A ROGUE trader charged an elderly man from Silloth more than £5,000 for insulation work which an expert assessed to be worthless.

Carlisle Crown Court heard that 31-year-old Maurice Penfold said he was remorseful for the distress he caused his 75-year-old victim - yet he failed to refund his money and tried to persuade a judge halt the prosecution.

He eventually pleaded guilty to six offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Act 2008.

After hearing an outline of the facts, a judge handed Penfold financial penalties totalling almost £9,000 – the bulk of it being an order to compensate the victim with a repayment of the full £3,350 cost of the substandard work. He must do this within a year.

Prosecutor David Traynor outlined the defendant’s offending.

He said that the pensioner involved lived in a park home and he wanted to upgrade his static caravan to make it warmer with underfloor heating and to reduce the noise disturbance from the roof when it rained.

In that advertisement, the court heard, Penfold said the business had 25 years’ experience of providing home refurbishments and it could guarantee quality. Neither claim was true.

The defendant’s firm, UK Home Improvements PH Limited was created in 2020. Penfold also falsely claimed to be a member of the Guild of Master Craftsmen, but he never was, said Mr Traynor.

After seeing a magazine advertisement, the Silloth pensioner logged on to the company’s website and arranged for a visit from the firm, which happened on August  14, 2021.

“[The customer] also mentioned that he was having problems with the noise of rain on his rood,” said Mr Traynor. “The defendant said he could not completely stop the noise but he could increase the roof insulation and that would reduce the noise lots.”

The pensioner agreed to have the work done out on both his home's floor and the roof, but he was never told about his legal right to a 14-day cooling off period.

The work started on August 25, said Mr Traynor.

The pensioner said he would normally spend time sitting outside his static caravan but the workers made him feel “intimidated” and told him he should not be there, so he retreated to the inside of his caravan.

After the work was completed, a Trading Standards expert inspected it and concluded that the roof coating applied was considerably thinner than the 3mm promised and that the work was unlikely to reduce noise.

The underfloor insulation work produced no benefit, said the inspector, while work on the roof was done in such a way as to increase the risk of leaks.

The work had “low value” and the labour costs should have been around £1,195.

Mr Traynor said of the customer: “He felt duped and traumatised dealing with the defendant and described him as a 'con artist', believing his company was designed from the start to target older people and convince them to part with their money.

“The whole thing has had a detrimental effect on his health and day to day life; it never goes away and causes him distress.”

Mr Traynor added: “The surveyor said this work was worthless.

Sarah Magill, mitigating, offered character references to the court from park home operators who know the defendant.

At the time of the offending, she said, Penfold maintained that he was completing work of a high standard elsewhere.

“This was out of character,” said the barrister, referring to the offence that led to the charges. She said that while there was evidence that the defendant minimised his wrongdoing, he was remorseful.

Recorder Julian Shaw noted that Penfold was a man of previous good character, but he then set out the six claims which the defendant had made during the course of his offending:

  • That his firm had 25 years’ experience
  • That he would install quality underfloor insulation.
  • That the roof noise coating would be 3mm thick.
  • That he would install 150mm of roof insulation.
  • That the work would reduce heat loss by 40 per cent.
  • And that the £5,350 cost was “reasonable”.

All those claims were “completely untrue,” said the Recorder.

The money  spent by the pensioner was probably his life savings, said the judge, pointing out: “According to the inspector, the work was worthless.”

The judge imposed fines of £2,400, a £1,000 contribution to the prosecution costs of £10,250, and compensation for the victim of £5,350. That latter sum is to be paid first and completed within one year.

Should the defendant, of Green Lanes, London, fail to pay his fines, he will serve a period of custody in default of 45 days, said Recorder Shaw.

Bob Kelly, executive portfolio holder for policy and regulatory services at Cumberland Council, said: "This is a typical example of unscrupulous tradesmen taking advantage of elderly, vulnerable, consumers – a practice which blights our communities.

“This type of activity will not be tolerated in Cumberland.

“Our trading standards team is incredibly proactive and diligent and will take action against anyone thinking of taking advantage of our people.”

To report a rogue trader in Cumberland, call the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline on 0808 223 1133.