Fraud Charter Ghost Broker Focus: How proactive are insurers in tackling ghost broking?

Ghost brokers – criminals posing as legitimate insurance brokers, selling fake insurance policies typically via social media – are becoming a growing problem for insurers.

For example, June 2026 figures published by insurer Aviva highlighted that it had received more than 105,000 fraudulent insurance applications in 2025, with an increasing volume of this activity being attributed to ghost brokers. The insurer added that detected ghost broking scams had increased 7% year-on-year, based on its internal data.

With this type of fraud evidently on the up, what are insurers doing to combat this activity?

Chris Moore, counter fraud director at independent investigation firm RGI Solutions, which supports the insurance and legal sectors, believes that insurers are still mainly reactive rather than proactive in the face of rising ghost broking.

He told Insurance Times: “We find that insurers investigate ghost broker issues internally most of the time. This usually involves the policyholder contacting them after an accident, [when they want to make a claim,] only to be told the policy is fake. [The insurer] then completes an investigation internally – examining payment methods, for example.

“We have only been instructed on a handful of cases and that tends to be [around interviewing] the unsuspecting policyholder about how they took out the insurance policy.

“We know how to investigate ghost broker issues, with intelligence, link charts, interviews and document validation. We just don’t see many.”

Matt Gilham, director at Whitelk Fraud Performance Consulting, agreed that there is more insurers can do and consider when it comes to tackling ghost broking activity as part of a cross-industry “overall strategy”.

For him, there are two strategic areas that insurers must brush up on if they want to successfully dent illegal insurance firms’ momentum – “the need to build trust with customers” and “the inherent opportunity to better eliminate ghost broked policies when placed on insurers’ books”.

Regarding insurers building greater trust with their customers, Gilham explained that this helps to create “confidence that the quoted price for cover is understood as value for money, with assurance on the cover and service [customers] will receive”.

He continued: “Ultimately, this has to be done to build in a consumer disincentive to search for ‘too good to be true’ insurance prices.”

As for the opportunity to more effectively block ghost broked policies, Gilham said: “With our [market’s] sophistication in data, events and technology, there should be adequate capability to identify a ghost broker arranged policy before or at the point of purchase.

“However, there remains enduring pressure on quotability, conversion [of] quotes to sale and growth, [as well as a] healthy tension between investment in underwriting and counter fraud. The leaders [in our sector] are those which have got this collaboration correct.”

Gilham, who participates in Insurance Times’ Fraud Charter roundtable series – hosted in association with law firm Carpenters Group – flagged feedback from this industry counter fraud group on elements that should feature within a cross-market strategy to “tackle ghost broking”.

This includes “data and intelligence sharing, lobbying of technology companies to tackle online harms, customer education, enforcement, insurer tactical capability and education of younger age groups”.

Gilham continued: “We all recognise that ghost broking is not a new issue, but one that has been amplified by consumer and sector adoption of technology – from online quote and buy, through [to] the emergence of aggregators, ghost broker use of social media channels and artificial intelligence (AI) tools.”

Barriers to proactivity

Providing a carrier view, Clare Lunn, head of counter fraud at MGA Markerstudy Insurance, told Insurance Times that her firm was involved in both internal and external activity to mitigate ghost broking.

Her feedback demonstrates that certain underwriters are seeking to take a proactive stance against rising ghost broking scams, rather than just reacting when presumed policyholders struggle to make a claim.

However, she noted that this action is not without its difficulties – especially when it comes to getting “any cooperation from the banking or telecoms sectors” or “social media tech firms” having low barriers to entry for new site setups.

She explained: “Internally, we are continuing to ensure we have effective front end controls to prevent ghost brokers taking out policies with us – however, some always get through.

“Post-sale, we have controls to flag ghost broker behaviour and [when] we find a ghost broked policy, we cancel the policy as soon as possible in order to disrupt this activity.

“A lot of time goes into determining the identity of the ghost broker and, if we can, this is reported to the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (Ifed).

“We still struggle to get any cooperation from the banking or telecoms sectors to help us identify ghost brokers – I am hoping the government’s new Fraud Strategy, [published in March 2026,] may help to support cross-sector data sharing at some point.

“[Markerstudy’s] intel team also conducts random social media searches to proactively look for ghost broking sites and then we report them to get the site closed, but another [often] pops up very quickly.

“We really need social media tech firms to step up and conduct more due diligence to prevent spurious sites being set up in the first place.”

Teamwork

For Lunn, “the most effective way to combat ghost broking is a coordinated approach across the industry”. She highlighted that Markerstudy Insurance, for example, has been providing feedback to not-for-profit organisation the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) via one of its working groups.

The IFB’s working groups have already brainstormed many positive steps for mitigating ghost broking, Lunn continued – it is simply a case of seeing how these can now be actioned and the government’s appetite to listen and implement industry ideas.

The groups’ proposals include establishing a distinct ghost broking IFB subgroup to give the topic more attention and focus, collaborating with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVLA) to raise greater awareness of ghost broking – for example, including it within driving tests – and launching another government led awareness campaign similar to 2024’s ‘Stop! Think Fraud’.

Lunn added that in the working group meeting she recently attended, one insurer suggested “setting up an industry petition which we could all sign, to show joined up thinking [and] collaboration. [The same insurer] also [said] a parliamentary roundtable might be good to explore”.

Lunn said: “Ghost broking remains a significant threat to the industry.”

Ben Fletcher, director of fraud at Allianz UK, agreed on the need for more joined up thinking across the market. He stated that Allianz UK liaises with “the police, regulators and other insurers” to combat ghost broking.

He continued: “Insurance ghost broking is a serious problem that pushes up the cost of policies for honest consumers.

“It is a particularly serious threat for young drivers, who are often targeted with fake insurance deals that seem too good to be true. These fraudulent policies leave consumers uninsured, exposed to financial and legal risks.

“At Allianz, we urge everyone to stay vigilant, verify insurance providers and report suspicious activity.

“We are resolute in our determination to identify and defend against any type of fraud and we work with the police, regulators and other insurers to prevent it.”