A customer with a history of faking claims has lost a dispute over $25,000 losses associated with his family’s trip to Pakistan.  

The complainant, who travelled with his wife and three children in November 2019, lodged a series of claims in April 2020, including allegations that two of his bags, containing items worth $17,696, were lost or “stolen” by his airline.  

He also sought reimbursement for a damaged camera and tablet, medical expenses for his daughter’s tonsillitis, and additional travel costs resulting from changes to their return flights necessitated by her health. 

AWP Australia investigated the circumstances of the losses and said they were either illegitimate or exaggerated for additional payment.  

The insurer highlighted that the receipts provided for jewellery supposedly lost in the luggage were confirmed as fake by a store owner, while another vendor admitted providing an invoice without actually selling the complainant anything.  

The investigations also discovered that several other stores, where he said he had purchased items, were either vacant or located at different addresses. 

AWP acknowledged the claimant’s daughter had visited hospital for her illness, but notes that most medications that were claimed for were “completely unrelated” to this.  

Additionally, the complainant stayed in Dubai for 12 days, well beyond the recommended timeframe for his daughter not to travel after her illness. 

The insurer highlighted the man’s extensive history of filing travel and home insurance claims over the past five years, including two that were previously deemed fraudulent by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. 

AWP also reports that the complainant threatened to sue its investigator if a favourable report was not written for him. 

In its ruling, AFCA agreed that the insurer’s allegations of fraud were “warranted,” noting significant “inconsistencies and contradictions” in the man’s claims.  

“There are legitimately serious concerns about the complainant’s credibility and character,” AFCA said.

“It is also apparent from the circumstances that there was a clear opportunity to commit fraud, and a financial motive to do so.

“The vendors involved had no reason to be untruthful if actual sales were made to the complainant as stated on the presented invoices. Considering this, I am satisfied the complainant engaged in untruthful and misleading behaviour in an effort to get the insurer to pay his claims.”  

See the ruling here.