The roofer who ripped-off a Roehampton woman after he lied about fixing her roof has been ordered to hand over £9,500 in fines legal costs and compensation after the case was taken up by the council's trading standards team.

Alan McCaffery, who trades as "Milestone Roofing & Building Specialists" of Middle Lane, Teddington, was prosecuted for making false claims about how much repair work he had done to the roof of her Danebury Avenue home.

He charged her for fixing sheets of plywood and three layers of roof felt after he had been called into repair a leak in 2005. His total bill for the job came to £4,680.

But when the leaky roof continued causing her problems and she was unable to get Mr McCaffery to fix it - she was forced to employ another roofing firm. When their staff inspected the roof they told her she had been conned.

They told her that no new plywood had been fitted and that only two layers of felt had been used.

The woman then contacted the council's trading standards team who launched an immediate investigation into the con. The roof was inspected by an expert who confirmed that she had been swindled by Mr McCaffery.

A core sample was taken of the roof that showed its entire repair history since being built. Five different roofs had been added since originally constructed, and the last one – the one laid by Mr McCaffery - was forensically shown to have only two layers of felt membrane and no plywood.

As a result he was prosecuted by trading standards officers for an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act. He admitted the charge when he appeared before South Western magistrates and was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay the council's prosecution costs of £1,500. He was also ordered to pay his victim £5,000 in compensation.

The council's spokesman on consumer protection issues Cllr Malcolm Grimston said: "This was a blatant and outrageous deception that has been punished very severely by the court.

"When people employ professional tradesman like this, they should not have the added burden of having to worry about being swindled. They should only be charged for an honest day's work.

"In this case, the victim was quite comprehensively and deliberately swindled by Mr McCaffery. If he had done what he promised, and what he was paid to do, it would only have cost him a very modest amount in additional materials and probably only another couple of hours to do the job properly.

"Whether it was laziness on his part or just sheer greed, it has certainly come back to haunt him. A final bill of £9,500 plus all the bad publicity for himself and his company is completely justified and a very high price to pay. Other rogue traders out there would be well advised to take note."

February 8, 2008