JAILTIME AND COMPENSATION ORDERS HANDED DOWN TO WELSH GANG IN CRASH FOR CASH SCANDAL
The Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) has entered the second phase of the large scale crash for cash scam.
Sentencing took place at Newport Crown Court as the 77 fraudsters involved either pleaded or were found guilty. The second phase focussed on additional insurance claims linked to the original case and included a range of offences including conspiracy to defraud and fraud by misrepresentation.
Together the defendants received a total of 123 months’ custody, 296 months’ suspended sentences, 48 months’ conditional discharge, 6350 hours of unpaid work and £127,242 compensation orders.
CIVIL LIABILITY PASSES WITH LIMITED CHANGES
No amendments were submitted with the bill in relation to whiplash during the Third Reading of the Bill.
Lord Beecham limited himself to observations about the Bill as well as highlighting the issues which Labour planned to attack in the Commons. He labelled the Bill as "fundamentally flawed", and he hoped it would be improved when the views of MPs were heard. He identified, in particular, these aspects which Labour regards as open to challenge:
- Medical experts to have input into the definition of whiplash in the Bill.
- They would seek an outcome where damages were assessed by judges based on the JCG, essentially the present system.
- If this is to be a tariff, their position would be that the Judicial College should be involved in setting it
- He quoted with apparent approval the Law Society position that there should be clarity as to what would constitute a failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of an injury.
- Another Law Society point was mentioned, that “exceptional circumstances” to increase beyond the tariff should be left to the judges to decide upon.
AN UNCONVINCING PERFORMANCE IN A PLOTLINE FULL OF HOLES
A fraudster has been caught after fabricating the vast majority of a personal injury claim for £850,000 following a minor road traffic accident.
The claimant’s fabrication raised flags with several inconsistencies throughout the litigation making it difficult for the medicolegal experts to assess the claimant’s problems. Exaggerations touched every aspect of the claim including; his pre-accident health, the severity of the accident, the diagnosis following the accident and its impact on his own life.
The claim was dismissed entirely after discovering overwhelming evidence of a false claim and it was determined that the claimant would not suffer any injustice beyond the loss of the genuine part of the claim valued at £4,500. The claimant has been ordered to repay £13,000 that was issued to him.