/ Common Law Claims & Policy
Ministry of Defence
MainBuilding (01/I/19)
Whitehall
London SW1A 2HB
United Kingdom
Telephone [MOD]:
Facsimile [MOD]:
E-mail:
Your Reference:
Our Reference: CLCP.1.26.1.1
Mr T Swarbick
/ 28 November 2013 / July 2012

Dear Mr Swarbick,

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION – RELEASE OF INFORMATION

UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

1.Your email communication of 5 November 2013 requesting information relating to surveillance has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  1. The information you request is detailed below.In addition you may find it useful if I explain the Ministry of Defence’s general position in relation to the use of surveillance in the claims investigating process.

3. The Ministry of Defence has a duty to ensure that common law compensations claims brought against the Department are paid at the correct level where there is a legal liability to do so.

4.In exceptional circumstances surveillance might be undertaken to observe the true extent of a claimant’s alleged injuries in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion about the veracity of a claim or where medical evidence suggests that the claimant’s disability is wholly inconsistent with the type of injury. Claims that are found to be grossly exaggerated are either repudiated or settled at a greatly reduced level of damages in line with the injury suffered and true levels of loss incurred by the claimant. Surveillance should be of no concern to claimants with a legitimate claim and where the alleged injury has not been grossly exaggerated in an attempt to extract higher levels of compensation.

5.This policy relates only to common law compensation claims where the claimant is suing the Department; not to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

6.In response to the information you seek:

Q1. How many times since 2003 has the MoD employed private detectives in the UK?
A "private detective" being defined as "an individual privately employed to investigate a crime, keep watch on a suspected person, or make other inquiries".

A1. About 55,000 claims for compensation have been made against the Ministry of Defence since 2000 from which 345 cases have been subject to surveillance. Surveillance is not restricted to service personnel, but may be used in any case brought against the Ministry of Defence. The figures relating to the number of times surveillance has been used by those contracted to handle claims brought against the Ministry of Defencesince 2003 in the claims investigation process are as follows:

Year / Number of cases
2003 / 43
2004 / 37
2005 / 41
2006 / 27
2007 / 18
2008 / 15
2009 / 16
2010 / 16
2011 / 13
2012 / 7

To date in 2013, surveillance has been undertaken on 15 occasions.

Q2. Could you detail the breakdown by year and also the companies/individuals hired, as well as reasons why they were contracted.

A2. Details of the surveillance companies instructed by those contracted to handle claims brought against the Ministry of Defence include:

  • Robertson & Co, PO Box 5026, Ongar, Essex CM5 0RS
  • R-ISC, 2nd Floor, Landmark House, Station Road, Cheadle Hume, Cheshire SK8 7BS
  • Remington Hall, 8 Warwick Court, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5DJ
  • Euro-Tech, The Malthouse, Off Hummer Road, Egham, Surrey TW20 9BD
  • Collingwood deCaunteton Ltd, Laganside Studio, Unit 18, Ravenhill Business Park, Belfast BT6 8AW
  • Securway Investigations Ulster, First Floor, 223 Upper Newtownards Road, Belfast, BT4 35D

Details regarding the year they were instructed are not held. The reason why these surveillance companies were contracted is addressed in paragraph 4 above.

7. If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, MODMainBuilding, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB ( e-mail ). Please note that nay request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end.

8.If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner’s website, http:/

Yours sincerely

Common Law Claims and Policy Branch