My neighbour with the help of her solicitor sued me using a fraudulent Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance claim (BTELEI), over a boundary dispute.

I contacted Direct Line the insurer providing the cover, with the evidence a (different) court claim from more than a year earlier featuring the same boundary dispute issued by the same solicitor (my neighbours). BTELEI covers only matters that occur after the insurance inception that have no pre-existing history.

Direct Line had the detail of the fraud before the court case but did nothing. Only when my neighbour lost the case and her solicitor submitted a claim for at least £33k (could have been as much as £50K) did Direct Line withdraw funding. Direct Line did not take any action against my neighbour much less her solicitor.

My neighbour could not have sued me using BTELEI without the involvement of a solicitor; the solicitor negotiates with the insurance company.

Direct Line subscribe to the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB), whom I also contacted. If you read the IFB web site it states that the IFB subscribers will act to protect the honest individuals (paraphrase), not in my experience.

Had Direct Line acted before the court case I would not have had to use my savings to fight an illegitimately funded court case. As a third party the fraud that has had such an effect on my life is outside ALL the regulatory bodies and therefore I have no redress.

If insurance companies sit back and suit their own ends rather than addressing insurance fraud I could not recommend to anyone that they report any fraud, where is the Quid Pro Quo?

Further to the above at the time of writing this there is still an insurance fraud taking place but there is not a single organisation to whom I can report it.

I joined my neighbour’s estranged husband to the boundary dispute claim, for harassment. He used his wife’s solicitor to obtain BTELEI from Firstassist to defend his inclusion in the claim this despite his harassment appearing in the first court case and a Direction Hearing direction in the second case – boundary dispute – obliging me to re-write my particulars of claim expunging all references to his harassment that had featured in the firs court case. My neighbour’s solicitor attended that Direction Hearing and was therefore aware of the instruction.

I lost my claim against the husband and will have to pay some of his £8000 costs, he has therefore benefited from this insurance fraud as has his solicitor. As the case was heard via the fast track over 2.5 days he will not receive all of his costs from me and will submit the rest of his bill to Firstassist for payment and may further benefit himself and his solicitor from this fraud.

I contacted the Insurance Fraud Bureau early in this matter but it has proved to be a waste of time.