Fabricated documents and challenging authenticity: driving licences and insurance policy certificates

Detection

Spotting any fabricated document is not easy. With fabricated driving licences, there are giveaways, such as inconsistent font sizes or formatting, a misaligned photograph, or the absence of a security seal. The European Council of the European Union’s website has examples of genuine documents issued by numerous countries, useful for comparison purposes.

Other reasons for concern about the identity of a claimant can be where the details provided by the policyholder do not match those subsequently provided by a claimant, or the signature on a driving licence differs to a signature elsewhere, such as on a credit hire agreement.  

Fabricated insurance policy certificates are harder to spot, as at first glance they appear entirely legitimate. Further investigation is therefore required. We have seen examples of the metadata on a certificate showing it was created years before the date of the certificate. A MID search and a DPA request to the relevant insurer will usually establish if a certificate is valid.

Challenging authenticity 

Identifying the documents is a good start but the battle then begins with challenging the authenticity of those documents.    

This is a developing issue, and we are seeing a mixed response from those enabling the claims when presented with evidence to support concerns with the authenticity of the documents. Some are strongly opposing the evidence on procedural grounds, and some are immediately abandoning their client.  

There are a number of approaches that can help to secure a favourable response from the judiciary.  

Illegality and public policy

Driving without valid insurance, or a driving licence, is illegal. However, illegality is not a straightforward way to defeat a claim as only the more serious forms of illegality will give a court enough reason to dismiss a claim.

A more persuasive angle is where the fabricated documents are being used to support employment, such as a self-employed delivery rider. That issue raises far greater public policy concerns than an argument that a claimant simply should not have been on the road in the first place.  

Wider criminality 

The accident itself may be genuine, but often there is a close link with induced accidents and wider criminality.  

“Organised criminal gangs are often behind these incidents and will make fake or exaggerated insurance claims for storage and replacement moped costs. In some cases, fraudsters will cause a crash and try to intimidate victims into handing over money at the scene.”

(Source: City of London Police) 

Identifying your client

A fabricated identification document presents a very serious issue for those enabling the claims – that of properly identifying a client.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority is very clear that any solicitor must identify a client they act for.
 “The purpose behind the rule is primarily to reduce the risk of being inadvertently caught up in a fraud by ensuring that you are satisfied you know who you are dealing with at the outset of each retainer.”
(SRA guidance 25 November 2019)

Compensators will never have access to any data on how many claimants presenting fabricated documents are turned away. Nevertheless, by the very existence (and rise of) claims supported by fabricated documents, it is reasonable to doubt the robustness of any customer due diligence process and risk assessment designed to properly identify a client. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and the new failure to prevent fraud offence brings this into sharp focus.

Costs

Where there is credit hire involved, as often there will be, compensators can have costs firmly in their minds as they look to tackle the issue. Each case is unique, but there is a legal mechanism to secure a non-party costs order against a hire company as the ‘real party’ to the litigation, with a direct financial interest in the outcome (AXA Insurance v Spectra and Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd EWCA Civ 733).

If behaviours start to change and relevant documents are withheld by those enabling the claims, compensators can consider making a pre-action disclosure application. This is a proactive step and is effective in the right cases. Depending on the wider case strategy, a pre-action application can include seeking impecuniosity documentation (Holt v Allianz [2023] EWHC 790 KB) and for access to a vehicle for an engineer’s inspection.  

Shifting the responsibility

Critically, we are yet to see a response from a claimant (and those enabling the claim) that addresses the core of the issue or alleviates any of the concern with fabricated driving licence and insurance certificates.  

This is yet another issue where the responsibility is shifted to compensators to figure out, put pressure on those enabling the claims and put the issues before the judiciary. A consistent, industry-wide approach to detection and early challenge will help to combat the issue, hopefully see it disappear entirely and secure considerable claim savings.