- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Surrey cyclist jailed after lorry crash fraud
A man from Camberley in Surrey who was hit by a lorry while riding his bike has been jailed for fraud after claiming more than £3 million in damages.
Get Hampshire’s James Chapple reports that Majid Khan, 36 was aided by wife Humaira, 29, and father-in-law Atlaf Kiani, 61 in telling his insurers that he had brain injuries so severe he couldn’t feed himself, work or recognise his own mother.
But private investigators videoed Khan leading a normal life. On Wednesday, Judge Andrew Collender QC upheld an application by Lloyds of London insurers to jail Khan for nine months for civil contempt after admitting lying about his condition.
Kiani was also jailed for nine months, while Mrs Khan’s seven-month sentence was suspended for two years.
A warehouse worker at Penta Foods in Farnborough, Khan sustained severe brain injuries when he was hit by an articulated lory while riding to work in August 2008.
Returning from Pakistan in early 2010, Khan convinced a doctor he had reduced brain function and mobility following the accident and refused to settle his compensation claim for £75,000.
Judge Collender said: “Aided and abetted by Mr Kiani and your wife, you embarked upon a deliberate fraud, seriously exaggerating the effect of your injuries to obtain a greater sum of damages to that which you would have been legitimately entitled.”
Khan claimed he needed 24-hour care, an extension to his house to accommodate his disability, holidays, travel and language therapy costs and launched a damages claim to cover a total of over £3 million.
“You made a good recovery and the damages to which you were entitled were relatively modest,” Judge Collender told Khan. “However, both you and Mr Kiani tried to take advantage of the situation for financial gain.”
Kiani and Mrs Khan swore witness statements supporting the claim, asserting Khan could not communicate, have social life or “recognise his mother”.
“They were a pack of lies,” said the judge. “This was a planned, relatively sophisticated fraud carried out over three months. I have no doubt, if not for surveillance, you would have persisted with this deception.
“The law makes it clear, because of the damage done by false claims, those who make them can expect to go to prison if their conduct is discovered. No other punishment will do.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- Laz 1 hour 3 min ago
hopefully, that will be the last time we see that van in drivable condition
- Nick T 2 hours 19 min ago
Come again chief? The Tarmac in size 56 has a 73.5 degree HTA, the Addict in the same size comes in at 73.4 degrees. In terms of bike fit that's...
- TheBillder 4 hours 1 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 4 hours 17 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 4 hours 20 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 4 hours 24 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 4 hours 34 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 5 hours 3 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 6 hours 39 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
Add new comment
20 comments
It's the fraud aspect that is wrong. Nobody is saying it is because he is or was a cyclist or where he comes from or the colour of his skin.
This idiot deserves the punishment he got for defrauding ME and YOU and subsequently it is WE who have to pay through our own insurances and taxes.
jacknorell, I agree, morally and end result, there's no difference. No difference to the victim and their families. I wish the people's thought processes and the law would take that more into account.
But it isn't nonsense, it's how the law has worked for a very long time. Driving while on the phone and causing a fatal collision is not 'intent' to kill another road user, it's stupidity and lack of responsibility. Don't get me wrong, I think the end result should be in mind from the start (that's expecting too much of people though), it deserves stiffer sentencing and it's a technicality, the law here may be an ass, all I'm saying is that the intent is what the law is based on. ie murder and manslaughter, there's a difference, the intent. The mistake or error of judgement is a deliberate action, but the end result I'm sure wasn't intended.
I'm not supporting this, I'm simply highlighting why what we see as anti-cyclist injustices are down to a poor legal system in this area that doesn't do enough to make people think through their actions, where responsibility can be absolved too easily. (edit to add, there also seems to be a general belief that we all accept some risk when using the roads and do so knowing those risks - I don't agree with how far that idea seems to extend either and I don't think juries should be used in RTI cases for that reason)
What you're saying is true, legally. But morally, why is this different from foreseeable and preventable (potential) harm, as is the case when driving in a way that's incompatible with the prevailing conditions?
I.e. if you keep driving as normal when you can't see the road in front of you...
The intent and premeditation of insurance fraud for ex is very different in the law to the outcome of driving mistakes that cause injury so the sentence won't compare.
I'd agree that the end result should play a much bigger part in sentencing in traffic incidents but the law seems to work on intent first.
I imagine this nonsense is believed by lawyers, but it is still nonsense. Mr Wrathall referred to above was on his phone when he killed someone, the minibus driver was clearly driving without being able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear. These are just as contrary to law as the insurance scam. And by the way, they are not mistakes, they are just as deliberate as the fraud.
The anti cyclist Daily Mail brigade will love this. Not content with being a cheating work shy foreigner - he's also a cyclist! Shame. On. Him.
But does he eat swans and cause cancer?
Drivers are starting to get harsher sentences. I'm surprised this hasn't hit the roadcc headlines yet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26085400
What should the headlines is this...
In July 2013, Wrathall had been been on trial for causing death by dangerous driving at Preston Crown Court. But police said the jury in the case were discharged.
A new trial date was set for January where Wrathall pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.
he killed someone whilst on his mobile FFS!
Just out of interest, what makes him a 'cyclist' as opposed to 'man who cycled to work'?
Why not 'warehouse worker', 'man' or 'Camberley resident' - surely those define his identity just as much as his mode of transport to work that day.
I believe the culture that actively promotes injury litigation is partially to blame. Endless commercials on TV promising life changing amounts of money without any apparent victim, except yourself.
Thefts of even very small amounts of money have always been punished more harshly in England than violence or murder...
Unless, of course, you're a bank and steal tens of billions, in which case you'll get a reward for achievement...!
Oldstrath, don't try and defend his actions.
This guy is SCUM.
Now every single cyclist who tried to claim any damages after being injured will be watched like a hawk and have to go through tests and consultations to prove then need the help that should rightfully be theirs.
His actions are that of a con man and he should have been jailed for YEARS
Worse than minibus drivers who kill cyclists? I think not. Worse than porsche drivers who can't be bothered checking whether they've actually passed the cyclist? I think not.
I'm not defending him - I started by saying he did a bad thing. I just am bewildered by the contrast between our enthusiasm to punish someone whose crime was to steal money, and our reluctance to punish killers.
The reason it was a longer sentence is because it was for financial gain. If a driver was to take your money after killing you on your bike there is more of a chance they would get charged for robbery than the loss of your life, well that's how it seems at least.
Sure, he's a man who did a bad thing. But two points. First, he apparently was injured quite badly in the first place, and second this guy, who actually didn't cause physical harm to anyone, has been jailed for longer than many of the motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians.
I do also wonder what happened to the lorry driver who hit him.
This is the post which has the most "likes" on this page - what an absolute joke! What the guy tried to do was fraudulent to the extreme. All those who liked this comment should be ashamed of themselves, there's no excuse!
I wonder if this story is in the Daily Mail yet!
This guys actions are an insult to those who legitimately need financial help after an accident.
Couldn't agree more.
Working as a personal injury litigation executive assisting my clients seek their due compensation I am so frustrated about this type of situation that portrays genuine victims in a bad light unjustly.
There is a lot of biased reporting, and the fact that there is a cyclist (or person riding a bike) is irrelevant. If the claim is fraudulent then action should be taken.
Over time the insurance industry has been banging on about fraudulent or exaggerated claims while really doing nothing to combat it. If they could persuade the claimant to 'go away' they were happy because they would avoid paying any compensation. However, until they actually do something about it such as here by raising an issue of contempt of court and the court imposes penalties what was the disincentive to a fraudulent claimant? Nothing. They would just walk away and no doubt say to themselves that they didn't get away with it - until the next time.
Sadly, again due to strong lobbying by the insurers to protect their pockets, the law has changed and the genuine accident victims will find few, if any, solicitors to assist them on a #no win, no fee' basis. This, I am sure, is as a reaction to fraudulent or exaggerated claims. Rightly or wrongly, there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'. Unless an accident victim already has legal expenses insurance, almost inevitably they will have to contribute perhaps as much as 25% (or more) from their compensation to cover their solicitor's costs.