Woman Who Over Exaggerated her Injuries for a £750000 Compensation Claim Recieves a Prison Sentence

Woman Who Over Exaggerated her Injuries for a £750000 Compensation Claim Recieves a Prison Sentence

Woman Who Over Exaggerated her Injuries for a £750000 Compensation Claim Receives a Prison Sentence
A woman who lied about her injuries in order to win a compensation claim of £750000 has been given a three year prison sentence.
Barbara Fari exaggerated the extent of her injuries after she tripped on uneven paving and twisted her right knee in May 2008 according to a lawyer for Homes for Haringey.
The organisation which is in charge or arranging council housing in the north London borough admitted liability for Barbara’s accident and offered her £7500. Ms Fari went on to pursue a larger claim which was subsequently struck out by a judge in October 2012 following covert video presented which showed a notable difference between her behaviour at medical examinations and how she carried herself near her home in Hornsey.
The court judge Mr Justice Spencer stayed Fari’s jail term – half of this term she would have to do previous to her automatic release- pending appeal. If there is no appeal submitted by 29 November discontinued or dismissed Ms Fari will have to surrender herself into custody.
Last week judge Spencer ruled that Fari and her husband Piper were both in contempt of court. He said that Fari had presented a “grossly false” picture of her symptoms from her fall to the doctors examining her and in her legal documents. He said that her husband was complicit in the events and he was given a two-month prison sentence and a 12 month suspension.
Fari claimed that the fall had made her arthritis worse which meant she was no longer able to look after her large family as she now required their care.
The couple have denied contempt and Fari who is illiterate said that she was reliant on the solicitors and the advice that they gave her and signed documents which were not properly explained and that the medical experts had misconstrued what she had said to them.
The judge said that she was of a “strong and domineering” character who he said had pursued a claim which her unemployed husband of 27 year ‘foolishly’ went along with.
The couple’s counsel Mohammed Bashir described the couple as the “engine room” of their family of children aged 15 to 24 two of the children were disabled. They were the main earners and were being paid weekly income support of £190. He went on to say ‘their absence would have a far-reaching effect which would outweigh any potential deterrence.
He highlighted that the couple were never paid out the claimed money and said the couple who were previously of good character were ‘essentially good people trying to do their best in difficult circumstances.’
The judge who heard that the couple received legal aid made a £100000 costs order against them which will not be enforced without leave of the court.

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment