A builder who tried to claim £500k saying he had injured himself at work was ordered to repay £13,000 and a ‘six-figure sum’ in costs - after surveillance showed him walking, shopping and carrying his daughter on his shoulders. Perry Scott, 45, had made insurance claims for two small falls from a window-height scaffolding platform and a ladder.
He claimed the accidents had left him unable to work and in so much back pain that he was '15% of the person he used to be.' Scott told medical experts that after the accidents he spent his days in bed or on the sofa and was no longer able to take his children to the park.
But surveillance photographs later showed him walking, shopping and carrying his daughter on his shoulders. Witnesses also gave evidence of one incident where Scott had helped to carry a large metal girder.
After a three-day trial, Recorder Gibbons found that Scott was a 'fundamentally dishonest' claimant. He ordered Scott to repay £13,000 paid to him by insurer Aviva and made an enforceable order against him for indemnity costs, likely to exceed £150,000.
The judgement came after the court heard that Scott’s wife had told neighbours about how the couple intended to spend the money now that 'Perry doesn’t want to work again.' Medical experts dismissed Scott’s claims about the extent and severity of his injuries.
One said that Scott’s falls in 2015 and 2016 had not caused or materially affected his alleged back pain. In his judgement, Recorder Gibbons said: “Listening to the claimant and the way he conducted himself, I am left with the impression that he might actually believe some of his own arguments.
“This however is no defence and what was in the claimant’s mind has to be subject to objective standards of honesty. The claimant attempted to mislead the court by leading the evidence he did.”
Neil Southern, of law firm Clyde & Co LLP, who was instructed by Aviva, said: “This is absolutely the right result. Mr Scott lied about the accident circumstances, lied about the injuries he’d sustained and lied about their impact on his life.
"His claims ought to have been settled years ago, for modest sums. Instead, he refused reasonable offers and embarked on a campaign of deceit that was only ever intended to result in him receiving a large sum of money to which he was not entitled and, in the process, forced Aviva to incur substantial costs in proving his dishonesty."
