Car Insurance Industry: Fraud

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. The cases she referred to make the point that everybody’s insurance premium is going up as a result of this terrible activity.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of fraud within the car insurance industry more broadly, and not just ghost brokers, which have been referred to already. I want to look at this issue through the lens of a constituent’s case that is all too real.

In July last year, Nicholas, from Cullompton, had his Škoda Octavia parked outside when another driver reversed into it. The damage was noticeable, but it was fairly minor: a golf ball-sized dent to the bumper and a cracked number plate. The car had been knocked forward no more than 12 inches from where it was parked.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the hon. Member reassure me that there are no ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the case he is referring to?

[Richard Foord]

Yes, I can.

The car was damaged, but thankfully the third-party driver did exactly the right thing: they came forward immediately with no dispute, no exaggeration and no injury. Like anyone else in this situation, Nicholas contacted his insurance company to arrange for repairs, and the insurer appointed a mechanic from a local partner in Exeter, who took up the job.

At the mechanic’s premises, Nicholas signed a form allowing a visual inspection of the car. There was no need for the car to be taken apart, so he was shocked four days later to be sent photos of his car in pieces, with parts having been stripped off. What should have been a simple repair job ended up being a nightmare for Nicholas and his wife, who were provided with a suspicious inspection document marked up with supposed football-sized dents that did not exist.

Nicholas and his wife were told quite bluntly that the car was a write-off and that it was destined to be scrapped. That raised alarm bells for Nicholas, as he knew there was nowhere near that much damage and he had taken photos at the time of the incident to prove it. He told the mechanic who brought him the document that whoever had made the assessment needed their eyes tested. In response, the mechanic chuckled and said he could only tell him what he had been told.

Nicholas was running out of options, due to the insurance company’s refusal to hear him out, but he wanted to save his car from the scrapyard enough that he got in touch with my casework team. When we got in touch with the insurer, it was suddenly prepared to arrange for a second opinion. The independent assessor found that the car was indeed not a write-off and could be repaired; in fact, they revealed that the original assessment, which had amounted to £3,600, included a respray of the bonnet and the replacement of a towbar—Nicholas was not aware his car even had a towbar. Following that second opinion, the cost was reduced to less than £2,000—much less than the initial estimate. Nicholas is still driving his Škoda today; it is unaltered, roadworthy and in much the same condition as when the insurance company claimed it needed to be scrapped. He will continue to do so for the next four or five years, and good on him. My car is approaching its 20th birthday next year and has 207,000 miles on the clock.

So what went wrong for Nicholas? Well, at best this was negligence, but at worst it raises troubling questions about incentives in the system. Are insurers or their contractors advantaged financially by declaring vehicles to be write-offs? Do customers face premium increases simply for having a write-off claim on their record? And why was the insurance company so willing to challenge my constituent when his extensive photographic evidence ought to have been enough?

Nicholas pursued those questions through a complaint to the ombudsman; after four months of chasing, he was merely offered £100, with no comment regarding the case. By its own admission, the ombudsman is plainly overburdened, but delay and process congestion cannot justify failing to interrogate in this case.

The insurer was Saga, whose slogan is “Experience is everything”. My constituent’s experience tells of his own saga—a saga of insurance companies deferring to third-party contractors and of customers pressured to submit false classifications. We need greater oversight to ensure that insurers properly audit the firms they commission. There must be greater transparency around write-off decisions, including mandatory disclosure of financial incentives tied to total-loss classification. We must ensure that the ombudsman has the resources and the duty to examine evidence rigorously.

This debate is plainly not about one car, one insurer or one constituent. If practices like this are occurring across the country, we must act to restore trust in the system, because everybody’s insurance premium will otherwise be pushed upwards.