More than 1,000 UK motorists a week are blameless victims of deliberate “crash-for-cash” incidents, according to figures release by the insurer LV=.
LV=’s figures suggest there were more than 30,000 “slam-ons” in 2013, where fraudsters slam on the brakes to cause the vehicle behind to crash into them. They also suggest that one in 30 drivers believe they were involved in a “flash for cash” scam last year.
Lone females and under-35s are particularly vulnerable as they are perceived as less likely to contest the claim, according to the insurer. False witnesses are often stationed at crash sites to bully innocent victims into submission and provide false testimonies.
The fake incidents range from small-scale opportunistic bumps to highly organised crashes involving willing participants from within the insurance and car repair industries. This type of fraud is estimated to cause the UK insurance industry up to £392m each year.
Rachel Craig, an associate at a Manchester personal injury law firm, cited incidents where scammers cut their brake lights to increase their likelihood of being hit in the rear. She also described a notable increase in “ghost accidents”, where personal injury claims are made for collisions that never even happened.
Rachel Craig said: “These paper-based frauds involve fabricated claims for accidents that didn’t actually occur. Many motorists targeted by these organised crime rings are left unaware that they are victims of highly-organised criminal acts.”
Dr Karen Lumsden at Loughborough University is researching how crash-for-cash schemes are related to organised crime.
Dr Lumsden said: “Victims often don’t perceive themselves as such because perpetrators utilise road traffic laws to their advantage.
“However, the increasing number of these incidents is encouraging the public to adopt a strong no tolerance approach towards all manner of insurance fraud.”
Hugh. You are quite right, the Highway Code states that in slow moving traffic one should reduce the distance between yourself and the car in front and then goes on to say that you should never get so close to that vehicle that you cannot stop safely.
The trouble is that most drivers have no idea or concept of that or of the distance they actually travel at even 10 mph and so they assume they are OK being only 10 or 15 ft behind a vehicle. Some actually believe that they could brake and swerve in order to avoid hitting the vehicle in front. In really slow bumper to bumper stop and start traffic that small distance may be OK but in most circumstances they should at least double their considered safe distance or adopt the 2 second rule as advocated in the Highway Code for so called faster road conditions.
As a motorcyclist space is important to me, as well as positioning, so I plan well ahead to gain the best open space possible.
bob craven Lancs
0
I know of an elderly friend, who was in an expensive late model car, he was obviously insured and his reactions may not have been the sharpest; he was targetted and allowed a car out in traffic in front of him, whose driver a few metres down the road slammed on for no good reason and the victim ‘touched’ the back of his car. The driver leapt out holding his neck stating the boot wouldn’t open, without examining the boot. It turns out that he has 14 claims to his name and my friend’s insurers are challenging this supported by the courts.
olly, Lancs
0
When I refused to claim injury compensation because I was not injured, I was actually asked “do you not want money?” We need to stamp out “crash-for-cash” but, while I know the coalition have made a start, all proposed solutions seem to tackle the symptoms and not the cause, which is the compensation laws. While introduced with the best of intentions and despite, I’m sure, some genuine beneficiaries, the compensation laws are now causing massively more damage to society than any good they bring.
It’s not just “crash-for-cash” targeted directly against you and me (I defy anyone to guarantee they could avoid a crash where a criminal gang deliberately set out to cause it) but it’s also staged crashes without an unsuspecting member of the public, false injury claims and exaggerated injury claims (many times higher).
We need to tackle this issue at source therefore we have to remove compensation laws all together, except by trial, jury trial if necessary.
Dave Finney, Slough
0
Yes, but a vehicle in front can stop very suddenly for other (legitimate) reasons so we in a following vehicle always have to be able to stop in time in this eventuality – good road safety/safe driving practice surely?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Not necessarily, Hugh. Some work in teams of two or more cars and sus out a victim and a place, usually a roundabout, and communicate via radios or phones. They pick on a victim, usually female or commercial, and two vehicles get ahead and sometimes one behind. The first vehicle brakes suddenly causing the second to brake and sometimes without showing brake lights the victim runs into the rear of the second vehicle. Both vehicles stop and exchange and a third vehicle driver acts like a witness. There may be only one or two persons in the offender’s car but four or five persons claim to have been in it and all suffered whiplash or similar.
bob craven Lancs
0
Are the victims strictly speaking really “blameless”? Don’t these incidents suggest they were following too close in the first place?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Whilst I can understand the costing of these accidents I wonder just what % it is of the total outlay of insurance companies? I would hazard several billions of pounds and that this problem represents maybe only 2 or 3% of that total. Not to say that it’s right.
I would hazard also that at some time in the future when all cars have smart boxes like the black box on an airline that this type of fraud would not be possible.
bob craven Lancs
0