A rogue trader who repeatedly targeted a Kenilworth pensioner has been sentenced to 300 hours of community service after taking £42,840 from their victim.

Louis William Gaskin (age 21 of Windmill Lane Balsall Common) almost took another £21,600 from the pensioner, if it were not for the eagle-eyed intervention from a bank.

Gaskin has also been sentenced to 15 months in prison, suspended for two years, after the Warwickshire County Council trading standards investigation.

Trading as Pitch Roofing Ltd, Gaskin door knocked the home of a retired Kenilworth resident, claiming that he had been working on another house in the street and had noticed some loose tiles on the homeowner's roof.

The homeowner allowed the trader to go up onto the roof and Gaskin claimed there were numerous loose and cracked tiles and said that the whole roof would need replacing, declaring that he valued his reputation and would not be happy doing a patch up job.

The homeowner was given an estimate of £17,000 for the work.

Gaskin began work almost immediately and on completion, presented the homeowner with a bill for £33,420, over double the estimated cost.

He said the extra cost was because he had also taken down the chimney stack at the back of the house, which he said had proved a major additional undertaking.

This was work the homeowner was unaware of and had not agreed to. The prosecution's expert surveyor later stated that the removal of the chimney should only have cost a few hundred pounds.

Later, Mr Gaskin returned to the property claiming that there was "a problem with the VAT" and requested a further payment of approximately £9,250, which the homeowner also paid.

This claim was false and simply an attempt to defraud the homeowner further.

On this visit, the homeowner told Gaskin that water had been pouring from the gutters and soffits.

Gaskin went back up onto the roof and then claimed that there were "bigger problems".

He said the guttering was not properly fixed to the soffits and the soffits were not properly attached to the batons. He further claimed that because the new tiles were heavier than the old ones, the weight of the roof was now bending the soffits.

The rogue trader claimed he could fix these problems for a further £18,000, but he would not accept a cheque and wanted cash.

The homeowner asked Gaskin what he should say to the bank to explain why he was trying to withdraw such a large amount of cash, and Gaskin phoned his father for advice who told him he would just need to find a suitable explanation.

The homeowner agreed to try and withdraw half the amount, £9,000.

However, when the homeowner visited the bank to take the cash out, the bank was concerned and stopped him from doing so.

Warwickshire Trading Standards was then called in to investigate. On hearing that trading standards were involved, Gaskin left the homeowner's property abruptly, taking with him his tools, materials he had brought and his victim's paperwork.

Officers asked an independent expert building surveyor to examine the work.

He stated that the roof tiles appeared to have been installed in such a way that they were defective and did not conform with current British Standards.

He further said that there was no obvious reason why the facias, soffits or guttering needed wholesale replacing and that the soffits were not subject to any undue stress or loading, something Mr Gaskin had claimed.

The surveyor stated the work carried out was so poor that he valued it nothing.

The homeowner was also left to pay another trader £3,720 to carry out remedial work and fix the problems caused by Gaskin.

On sentencing Judge Walsh said the victim in this case trusted Mr Gaskin and that Gaskin took advantage of this to massively inflate the quote he had initially provided for the roofing work.

Further, the victim had also trusted Gaskin when he returned to his home to falsely claim that VAT needed to be paid and then go on to claim that more work was needed when this was entirely bogus, and no work was necessary.

In mitigation, Mr Balbir Singh of Equity Chambers, representing Gaskin stated his client was 19 at the time the offences and had admitted to them at an early stage.

Further, he had not re-offended in the 15 months since and his personal circumstances had now improved.

He was married and in work as the sole breadwinner. Mr Balbir also said Gaskin had paid back £36,000 to his victim, money he had borrowed from his family, a debt it would take him a long time to pay back.

At Warwick Crown Court on Thursday 8 August 2024, Louis William Gaskin was sentenced to the following, having already pleaded guilty to three offences under the Fraud Act 2006 at a previous hearing:

• A 15-month custodial sentence, suspended for 2 years
• 300 hours community service
• 25 rehabilitation activity requirement days
• A three-year Director Disqualification Order, and
• £2,000 contribution to prosecution costs