Cowboy builder who scammed 50 households out of £650k is jailed

A cowboy builder who scammed greater than 50 households out of almost £650,000 has been jailed for 5 years.

Lawrence Martin ‘took benefit’ of susceptible clients together with one lady who was having work achieved to assist her dying father-in-law, a court docket heard.

The ‘essentially dishonest’ 36-year-old pressured purchasers into paying tens of 1000’s of kilos in deposits to make sure work may start, earlier than declaring extra work wanted doing as prices soared.

One couple misplaced greater than £110,000 on account of his fraud, whereas dozens of heartbroken victims had been left with wrecked properties and empty financial institution accounts as their life financial savings had been cleaned out in a marketing campaign of fraud that lasted a ‘very very long time’.

Martin – who had no official roofing {qualifications} – allegedly advised one buyer ‘you bought extra likelihood of successful the lottery’ than getting a refund.

Over an almost 5 yr interval, the father-of-four left clients throughout Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in tears, with some even having to alter the locks to cease him returning, the court docket heard.

Were you scammed by Lawrence Martin? Email: [email protected]

The work that he did full was allegedly so shoddy, many cancelled the remainder, demanded a refund and needed to fork out 1000’s extra on professionals to repair the harm he had achieved.

After admitting two counts of fraudulent buying and selling and one in every of fraud Martin didn’t react as he was jailed for 5 years for his ‘disgraceful conduct’ at Southampton Crown Court.

Martin will serve half of his sentence earlier than being launched on licence.

He was additionally made topic of a 10-year Criminal Behaviour Order, barring him from any form of constructing or roofing work. He will nonetheless be allowed to practise as an electrician upon his launch.

Prosecutor Ethu Crorie advised the court docket his offending was break up in two intervals – whereas sole director of Eastleigh-based agency CLJ roofing and when he continued along with his personal private checking account, between January 2018 and October 2022.

His susceptible purchasers included a widow, these with disabilities, and the household of a terminally in poor health man.

‘In transient, Martin quoted for constructing/roofing works at a property,’ he stated.

‘He seemed that he was a profitable {and professional} dealer.

‘Pressure was positioned on clients to comply with the work rapidly, potential dates for beginning the work had been instructed however would solely be out there if a deposit was paid.

‘Once the work began, continuously, he would establish additional works and the prices would develop.

‘Customers felt obliged to agree to those further works for quite a few causes together with the truth that the work had already been began and the truth that Martin would state that the work was being achieved at a reduction as a result of he was already on web site.

‘Customers had been additionally misled with frequent representations about the necessity to pay for particular supplies and objects reminiscent of scaffolding.

‘These supplies did not arrive on web site.

‘He additionally requested for extra funds to cowl, for instance, staff that wanted to be paid and shortfalls to cowl him misquoting the job.

‘Martin, in fact, was mendacity about what the cash was going for use for.’

When shoppers complained, Martin made excuses together with references to the approaching dying of his mom, issues with suppliers, staff, different shoppers and automobiles.

The work was both not accomplished or was achieved so poorly that remedial prices had been incurred.

The court docket heard Martin ‘took benefit of the shoppers’ vulnerability’ by stating that in the event that they continued to complain he would stroll off the job and refund them cash.

He additionally ‘continuously’ acknowledged he can be refunding cash – however the majority didn’t obtain something.

‘When he did refund individuals, it was, it appears, solely with a view to having them take away damaging critiques from varied websites,’ Mr Crorie added.

Martin, of Southampton, acquired lots of his clients by way of the Rated People web site.

The court docket was learn Martin’s correspondence with disgruntled clients, which included telling the involved daughter of an 84-year-old on the Isle of Wight, that ‘there’s not an opportunity in hell’ of a refund after his botch-up job.

His work was so unhealthy it prompted one house owner’s brother to cease speaking to him after he advisable Martin’s providers.

One household, who stay in Chandler’s Ford, had been advised ‘you bought extra likelihood of successful the lottery’, once they sought a refund of £8,500.

For any that did obtain a reimbursement – usually promised at a measly fee of £100 per 30 days, which by no means arrived – it was on the situation they take away any damaging critiques.

One couple, from Alresford, close to Winchester, misplaced £48,794 and needed to spend an additional £40,000 correcting the mess he had made.

A constructing surveyor skilled acknowledged that ‘past the preliminary roof restore all different work undertaken by the dealer was pointless’ and that there was no justification for the entire roof to be stripped of tiles and changed with slate.

The court docket heard Martin ‘misled’ them by advising there have been rotten timbers within the roof.

He advised a querying buyer he didn’t have membership to the Competent Roofer scheme – however that ’90 per cent of roofers didn’t have it both’.

It was heard Martin would ‘preserve discovering new work to do’ regardless of ‘not finishing any of the work already paid for’.

Sharon Netley and accomplice Paul Harris got here off worst, dropping out on £92,668 and spending £22,000 on remedial prices.

Martin advised Mr Harris that if he eliminated Facebook feedback and the criticism to Trading Standards, then he would refund the £50,000.

However, he by no means returned the cash, the court docket heard.

His latter dealings with Miss Netley and Mr Harris, a job that began in September 2021 however continued into October 2022, occurred while he was on bail.

‘This defendant should not be doing any work of this sort in any respect – he’s clearly completely incompetent,’ Mr Crorie stated.

‘He is essentially dishonest.’

In a police interview, he admitted he had no formal {qualifications} in relation to roofing and had by no means heard of the Competent Roofer Scheme.

For Martin, Jennifer Brenton stated his buying and selling ‘was not fraudulent from the outset’.

However, she admitted Martin – who’s educated as an electrician and never in roofing – was ‘erroneously’ figuring out work to be achieved.

She stated it was at this level, with complaints rising and refunds being requested, Martin began ‘robbing from Peter to pay Paul’ to try to repay the ‘irate’ clients.

Ms Brenton stated Martin felt regret and needed to cross on his apologies to these he had defrauded.

Judge Peter Henry stated: ‘He could also be incompetent at constructing, however he’s not incompetent at defrauding individuals.

‘There was critical hurt prompted as evidenced by their sufferer private statements.

‘The influence upon these has been substantial, not simply by way of monetary loss however by way of well being, nervousness and despair and work they’ve needed to do to get their premises repaired correctly.

‘Serious, detrimental hurt has been attributable to you – your shoppers have incurred appreciable prices.

‘Your disgraceful conduct continued over a really very long time.

‘You defrauded over 50 victims, you used bullying and aggressive behaviour to your clients, together with utilizing a false identification as a way to proceed to perpetrate fraud, after CLJ ceased to exist.

‘People like you’re a thorough menace – not solely giving the constructing trade a nasty identify however for inflicting victims devastating damage.’

‘The influence of what you probably did on individuals is important.

‘Many of your clients had been susceptible.’

Speaking afterwards, emotional victims had combined responses to the sentencing.

Sharon Netley stated: ‘It won’t ever be lengthy sufficient, after two and a half years he might be out.

‘We had been left in debt, we needed to take loans from the financial institution, bank cards, however Paul’s mum helped.’

Mr Harris stated Martin had left him unable to sleep at night time because of the stress of all of it.

Chrissie and Mark Bacon, who spent £44,000 on a storage conversion to accommodate her terminally in poor health father-in-law, have been left with incomplete work by Martin after hiring him in the summertime of 2021.

The 52-year-old hoped to have her father-in-law at residence for Christmas with them, however he died with out having the ability to stay out his ultimate days along with his household.

‘It was a really costly and painful mistake, and this has been the worst time of our lives’, she stated.

‘During this time, dad’s well being deteriorated. We hassled Lawrence increasingly more to finish the home, however he wouldn’t achieve this.’

They spent their life financial savings on the work and even needed to remortgage their residence earlier than forking out an additional £46,000 to restore the unfinished work. 

An further £30,000 nonetheless must be spent, she stated.

‘We have lived right here for 16 years, and this was meant to be our eternally residence,’ she added.

Another sufferer, who didn’t want to be named however had been scammed out of almost £50,000 stated: ‘We will not recuperate.

‘You do not recuperate simply from that.

‘I’m glad justice has been achieved and one thing is occurring about it.

‘The piece I take away from it’s there’s energy in making a stand.

‘There was clearly a method that was in place – you’re taking a little bit of consolation you are not the one one.

‘We have discovered a neighborhood right here, that is serving to us all get by way of it.’