Height of stupidity!
Insurance cheat who said he got vertigo from falling in koi pond is caught on a 100ft water slide
WIDE-EYED and mouth agape in mock terror as he prepares to plunge 100ft down Europe’s highest water slide at 60mph, Ben Bardsley clearly loves a white-knuckle ride.
The 38-year-old was snapped on the Verti- Go attraction in the Costa Blanca resort of Benidorm.
yet this is the same Ben Bardsley who claimed to have been left with a fear of heights after he fell into a koi carp pond in his back garden. The bodybuilder and self-professed ‘transformation specialist’ put in an injury claim of around £20,000 against the firm that put in the pond after being struck by the bucket of the digger while he was inspecting the work.
But video footage taken by a friend as he prepared to take the plunge on the slide – and uploaded onto Facebook two years after the pond accident – wrecked
‘Fundamental dishonesty’
his case. Instead he faces a £14,000 legal bill after his claim was branded ‘fundamentally dishonest’. Mr Bardsley, of Stockport, Greater Manchester, brought the action against Warrington Koi & Aquatics following the accident in 2015.
The gym-owner claimed the collision with the digger made him fall with his arms outstretched, causing injuries to his neck and back that left him unable to lift weights. He also said the accident had led to psychological problems and anxiety involving heights.
But Insurance firm Aviva, which acted for the pond supplier, was suspicious and instructed law firm Clyde & Co to investigate. Amid a vast array of social media posts it was shown that Mr Bardsley had continued to lift large weights.
He also posted the clip of himself tackling the Verti-Go attraction.
Dismissing the claim at Manchester County Court last month, recorder Hartley QC said the idea that someone going down such a slide would struggle with heights was ‘nonsense’.
He ruled Mr Bardsley was guilty of ‘fundamental dishonesty’ and ordered him to pay the defendant’s costs of £14,318. Damian rourke, of Clyde & Co, said: ‘It’s important to understand that Aviva never sought to argue that the claimant was not injured at all. Instead, the issue was that the claimant had exaggerated.’