, don't fall into the trap of playing their game bit make sure you play yours smartly.

[Grey Ghost]

amirzed said:

Turns out they had overlooked the other witness statement, I got it faxed over the same day and literally the next day they settled the claim.

And there my friend lies the answer. The insurance firm employ monkeys who did not put together all parts of the puzzle. From what you are saying they have tried to settle this claim "knock for knock" based on no witness statements being provided. Obviously you are discounted as a family member. If they had noted the witness statement in the file they would not have done this and they would have been only £5.5K down for the repair to the car rather than another £5.5K down for car hire etc.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys......same here really where two systems give me a difference of c5000 troy ounces in our gold stock accounts Same monkeys built that as well

[zcacogp]

kazste said:

But as said before remember that most people lie in order to achieve their goal, don't fall into the trap of playing their game bit make sure you play yours smartly.

That's about it. People lie because they know they can get away with it. I've been involved in four accidents in the last 12 or so years, the fault of the other party in each case. In all but one case, the other party lied about what happened at the time, or lied about it afterwards. In each case I fought, and won, despite there being no backing from my insurance company - they would simply have rolled over and paid, removing my NCB in the process.

Each case was dragged out and made un-necessarily more expensive by the other person's lies. (In one case it quadrupled the cost, I think.)

We need a system that identifies and punishes liars hard. We don't have such a system, hence the behaviour will be perpetuated.


Oli.

[dilbert]

amirzed said:

dilbert said:

I'm not sure how you get driven into when turning into your drive, and it not be your fault.

If the turning is on your side of the road, then how do you get hit?
If the turning is not on your side of the road, then the other car has the right of way.

turn into driveway on your side, indicate and slow down prior obviously. As you turn in the vehicle that was travelling behind you that hasn't braked at all is about to smash into the back of your car. Impacting vehicle in a panic swerves towards your drive, mounts the pavement, impacts your vehicle making a hole in the door, bending the wing and the wheel (wheel looked fine to me though) and then carries on down the pavement till it hits next door's wall and stops. And his airbag never came out. Weird I thought.

That does sound odd, but there's no accounting for what people will do.

The emphasis from the perspective of insurance companies is to deny responsibility. If you are the victim, the other insurer will investigate, and piece the thing together. If the offenders story doesn't make sense, as it usually won't then they will come down in favour of the victim, even though it costs them to do so.

Sounds like the problem here is that the offender did something odd, so your witness will come in handy.

[Mattt]

Magog said:

amirzed said:

Pointless argument ensues where i say your client is a complete liar, shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine if he can't even be trusted to tell the truth about an RTA etc etc

You should contact the GMC and also his University, he's clearly not the sort of person that should be practising as a doctor. This probably won't get you very far, but it might but the wind up him a bit.

I'd say this too - make the little scrote think twice in future. He could be the next Harold Shipman after all.

[IainT]

zcacogp said:

kazste said:

But as said before remember that most people lie in order to achieve their goal, don't fall into the trap of playing their game bit make sure you play yours smartly.

That's about it. People lie because they know they can get away with it. I've been involved in four accidents in the last 12 or so years, the fault of the other party in each case. In all but one case, the other party lied about what happened at the time, or lied about it afterwards. In each case I fought, and won, despite there being no backing from my insurance company - they would simply have rolled over and paid, removing my NCB in the process.

Each case was dragged out and made un-necessarily more expensive by the other person's lies. (In one case it quadrupled the cost, I think.)

We need a system that identifies and punishes liars hard. We don't have such a system, hence the behaviour will be perpetuated.


Oli.

Absolutely agree Oli - if people were duly punished for lieing on claims then it'd probably make a few think twice.


Had an accident where a white-lining lorry cut into the lane I was in heading south around Swiss Cottage. Totally nerfed the rhs of my battered old cavalier. They didn't stop, infact sped off and ran a red light. I caught up with them about a mile down the road and they pulled over.

Cue three burly chaps getting out and the driver stating it was my fault. I asked him why it'd taken so long for him to stop and why he ran a red light to get away. Took out my phone and started to call the police to attent the RTA and him and his mates backing down in a hurry. Said they'd admit liability. I wasn't happy with that - wouldn't trust them a mile and felt that a formal record of the incident would be preferable. They then offered to write a 'confession' and all three sign it.

Processing the claim my insurance company told me that the written confession was worthless as it could have been forced under duress!

Called their company who were very helpful and it all got sorted out with little fuss but can see how these things get out of hand.

[Ganglandboss]

I was hit years ago by some silly bint in a knackered old MkII Fiesta. I had just dropped someone off and my mate who was staying in the car was still outside the car from letting him out of the back (2 door car). I was at the front of a row of parked cars and the woman driving the other car pulled back into the left too early and clipped the front of my car. She stopped her car in the middle of the road and left it there with the lights off. She started making a load of noise and started shouting "Get the police".

My car had a dented O/S front wing, two small scratches on the bumper and a bit of paint off her car on the indicator lens. Clearly the indicator made contact but did not break. The damage to her car was substantial and immediately made me suspect there was previous accident damage.

She calmed down eventually but kept saying she was too shaken to drive home. Her husband arrived within a couple of minutes to drive her home. The police just took names and addresses and breathalysed us. My insurance company told me that she was claiming I pulled out on her and as she had an independent witness, I should accept liability.

I received a copy of the witness statement which had the usual name and address blacked out and a line asking who was liable. The witness said I was. Another line asked if he saw the collision and he said "No".

In the detailed description it roughly read, "As I said, I did not actually witness the accident but I heard a bang from outside the window of my flat. I looked out of the window and there was a white car in the road and a dark car by the side. The lady driving the white car shouted "Get the police". There was a man in his early 20s getting out of the car and two men of a similar age stood on the pavement."

I rang the insurance company and asked if they had actually read it, in particular the bit where he said he did not witness the accident.

A week or so later, I got a large package in the post from her ambulance chaser informing me she was making a claim against me for whiplash and an injury to the right shoulder caused by her seatbelt. In the package was the supporting evidence. The first document was a medical her solicitor had arranged. It was full of the usual bullst along with a questionnaire with a number of yes/no answers. One of the questions was "Have you had any injury or illness affecting the neck or right shoulder in the last five years?", to which she answered "No". The rest of the documents were her medical records for the last few years. There was a catalogue of car crash injuries, industrial accidents and trips on pavements. She had not worked for four years since falling at work onto an outstretched right arm and injuring her shoulder.

I went through all of this with a highlighter pen and wrote out my appraisal of the document s before sending it to my insurers as I suspect they were not even reading any correspondence.

The best bit was her husband was claiming too! I pointed out to my insurer that he wasn't even in the car and enquired as to why they are still considering settling a claim that is full of blatant lies.

[amirzed]

Mattt said:

Magog said:

amirzed said:

Pointless argument ensues where i say your client is a complete liar, shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine if he can't even be trusted to tell the truth about an RTA etc etc

You should contact the GMC and also his University, he's clearly not the sort of person that should be practising as a doctor. This probably won't get you very far, but it might but the wind up him a bit.

I'd say this too - make the little scrote think twice in future. He could be the next Harold Shipman after all.

I did consider this but was advised not to - something to do with him not being registered with the GMC yet.....

What I wanted was for him to pay the total claim cost less 5.5k personally. Stop him lying next time wouldn't it.

[TheEnd]

I think some claims handlers can't be arsed to do their jobs properly, and would rather fold for a 50/50 and walk away, instead of fighting it.

What they need is a new sheriff in town, someone who'll come and wash the scum off the streets, and prosecute those who do lie.

I have a feeling some ins. co.s treat it like a game of cheat, they'll happily lie as much as they can in the hope of getting off with it, knowing when they get found out, or it gets thrown back at them, nothing will happen.

[AndrewTait]

zcacogp said:

despite there being no backing from my insurance company - they would simply have rolled over and paid, removing my NCB in the process.

Again, this is part of the problem - They roll over and pay out say, £6k in claim, but then due to them removing your NCB, charge you say an extra £500 per year for the next 5 years of insurance. instant profit!

[Flintstone]

TheEnd said:

Things

While I hate using cliches it's a numbers game.

There comes a point where it's cheaper (for them) in the long run to simply agree knock-for-knock instead of spend the man hours investigating. Grossly unfair on the driver who then loses his/her no claims bonus but then who gets the higher premium at renewal? Insurers of course, the same insurers who rubber stamp these claims.