Suspected insurance fraud, how to gain evidence?

MeldrewsMate said:
It still hurts!
Click to expand...
I recognise that way of not letting things go. I could recount fine details ad nauseam, of several incidents where I was wronged.
In some cases I got even, which does help, but in more I didn't, and try to park it in a crap-memory box with the lid shut. You can't make yourself forget, but the box lid has a "dismissed" label.
Sometimes the statue, sometimes the pigeon. Let it wash off.
 
MeldrewsMate said:
Are you suggesting that the small claims court will ACT to gain this sort of information from CUE without being prompted? Do you have information to show that they actually do these checks and so the judge will know if a claim was made BEFORE any hearing takes place? If so my court case (from 2019) shows that an insurance claim wasn't made before we appeared at court. This is vital information and completely undermines my suspicions. This raises further questions:
1. Did CUE exist in 2019?
2. Did the court carry out these checks for which the customer had given permission?
Click to expand...
I think the poster is confusing the obligations on the claimant to check he has all the correct parties.

This is more relevant to PI claims
 
MeldrewsMate said:
No, that did not occur to me.
Nor did it occur to challenge the VAT that was taken off my bill by the judge as part of the calculation for the settlement figure. That only occurred ten minutes after leaving court and once I had got my thoughts together. I hadn't charged VAT, and I'm not VAT registered. By that time the judge had scarpered and no-one at the court office was willing to help bring this to his attention. (yes there was an option to appeal, but that would incur further expense and time, and I didn't have time for that until the festering anger had had time to act, and then the opportunity to appeal had time expired. It still hurts!
Click to expand...
So the claim was minus the value of your work?
The judge took account of your bill when awarding damages.
 
MeldrewsMate said:
Are you suggesting that the small claims court will ACT to gain this sort of information from CUE without being prompted? Do you have information to show that they actually do these checks and so the judge will know if a claim was made BEFORE any hearing takes place? If so my court case (from 2019) shows that an insurance claim wasn't made before we appeared at court. This is vital information and completely undermines my suspicions. This raises further questions:
1. Did CUE exist in 2019?
2. Did the court carry out these checks for which the customer had given permission?
Click to expand...
yes its standard procedure...and CUE has existed in one form or another since 1994. Think about it, for a claim to proceed in any court the court must first determine if that claim is lawful in that court, otherwise they would be breaking the law. One of the first questions runs along the lines of...is this claim being pursued in any other court or with any other institution eg an insurance company.That varies between divisions of a court but is essentially the same, the court also when it awards a sum updates any claim on many databases, London law gazette is one, which all the insurers subscribe to, this tells them of the address, names of both parties and the award given or not. and your credit reference file as you have had a small claim registered against you.. And yes they do check...every single time, do you honestly think courts are there to help commit fraud ?

As for your claim what was the time limit for an insurance claim...normally its 180 from the incident. so if you case was herd after 180 days then there would be no possibility of a claim and the result of small claims would have been published so the insurer would not have paid out.
 
Only if the judgement is not settled within 7 days (might be 14 from memory) There is no CCJ if you pay up within the time limit and if you pay within 30 days the CCJ will be removed.
 
Last edited:
Have I understood this right?

You made a mistake (it happens )
You repaired it, and paid for other repairs.
You were taken to court after that and still lost?

What info is missing ?
 
Additional consequential damages due to negligence. Whether they were genuine or not, we will never know, but the district judge was convinced.
 
Did the OP refuse to pay these consequential losses?

If so, why? if there was enough proof for the court to decide

I think we are only getting some of the story
 
Do you mean prior to the county court hearing?
Yes - it appears the parties could not resolve the dispute pre-action, hence the summons and eventual award.

I think there is a reasonable assumption that the OP thought the claim was unjustly enriched, it seems the Judge partially agreed (new fridge replacing old fridge). That is betterment which the judge adjusted for.
 
Insurance scams / false claims

We have had a couple of attempts of that from people in the past
 
motorbiking said:
Do you mean prior to the county court hearing?
Yes - it appears the parties could not resolve the dispute pre-action, hence the summons and eventual award.

I think there is a reasonable assumption that the OP thought the claim was unjustly enriched, it seems the Judge partially agreed (new fridge replacing old fridge). That is betterment which the judge adjusted for.
Click to expand...
But the judge decided in the favour of the claimant and against the defendant.

You may think you have all the story. I'm not convinced.
 
No I definitely don't - this is a rare moment where you and I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top