A man who tried to claim up to £9,000 in compensation for a road accident is instead facing a £7,000 bill after a judge said he “could not be relied upon to give accurate or truthful evidence”.

Zamir Akram, aged 38, of Grange Drive, Bradford, claimed a Leeds City Council van had collided with his as he stopped at traffic lights on the Elland Road roundabout in Leeds on 6 July 2006.

But yesterday a judge at Leeds County Court threw out his claim and ordered him to pay £7,000 towards the council’s costs.

Mr Akram claimed his van was hit in the rear after he had slowed down before coming to a stop at a red light. He claimed damages of £7,321.24 for repairs to his vehicle, allegedly damaged items in the vehicle, hire of a replacement vehicle and various other items.

He also claimed he had suffered a whiplash injury in the incident and, if successful on all claims, the total damages would have been around £8,500 - £9,000, plus legal costs of approximately £20,000.

The council admitted that its driver had collided with the rear of Mr Akram’s van, but it disputed the size of the claim, arguing that the damage to Mr Akram’s vehicle was not consistent with the circumstances of the accident. Nor was it satisfied with the evidence provided in support of the other losses claimed.

Mr Akram’s medical report showed he had been involved in another accident two weeks earlier but he had denied being injured in it. Yet routine enquiries revealed that he had in fact made a personal injury claim for an alleged whiplash injury from it, for which he had been paid £1,100 in compensation.

Furthermore, he had been involved in at least four or five previous accidents for which he had made personal injury claims, although these did not appear to have been mentioned to the doctor who prepared the medical report.

In view of these suspicions, the council was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim for personal injury. It claimed evidence suggested the damage to Mr Akram’s vehicle pre-dated this accident, and there was little or no evidence of the other losses.

In giving judgment, Judge Hawkesworth QC noted that there were “serious issues” about Mr Akram’s credibility. He said he found Mr Akram to be an “utterly evasive witness” who “could not be relied upon to give accurate or truthful evidence”.

The judge was not satisfied that any significant damage had been caused in this accident to Mr Akram’s vehicle, and he also found that the claims for personal injury and other losses were not proven. Mr Akram’s claim was dismissed in its entirety and he was ordered to pay the council’s legal costs of just under £7,000.

Councillor Richard Brett, Leeds City Council’s executive board member for legal services, said:
“We can and will investigate claims made against us and, where there is no evidence to back these claims, we will seek to recover our costs.
“Compensation payouts come out of the public purse, so I believe the taxpayer will only thank us for being thorough.”