A PERSONAL assistant to wealthy families must pay more than £11,000 in legal costs after she claimed twice for the same set of minor injuries.

Monique Jayasuriya, 34, of Hanwell, was involved in two car accidents in a month, only one of which resulted in injuries.

However, she submitted two claims for injuries after failing to disclose all the facts to medical examiners.

Judge Ross, sitting at Brentford County Court, said Jayasuriya had been fundamentally dishonest and should pay the costs of insurance company Aviva.

In late 2019, Jayasuriya’s car was involved in two accidents. In November, it was hit on a mini roundabout in St George’s Road, Hanwell. The following month, her car was shunted from the rear iMayfair.n

Though she initially reported she was unharmed after the first accident, during a medical examination in January 2020 she failed to tell the doctor she had subsequently been involved in a second accident.

For the first accident, she claimed for personal injuries, physiotherapy, an MRI scan and the loss of four months’ gym membership.

For the second, she claimed for migraines, injuries to her left arm and right shoulder, as well as nerve damage to her lower back. She again claimed for the loss of gym membership.

But evidence found by Aviva’s law firm, Clyde & Co, revealed Jayasuriya had not been honest about the nature of her injuries.

Damian Rourke, Partner at Clyde & Co, said: “[She] tried to double her money by claiming for the same injuries twice and, because of that, she’s ended up with a bill for £11,000.

“Had she told the truth and claimed once for the injuries she undoubtedly had, she would have been properly compensated. Because of her dishonesty, she’s lost it all.”

Rob Lee, Director of Casualty Claims at Aviva, said: “We are here to pay genuine claims quickly. But, where we detect fraud or fundamentally dishonest behaviour, we will challenge that to protect our customers from the negative impact of fraud on their premiums.”

In her defence, Jayasuriya argued she had not fully understood the legal process and that her solicitors had exaggerated her injuries to increase their earnings.

The judge rejected her explanation.