Resolve the question behind a disputed claim.

A defined question, not a presumed outcome

The starting point is the element of the claim that needs clarification. Depending on suitability and scope, the work may involve relevant background enquiries or observation. The purpose is to report the findings, not to assume that the claimant is dishonest.

Information your advisers can assess

Explain who will review the findings and the decision they will inform. Reporting requirements and limitations should be understood before work is agreed.

Claims validation and claimant background enquiries

Claims validation compares relevant observed activity with the limitations or circumstances set out in a claim. It is considered where the paperwork alone cannot resolve a specific doubt.

Claimant background enquiries use lawful sources to give context to the claim, such as relevant history, connections or employment.

Either or both may form part of an insurance fraud investigation, depending on the element of the claim that is in doubt.

Does an inconsistency prove fraud?

Not by itself. Observations and records need to be considered in context. Investigative reporting is not a medical assessment or an automatic basis for a claims decision.

How quickly can work begin?

That depends on the requirement, locations and available support. We confirm feasibility and proposed timing after discussing the enquiry, rather than promising a standard start date.

Is surveillance of a claimant lawful?

Surveillance is planned to be lawful and proportionate to a defined question about the claim. It is limited to what is relevant to that question, carried out in public places and not used as a licence for general monitoring.

Whether surveillance is suitable is discussed before any work is agreed. Questions about how the findings may be used are for your legal adviser.