Taxi driver sentenced for bogus personal injury claim

No comments

The court held that the personal injury claim was “full of inconsistencies”

A taxi driver has been found ”fundamentally dishonest” and ordered to pay costs of £11,169.72 after making a bogus personal injury claim against Admiral.

The claim made by taxi driver Adrian Boeta, 29 was deemed “wholly disingenuous” and an opportunistic attempt to seek unwarranted compensation under cross examination.

The trial on 3 July in Guildford County Court was held via Skype due to lockdown social distancing restrictions.

Admiral therefore saved more than £9,500, after specialist law firm Horwich Farrelly was appointed to defend the fraudulent personal injury claim.

James Boylan, fraud Partner at Horwich Farrelly, said: “This is another first in the counter fraud sector, where we are already industry leaders.

”Despite the Covid-19 pandemic it is very much business as usual for us as we continue to challenge fraudulent claims at trial, irrespective as to whether they are heard remotely or not.

”We continue to seek findings of fundamental dishonesty against claimants who fail to discharge their burden of proof.“

Substantial collision

The court held that there was a ”clear and unequivocal” denial of injury, and with the significant delay in bringing the claim it was deemed fundamentally dishonest.

In December 2015, an Admiral customer collided with the rear of Boeta’s taxi in a “substantial collision”, the vehicle was in turn shunted into the vehicle in front.

Boeta, from Godalming, Surrey said in a telephone call to Admiral the day after the accident that he had not been injured, however three years later when he presented an injury claim and associated losses, concerns were raised.

Admiral rejected the claim based on the recording of the call, but Boeta still began proceedings.

This led to Horwich Farrelly being appointed to defend it.

Iain Simmons, head of causation at Admiral, said: ‘I am delighted with the outcome of our investigation and the stance we adopted with this case, which has ultimately resulted in defeating what was found to be a disingenuous claim.

”With the support of Horwich Farrelly, we are sending the message that other dishonest claimants can expect an equally rigorous defence to their claims.”

Remote trial

Boeta had alleged that in the call recording, he had been unsure as to who he was speaking with at the time.

He stated that he was unaware of the claims process and had in fact only decided to bring the claim after speaking with other taxi drivers.

Meanwhile, two days prior to trial on 1 July 2020, and due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the court decided to hold the trial remotely.

Once the court was satisfied that the call could be properly presented in this way, Horwich Farrelly confirmed it was happy with the trial being heard by this method.

The law firm also put the court on notice of its intention to seek a finding of fundamental dishonesty against the claimant.

The trial was held before DJ Murphy who found that there was a complete absence of any corroborative evidence in support of the alleged injury and that Boeta’s evidence was full of inconsistencies.

Boylan added: “This result demonstrates that, irrespective of the current pandemic, claimants who have pursued disingenuous claims may nevertheless be faced with findings of fundamental dishonesty and substantial adverse costs orders.”