Fraudster’s £200,000 claim after toilet slip flushed away by judge

A fraudster who tried to claim £200,000 after slipping in a toilet is facing the prospect of having to repay at least £40,000 in legal fees after being found to be fundamentally dishonest.

Michael Casserley, from Oswaldtwistle, Accrington, alleged that on the 23 June 2018, he slipped in a restaurant toilet, causing a re-rupture of an injury to his achilles tendon. 

The 49-year-old brought a claim against Allianz, which he initially valued at up to £25,000, but later tried to increase the amount to £200,000. 

However, Allianz said suspicions were raised when it was discovered that he had misrepresented the extent of his injuries. 

In one instance, he told his own medical expert that he required a walking stick or mobility scooter to get around, but had, on the day of the visit, forgotten his walking stick.

Due to discrepancies, Casserley was placed under covert surveillance and during this time, Allianz said the claimant was seen assisting a neighbour in carrying a sofa, contradicting his earlier claims of limited mobility. 

James Burge, head of counter fraud at Allianz Commercial, said: ”Reviewing the footage brings home the importance of calling out all forms of fundamental dishonesty.

”The claimant, in this case, both in his actions and words, was clearly trying to profiteer from our customer.”

Court

The claim was withdrawn shortly before a scheduled two day trial, but Allianz’s client pursued the matter.

This resulted in the claimant being found fundamentally dishonest and ordered to pay £40,000 toward the defendant’s costs.

Judge O’Brien, who presiding over the case at Burnley County Court, stated that the claimant significantly exaggerated the extent of his difficulties and that his presentation to the experts was markedly different from his actual functionality.

She concluded that the claimant knowingly provided dishonest evidence and exaggerated his pre and post-accident capabilities. 

The judge also dismissed the claimant’s assertion of variable condition of ‘good days and bad days’, as it was not supported by any documentation, including the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) records.

Jonathan Head, director at DWF, which represented Allianz, said: “This case underlines the importance of careful analysis of the claim presented and the benefit of carefully targeted surveillance in the right case.

“The claimant was given a number of opportunities to walk away from the claim, but pressed on until almost the very end, causing substantial legal fees to be incurred by Allianz and by his own solicitors.”