A WOMAN has been given a suspended prison sentence after CCTV footage from a Bradford supermarket captured her and two other women staging a “fall” over a pack of orange juice which had been deliberately put on the floor.
Farida Ashraf, 41, had hoped that her injury claim for about £3,000 would be paid out by the insurers without any questions being asked, but the incident back in February 2013 led to a legal wrangle lasting six years and costing tens of thousands of pounds.
Mum Ashraf, of Staincliffe Crescent, Dewsbury, did not contact solicitors about her injury claim for eight or nine months and prosecutor Nicholas Lumley QC said she had hoped that memories would have faded by then and the CCTV from the Al-Halal premises on Woodhead Road, Shearbridge, Bradford, would have been erased.
But a suspicious member of staff had kept the footage and yesterday, Judge David Hatton QC was shown the recording of Ashraf “tripping” over the package of juice cartons before walking out of the store unaided.
One of her accomplices, who have never been identified, was also seen taking a photograph of the pack of orange juice on the floor shortly before the defendant’s alleged fall.
Ashraf, who had no previous convictions, had claimed to have suffered injuries to her shoulder, shin, calf and hip, but an extensive inquiry by insurance company Aviva led to a civil court judge ruling in December 2016 that her claim was “fundamentally dishonest”.
Mr Lumley told Bradford Crown Court that Aviva and their solicitors had asked the police and Crown Prosecution Service to start proceedings against the defendant but after they declined the company decided to pursue a private prosecution which resulted in Ashraf admitting the fraud charge on the day of trial last month.
“It is, we think, the first private prosecution arising out of a public liability insurance claim,” said Mr Lumley.
It is estimated that a private prosecution can cost about £50,000 with the previous civil court hearing thought to have run into “six figures”.
Judge Hatton agreed to make a costs order in favour of the prosecution from central funds saying that the case had been “properly and responsibly” brought by the insurance company.
Mr Lumley had described Bradford as “something of a hotspot” for insurance fraud, putting it ahead of places such as London, Birmingham, Glasgow and Liverpool, and Judge Hatton said the prosecution would allow the word to go out that these cases would not be tolerated.
“Fraudulent insurance claims are rife currently and certainly are so in this city and there has to be deterrence in the form of a sentence of imprisonment,” said the judge.
The court heard that Ashraf’s bogus claim had led to staff at the store having the finger pointed at them and she even tried to blame her respected solicitors for instigating the claim without her permission.
Judge Hatton said the scam had been “premeditated and planned” and added:”You no doubt anticipated that the insurance company of the supermarket would pay up with little or no questions. Happily they did not.”
After reading “voluminous” documentation about Ashraf’s own health difficulties and her caring role for her mother, sister and daughter Judge Hatton said her 21 month jail term could be suspended for two years.
She will also have to comply with a night-time electronically-monitored curfew between 9pm and 6am for the next six months.
After the case, Richard Hiscocks, Aviva’s director of casualty claims, said: “This staged accident is a clear example of a fraudster trying to claim some easy cash - and she now has a criminal conviction to show for it. Aviva takes a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and we’ll do everything we can to defend our customers against such claims.”
Damian Rouke, a partner with global law firm Clyde & Co, which acted for Aviva, said: “This case is a warning to anyone thinking about taking a fall or slipping on a rug in order to claim money. Aviva and the courts will not tolerate this kind of fraud. Phoney falls are costing UK policyholders millions of pounds and increase the cost of insurance for everyone.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article