Crash for Cash Car Accidents on the Increase

The Insurance Fraud Bureau estimates that around 30,000 crash for cash incidents were staged in 2009, costing insurers around £350 million.  Crash for cash incidents are where the fraudster brakes suddenly, usually using the handbrake so there are no warning lights, on a roundabout or clear road causing the car behind to rear end shunt them.  Then a claim is made for personal injury as it is generally accepted that the driver making the rear end shunt is to blame.  In some cases, claims have been made for passengers who were not in the car at the time of the incident.

Crash for cash incidents were largely confined to Liverpool, Blackburn, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and London.  Fraudsters staging these incidents tend to select drivers who are single parents or elderly and drivers of commercial vehicles.

Drivers can protect themselves by not admitting or accepting liability for the accident and taking photographs of the cars and the driver and any passengers in the other vehicle involved.  Mobile phone photographs are fine for this.  Draw a sketch of the road where the incident took place and the paths of the vehicles involved as soon as possible while your memory’s still fresh.  If the driver who caused the accident becomes abusive, phone and report the incident to the police.

Fraudulent Accident Claim results in costs order but fraudulent claimant still entitled to compensation for genuine injuries

Ms Shah admitted liability for a road traffic accident.  As a result of that road traffic accident the driver of the other car involved, Mr Ul-Haq and an alleged passenger, Ms Khatoon, claimed compensation for injuries sustained in the accident.  However, Ms Shah alleged that Ms Khatoon was not a passenger in the car at the time of the accident and therefore Mr Ul-Haq’s claim should be struck out as it was fraudulent.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the original findings that Ms Khatoon had not been a passenger in the car and Mr Ul-Haq had conspired with her to fraudulently claim compensation for injuries she did not have.  The Court then had to consider whether this was sufficiently serious enough for Mr Ul-Haq’s compensation claim to be struck out.  The Court concluded that Mr Ul-Haq had been genuinely injured in the car accident and awarded limited compensation for those injuries.  The Court also held that Mr Ul-Haq should pay two-thirds of Ms Shah’s costs for defending the accident claims.  Even though Mr Ul-Haq had to pay Ms Shah’s costs for the fraudulent claim, he was still entitled to compensation for his own injuries genuinely sustained in a car accident.