"This statement relates to my involvement in five road traffic incidents which occurred during my employment with the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant, Tesco Stores Limited. The incidents occurred on:12 July 2019 . 3 August 201.5 October 2019 .6 December 2019 and2 January 2020 . I will give details about each of these crashes in this statement but at the outset I want to say each and every one of those incidents was staged by others and which I took part in. The collisions were set up so that compensation claims could be brought against Tesco Stores Limited and they were in no way genuine….. I cannot remember when I was originally approached and asked to take part in these incidents, but it must have been before July 2019. I was approached when I was driving out of the Greenford depot in one of the delivery vans one day. I was just about to start my delivery route for the day and as I was driving out of the depot I had to stop at the junction to wait for traffic to clear on the main road. I remember that there were temporary traffic lights on the main road so traffic was heavy, and I had to wait quite a long time to get out of the junction. Two men walked up to my van. From memory they were stood at the side of the road. I had never seen them before. They tapped on the van's window, which I then opened and they began speaking to me. I talked to them from the cab of my van. I believe one man was Eastern European, and the other was Asian. They were of a similar age, in their late 20s and dressed casually. I only know them as 'Nik' and 'Dee'. 'Nik' was the Eastern European man and 'Dee' was the Asian man. I remember that 'Dee' had a beard. I do not know their full names. They asked me if I wanted to make some money and explained that to do this, I would need to help them by crashing into other cars so they could bring claims. They told me that they would pay me£200 for each incident. I told them that I thought it was risky and that I was worried about getting caught. They told me that there were quite a few drivers that were doing it and there was limited risk. They said that they knew Tesco's procedures and that they would sort out the rest. I agreed to do it and gave them my telephone number so they could contact me. This conversation lasted around 5-10 minutes…. After this initial meeting, they would call me on my mobile and ask if I was working. If I was on shift, they would ask me to tell them, from my delivery sheet, where I would be at a certain time. It was usually towards the end of my shift, after my last delivery. I would tell them where I would be, and they would meet me at that location. 'Nik' and 'Dee' turned up at the scene, always in a black Mercedes. I don't know the registration number of this car. They would be accompanied by another vehicle which would be driven by somebody else. 'Nik' and 'Dee' would come over to the van to tell me how to crash into the other car and would then watch the 'incident' from the side of the road. After I hit the other car with the Tesco van I did not get out of the van. 'Nik' or 'Dee' would come to the window of the van and take one of the 'Collision report Forms' or 'Bump Cards' which the drivers are supposed to fill out in the event of an incident. They would walk over to the car that I hit and talk to the driver of that car through the window and take their details and write them on the Bump Card. I did not write any of the Bump Cards relating to any of the staged incidents. They were all written by 'Nik' and/or 'Dee' at the scene. 'Nik' and 'Dee' attended every staged incident that I was involved in. I would then report the crash to the Sopp and Sopp incident report line as normal and then return to the depot to report it to my manager and fill in an Incident Investigation Form."
"This crash happened at the junction of Wilsmere Drive and Sandown Way, Northolt, UB5 at around 9pm on12 July 2019 . It was a Friday evening shift and I was driving an Iveco delivery van registration BW15 OKA. I checked out the van as normal. 'Nik' and 'Dee' met me at the junction of Wilsmere Drive and Sandown Way as agreed when they had called me earlier in the day. I had told them that it was on my delivery route. I remember that they were at the location with a Black BMW which was being driven by somebody else. I did not get a good look at this person and cannot describe them. I was told that this was the car I had to crash into. 'Nik' and 'Dee' told me that the BMW would drive along the minor road and I would just have to drive out of the junction into the side of it. When I was driving into the BMW, I could see that there was already damage to the side of the car. I knew that there was a dashcam fitted to the van but was not concerned about it. I have seen the footage from the Tesco van (annexed at MP1) and confirm that this was not a genuine accident, it was a crash that was pre-arranged and I was paid money to drive into the other car. Once 'Nik' and 'Dee' had filled in the Bump Card with the other driver's details, it was passed back to me. I was given£200 in cash at the scene as payment. I reported the incident to the Sopp and Sopp incident line and filled in the Incident Investigation Form when I returned to the depot. I also signed the van back in but confirmed that there were no new defects. I lied during that call and when I reported the crash to make it seem like it was a genuine accident. I understand that a claim has been submitted against Tesco by a Mr Mohamed Namdar. I don't know whether he was the driver of the black BMW involved in the incident."
"I have analysed the Dash-cam footage of the incident and I am of the opinion that this illustrates that the full extent of the damage to the nearside of the BMW was not caused as a result of contact with the Iveco and in particular the two areas of horizontal structural damage to the rear quarter panel were present before this incident paragraph 1.4.3. I have considered the damage to the nearside roof rail above the A post. The nature of the damage to the roof rail is more consistent with it being struck with a straight edged blunt instrument denting the roof panel leaving the straight-line dent in this area. paragraph 3.1.2 - 3.1.3. I am of the opinion that this damage is not induced damage and is more likely to have been deliberately inflicted in an impact from above and is not connected to any of the other near side impact damage. paragraph 3.1.4 . I have then considered the two horizontal impact profiles on the rear quarter panel of the BMW. paragraph 3.1.5 . The CCTV footage leads me to conclude that this damage was present before the impact. paragraph 3.1.6 . Additionally, there is nothing anywhere on the forward profile of the Iveco that could inflict these two horizontal intrusions into the rear edge of the nearside rear door and the forward edge of the quarter panel, tearing the metal quarter panel before extending rearwards in two separate horizontal contact marks. paragraph 3.1.7. The CCTV footage does illustrate that the contact has occurred between the two vehicles and the position of the vehicles at the point of impact suggests the front central area of the Iveco would collide with the nearside central area of the BMW. paragraph 3.1.8. The behaviour of the two vehicles immediately before the impact suggests some collaboration between the drivers, as the BMW is travelling extremely slowly at this point and the Iveco makes no attempt to turn right or left and drives straight into the side of the slowly moving BMW. paragraph 3.1.9. After considering the photographs, CCTV and the construction of the BMW and the Iveco I am of the opinion that the quarter panel damage, the damage to the rear edge of the nearside rear door and the rear bumper damage has not occurred as a result of this incident and pre-existed any contact between the two vehicles. paragraph 3.1.10 . I am of the opinion that the impact into the near side front door and the forward section of the nearside rear door is consistent with the collision between the two vehicles in the manner illustrated in the dashcam footage. paragraph 3.1.11 ."
"As I have said, this case is a paradigm one for the award of exemplary damages. As to the amount of such damages, as was stated by Arden LJ in Ramzan v Brookwide at [82], the sum must be principled and proportionate. As in that case, given the need to deter and punish the outrageous conduct and abusive behaviour in the present context, the principled basis is to make a punitive award. The respondents have chosen not to place before the court any evidence as to their means so that it is not appropriate to limit the amount of any award by reference to ability or inability to pay …. Given the seriousness of the conduct of the respondents and the need to deter them and others from engaging in this form of "cash for crash" fraud, which has become far too prevalent and which adversely affects all those in society who are policyholders who face increased insurance premiums, I consider that the appropriate award of exemplary damages is that each of the first, second and third respondents should be liable to pay£20,000 ."