For some time, insurers have used covert video surveillance in
an attempt to discredit claimants and limit their damages. In the
more extreme cases, they have used surveillance to pursue
allegations of fundamental dishonesty, which if upheld, can lead to
serious sanctions for a claimant, with a potential custodial
sentence being a real, albeit worst case, scenario. But whilst
insurers will say that surveillance footage is irrefutable and
should be taken as gospel, can this really be the case?
There will no doubt be the odd case whereby a claimant will be
caught with their hand in the cookie jar, when a disc of
surveillance footage lands on their solicitors' desk and the
solicitor loads the footage, sits back with baited breath, fingers
crossed and eyes half closed with no idea what to expect, only to
be greeted by images of their client, who has claimed to be
confined to a wheelchair, beating all of the other parents at the
school parents' sports day.
