QB-2018-004997 - [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

Evidence relating to the Claimant’s car

At the beginning of her evidence the Claimant was given permission to rely on a further (5^th) statement dated 3^rd July 2025. Part of that statement addressed the issue of the October 2018 work to her car. She testified that the work was done in Blackpool but not by Shaun Wilson who had provided the estimate but by a Mr Paul Barton. It had cost £2,000 but she was not claiming for that. She exhibited to that statement ‘photographs of my car’ taken in July 2025. The car was a white Audi A3 with the same numberplate as the car seen in the December 2020 surveillance, BL10 BUF. It was automatic transmission. It has large distinctive decal stickers covering the doors on the driver’s side, containing the poppy emblem, images of soldiers and the words ‘Lest we forget’. The Claimant’s evidence was that the car’s indicators had been moved across and that it had been manual and was now automatic. She produced further photographs of an adaptation to her parking brake which she stated that she had put in place at the same time as the other adaptations were done in 2018.

The Claimant was asked by Mr Fetto about the evidence in her June 2021 witness statement that she had purchased an automatic car for £9,000. She told him that that was wrong. She was asked where the figure came from and said she did not know. She never purchased another car. When it was suggested to her that the claim was in her schedule of loss, she stated that she did not believe it was. When she was taken to the schedule, she said that she thought it was a mistake. She could not explain how the claim came to be made. In her sixth statement dated 12^th July 2025 she stated that £9,000 was the sum she paid for her car but she bought it before the accident.

One of the Facebook messages, which is split over several pages, concerns the estimate for adapting the vehicle from October 2018 which was provided by a Mr Shaun Wilson of HRG Ltd. It had come up in the context of her providing material for her August 2022 statement. The Claimant refers to the fact that the quote was provided by ‘Shaun’ and asked her mother whether she thought that, if the Defendant were to make contact with Shaun, he would consider saying “it was an off books favour to convert it”. The clear implication of this is that this is not what had happened. The Claimant’s mother subsequently forwarded a message in which an unknown person (whom I infer was ‘Shaun’) said that he thought he had been quite specific about this and that if the Claimant and her mother tried to pursue it as a claim it would be an easy win for the other side. Their best hope would be to say that they have no bills and the garage has gone bust. The same person advised that if there was no claim in his view the Defendant would not be bothered contesting it but that if there was an attempt to run with it the Defendant might pick up on that and ‘cry fraud’. The Claimant replied to her mother that she understood “it’s about being caught up leading on that the car is automatic when it is actually manual”. There were then further exchanges about who might be prepared to say that they had done the work. The Claimant’s mother’s partner ‘Mac’ was canvased (“They don’t know he isn’t a mechanic or related”) but he refused. The names “Paul” and “Uncle Paul” came up. The Claimant’s mother observed in a message “I would use Paul he will say yes and not bother.” Subsequent messages showed that their confidence in “Paul” was not misplaced. He agreed to do it. The message from the Claimant reads,

“Absolutely…don’t know what shauns (sic) problem was really…Paul knew nothing about it and was just like, yeah sure!”

The Claimant also asked her mother if her car was a manual or automatic. On being told it was a manual she sent a further message in which she shared that she was thinking that her car, “might need to go into hiding until all this is over…I don’t want to get rid of it but I should be driving an auto really…was gonna say we could swap until it’s all done but no good if yours is auto (sic) too.”

On 3^rd August 2022 the Claimant sent a Mr Paul Barton, the 2018 quotation. The accompanying message reflected the contents of her 3rd August 2022 witness statement, the relevant extract from the latter is set out below,

“I have found some paperwork from the initial garage HRG Ltd I approached in Poulton-Le-Fylde, which is an estimate of the work (68-69). The garage giving the estimate were unable to do the works so I then had the work carried out independently by Mr. Paul Barton, who works at Cowley Road MOT Centre, Blackpool.

I cannot currently find any paperwork from Mr Barton’s work, although I will continue with my search, but he followed the estimate from HRG Ltd. At the time I had an M&S bank account and I have requested statements from M&S and the payment for the work should be recorded in the statements. Mr Barton also said the V5 wouldn’t be altered for the conversion as it isn’t a requirement for change of transmission.”

In her fifth statement which deals with these messages, the Claimant acknowledged that “read in isolation and without context” they could seem like attempts on her part to persuade others to give false evidence. She stated that this was not the case. At the time she was under stress and panicked. She had been asked by her solicitor for a statement, she had no paperwork and was unable to get hold of Mr Barton who was in fact the person who had done the work. Her attempts to contact others were attempts to get retrospective confirmatory evidence and were a result of her inability to contact Mr Barton in the time available. Coincidentally one of those others was the Claimant’s great-uncle, “Uncle Paul”. The Claimant’s evidence therefore was that, whilst knowing nothing about it, Uncle Paul was ready to step in and provide some confirmatory evidence. Fortunately contact details for Paul Barton were located in time and he could testify to the fact that the work was undertaken.

The Claimant’s discussion about her car going into hiding was motivated by her desire not to be the subject of surveillance, not by a wish to conceal the fact that she owned a car with manual transmission. The Claimant exhibited video footage of her Audi A3 to the statement taken on 12 July 2025.

The Claimant’s statement was followed within 24 hours by a statement from the Defendant’s solicitor, Ms Mallaney. There Ms Mallaney advanced, for the first time, the proposition that the car currently owned by the Claimant was not the car seen on the surveillance in March 2022. They were two different white Audi A3s. They both had the same numberplate but the car seen in the March 2022 surveillance had manual transmission; the car in the Claimant’s July 2025 video was automatic. Ms Mallaney further deposed first to the fact that an Audi with the registration plate BK12 NTX had had a registration plate change on 14 December 2022, from BK12 NTX to BL10 BUF (the Claimant’s plate) and second to the fact that the mileage on the invoice for Audi the Claimant bought in February 2015 was over 120,000. The mileage on her current vehicle was 94,086 miles a lower reading than the Audi had at the time of its 2015 purchase. Ms Mallaney’s attempts to trace a separate BK12 NTX vehicle were unsuccessful. Entering the plate BK12 NTX into car checker websites simply produced the details for BL10 BUF.

On 14 July 2025 the Claimant gave further evidence. It was put to her that she said she had bought an automatic vehicle in her witness statement in June 2021 and in her schedule of loss in July 2022 and she had said the same thing to her care expert, Ms Gouldstone in November 2021. The Claimant accepted that the documents read that way but that was not the position. The position was as set out in her August 2022 statement. She had had the vehicle she owned adapted. She said, in oral evidence, that there were further messages between her and her mother which would have provided greater context to those before the court. Her answers in oral evidence reflected those in her statement. She was asked at the end of her evidence why she did not tell her solicitor what the problem was (that is that she was having some difficulty locating Mr Barton) and ask him what she should do. She did not know why she had not done that.

The Claimant disclosed further documents relating to her vehicle on 15 July 2025. Ms Mallaney commented on those documents in a further statement also dated 15 July 2025. The key point emerging from those documents is that two different VIN numbers were recorded in relation to the vehicle with the registration plate BL10 BUF, one number ending in 1703 and one ending in 5347. The plate BL10 BUF is currently attached to 5347. It was attached to 1703 until December 2022 when the plate was transferred from 1703 to 5347. 1703 now has a different registration plate, FR10 0DP. The Defendant invites me to find that this evidence confirms that, albeit that they were the same make and colour and had the same registration plate, the Claimant was driving a different car in March 2022 to the one she is driving now.

In closing submissions the Defendant further invited me to compare the decal stickers on the vehicle in the surveillance in 2022 to those on the video taken of the Claimant’s vehicle in 2025. I have done so and I agree they are obviously different.