‘Dishonest’ carpenter faces £5,000 bill for fake whiplash claim

editorial image
Olivia Pinkney, Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary, Michael Lane, Police and Crime Commissioner, and Terry Spraggett, Mace Director
 at the sod-cutting ceremony for the new Eastern Police Investigation Centre off Airport Service Road in Copnor

Work finally begins on Portsmouth’s new central police hub

  • Insurance firm LV= challenges insurance demand
0
Have your say

CARPENTER Michael Figg has been left with a £5,000 bill after filing a false insurance claim for whiplash.

The 32-year-old, from Baffins, Portsmouth, appeared at Portsmouth County Court before District Judge Charles Ackroyd in an attempt to get compensation.

I’d like it to be widely known that for people who try to bring this type of claim it is not some lucky dip.

District Judge Charles Ackroyd

But the judge threw out the case, branding Figg ‘fundamentally dishonest’.

He ordered Figg to pay the insurance firm LV=’s costs totalling over £5,000.

The court heard that Figg was involved in an accident in September 2012 when another driver was temporarily blinded by sunlight and drove into his van.

A claims handler from LV= called Figg to arrange for his van to be repaired and during this call, confirmed that he had not been injured in the accident.

But two years later Figg told the court he received a cold call from an accident management company saying money was ‘waiting for him’.

On March 25 2014 went to a doctor to get a medical report to prove his injuries in court.

But the insurance firm fought the case and won.

District Judge Ackroyd, ruled: ‘I’m satisfied he knew exactly what he was doing and have no hesitation in finding he was fundamentally dishonest.

‘I’d like it to be widely known that for people who try to bring this type of claim it is not some lucky dip.’

Vanessa Chance, LV= media relations manager said: ‘We record our calls, which meant we could confirm that he did not have any injuries the first time we called him then the claims handler had another conversation with Mr Figg where he repeated that he had no injuries.’

She added: ‘The doctor could not see evidence of any injury but Mr Figg claimed he had been thrown violently during the accident and that this had affected his quality of life afterwards.’

The court heard tape recordings of Figg claiming that he had not been injured in the weeks immediately following the collision and evidence the the incident was and that it was unlikely that Mr Figg had been injured.