Why the re-introduction of induction tests for Cert IFCI

In September 2009 when the first national qualification at Level 4 for Incident, Fraud & Claims Investigation was launched, the only pre-qualification for candidates was to enquire whether or not they had the literacy, numeracy and IT skills in order to complete the course and qualification.

If, someone has their heart set on a new career, who in their right minds is going to believe that someone is going to say NO! I do not have those skills.

From that point on it became apparent that some of the people who were attending the course did not have those skills and were struggling with the course, after all, this course is equivalent to the 1^st year of a degree.

Our drop out rates shot up to 70% and of course, sadly no-one wants to take on board their own shortcomings and will look around to point the finger of blame at someone else and once someone has a bad experience they will tell 10 people and in contrast if they have a good experience, statistically they will only tell 1.

At Amalgam8 Training we do not wish anyone to go away with a bad experience and so after consultation with our awarding body it was agreed to re-introduce our popular induction tests which help to determine whether or not you have the skills we are looking for and in September 2011 we re-introduced the induction test with a 75% pass mark.

The pass mark was set at a high level as the qualification requires the same pass mark. Only after passing the induction test would a candidate be eligible to attend the Cert IFCI course. We can only train 8 persons per course and whilst it is only early days we have seen a marked improvement in the quality of attendees and their ability to complete the qualification and enjoy a successful career as an agent.

Today out of 8 candidates per course on average 4.8 qualify and further to that 3.16 of those 4.8 become successful investigators either part time or full time and employed or self-employed dependant on how they wish to operate or how they wish to be employed. Whilst we know that we cannot possibly achieve 100% satisfaction. 100% satisfaction will always be our target and we will introduce any measures that will help us to achieve those aims.

Of course there are training providers out there who will take your money first and ask questions later. If you would like an opportunity to discover if you have the skills why not invest just a small amount of money and time in travelling to one of our workshop/induction days. Even if you choose to invest your money with a cheaper training provider at least you will know whether or not it’s a worthwhile investment.

CALL 0845 880 1560 and reserve a place on a workshop/induction day!

NEWS From Lloyds

Fraudulent and dishonest claims are a major problem for the insurance industry and fraud is alleged in a number of the cases we see. These can be difficult to assess. To establish that fraud has taken place, some concrete evidence of lies, inconsistent statements or acts of deception must be present. The fact that members of a firm’s staff are personally satisfied of the claimant’s bad faith is not sufficient proof of dishonesty.

The essential components of fraud are intent to deceive and desire to induce the firm to pay more than it otherwise would. Establishing these points can require an analysis of the claimant’s motives. Inevitably this is a largely subjective exercise. However, by the time a case reaches us, it is normally too late to uncover any new evidence. And by then, claimants are usually well aware of any problems in their version of events, and will have had ample opportunity to concoct an explanation – or to cloud the issue with extraneous pieces of information. It is far better if a firm has investigated the matter carefully at an earlier stage.

Where a firm suspects fraud, it should make its views known to the customer, who can then respond to the allegations. We are unlikely to support a firm’s position if, instead, it uses a separate and spurious reason to justify rejecting a claim.

When we look into cases involving an allegation of fraud, we examine all the facts and use the following guidelines to help us reach an overall assessment.

• an exaggeration is not always fraud. And the firm should not repudiate the entire claim simply because the customer has mistaken the cost of replacing the item claimed for — or has an inaccurate recollection of its purchase price. To repudiate the claim, the firm must be able to show that the customer was trying to obtain more than he or she was entitled to.
  For example, many people consider their car is worth more than the value placed on it by the firm’s engineer. But since they will not normally receive more than the "market value" when their claim is settled, their exaggerated view of the car’s worth will not render their claim void.
• the fact that a customer may have lied in another context is not sufficient proof of fraud in the current claim. Some firms have relied on a loss adjuster’s evidence about a different claim under another policy to demonstrate that a customer has lied in connection with a current claim.
  Such evidence may raise doubts about the accuracy of the customer’s version of events in the current claim, but is not in itself conclusive.
• a customer who presents a forged document to support a claim is not necessarily guilty of fraud. There must be some evidence to show that the customer knew the document’s true source. Even if a customer knowingly produces a false document, the firm may not be justified in rejecting the claim.
  By insisting that customers produce receipts for all the items they claim for, firms sometimes put customers in a position where they may be tempted to create substitutes for lost receipts. So if customers do produce false receipts, it is essential to determine why they did this. Was it solely to substantiate transactions that really took place, or did the customers intend to obtain more than they were entitled to?
• where the firm has sufficient evidence to justify rejecting a claim and/or cancelling the policy, it is only entitled to recover any payments made in connection with earlier claims if it can show that the customer completed the insurance proposal fraudulently. Firms are not justified in retrospectively cancelling a policy on the grounds that the customer used counterfeit documents to support a claim.

In some recent cases involving claims for written-off vehicles, firms appear to have asked customers to substantiate the original purchase price of their vehicle. As a result, some customers who had lost the original sales material (or perhaps purchased the car through somewhat informal routes) have sent in false documents.

Other customers have produced false documents to try and substantiate a higher price than they actually paid. This is clearly improper, but it does not justify the firm voiding the policy. The customer’s claim is for the present market price, not the original purchase price. As long as there is no doubt about ownership and no suggestion of fraud, the firm should meet such claims on the basis of the normal market value.

Where we can reach a view about whether the firm has obtained enough evidence to show that a claim is fraudulent, we will decide whether or not to uphold the firm’s rejection of the claim. Where the issue is uncertain and relies on the evidence of third parties, we may decide it is more appropriate for the courts to determine the outcome.

Congratulations to the Awarding Body For Vocational Achievement (AVA) and the latest qualification development to be added to the Qualifications Credit Framework (QCF).

The qualification below has been reviewed and approved by the regulators Ofqual and is now a regulated qualification on the QCF (Qualifications Credit Framework).

The qualification number is 600/0955/X, AVA Level 5 Award in Investigative claimant interviewing (QCF).

This is additionally great news for candidates of AIFCI Amalgam8 Ltd, having undertaken the Foundation Qualification the AVA Level 4 Certificate in Incident, Fraud & Claims Investigation (QCF).

AVA are currently working to link this new qualification with the cognitive interviewing unit from the existing level 4 certificate in incident, fraud and claims investigation to create a level 4 advanced certificate in incident, fraud and claims investigation.

Once again congratulations to AVA and we look forward to seeing other qualifications added in due course for the investigation industry.

Recognition of support from Ministry Of Defence

Sector Skills Alliance Event

Trip To Afghanistan