The Health and Safety Executive makes it clear that there is a real and substantial problem of serious injuries suffered in the workplace. Last year it calculated that 2.2 million people suffered from illnesses they believed were work-related, resulting in 36 million working days being lost.

Add ill health resulting from road accidents, building flaws and other causes and there is a potential flood of insurance claims. There is no doubt that many people are entitled to compensation, sometimes substantial. However, unscrupulous claimants are taking advantage of their real misfortune and the view that this is just another victimless crime.

Insurers fight back

Large insurance companies are becoming wary of the resulting larger compensation claims, and with good reason. In our experience, more than 60% of the assignments we have handled have proved that the claimant was acting fraudulently.

When you consider that claims that we investigate are often for six-figure sums, it is not hard to see why personal injury (PI) lawyers are being increasingly instructed to take another look at many cases by their insurance clients. This has resulted in a huge rise in demand for surveillance services in the last 12 months from PI lawyers.

Larger law firms, usually practices that have a specialist PI department, are typically interested in this kind of service. Claims that are investigated range in value, but anything under £10,000 would represent the minimum figures that would make further investigation using surveillance worthwhile.

It makes sense for PI lawyers to delegate surveillance; it is time-consuming, requires organisation and it makes sense for lawyers to concentrate on the activities they have expertise in. The aim of surveillance is to prove that an action is happening again and again; for instance, a person who declares that they cannot walk is playing football every week for his local team. Surveillance, when a fraudulent claim has been lodged, aims to present irrefutable proof that a PI lawyer can use to renegotiate or dismiss a claim without legal proceedings going further.

The Data Protection Act is not a barrier to engaging in surveillance. However, certain material might not be admissible in court but, if the evidence is presented to a fraudulent claimant that disproves their injuries, then this point will be made academic.

The average surveillance operation usually consists of four to five days' observation over a period of two to three weeks. The following is a recent and all-too-typical case we handled on behalf of a PI lawyer. The claimant (called 'John' for the purposes of this example) worked in a national chain of brick merchants. An accident occurred at work, which the employer and insurer did not dispute, in which equipment was dropped on John's leg causing pain and time off work.

The insurer was initially sympathetic to the claimant's plight and offered John £100,000. If John accepted the six-figure settlement, a cheque would have been written. However, the claimant was not satisfied and wanted more. The claimant wanted reparation for loss of earnings and lifestyle; he stated he could not walk far nor could he drive and had to rely on public transport. Hobbies such as DIY and motorbiking were now out of the question, according to his claim. The rejection of what was considered a generous offer raised suspicions and the insurer, a well-known industry name, instructed their PI lawyer to pursue the matter with us.

The surveillance consisted of filming the claimant for a week before he was due for an independent medical assessment, going to the hospital, leaving the hospital and the week after the medical test.

The surveillance gathered evidence that found the claim was fraudulent: John walked, with a backpack, three-quarters of a mile to work every day. He also regularly walked his Alsatians despite having a "painful limp" to and from his hospital appointment.

Needless to say, the £100,000 offer was withdrawn. At this point our work was concluded. We are not often briefed on final settlements but the insurer must have saved an awful lot of money with a much-reduced offer.

Colin Turner is managing director of The Park Lane Partnership.

PIClinicalNegligenceMay2008