To say that homeowner Duncan MacFarlane feels let down is putting it mildly.
He fell victim to a rogue builder and is furious with the lack of help from consumer protection rules and watchdogs.
It was two years ago that he paid CountyLine Limited a deposit of almost £16,000 for improvements to his home in Kingston, Greater London. The company never started the work and disappeared with his money.
The firm specialised in conservatories and extensions and was run from Crowborough, East Sussex, by sole director, 60-year-old Paul Davies.
It went into liquidation owing around £1.6million to an estimated 100 victims in London and the South East.
“I only paid the deposit two weeks before CountyLine ceased trading, they must have known they were in financial trouble and took my money regardless,” he said.
We’re always advised to make large payments by credit card because the important Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act offers protection up to £30,000, and that’s what Duncan had done.
He was stunned when his bank Santander told him that Section 75 did not apply because even though he had paid roughly £16,000 – well below the £30,000 cut-off point – the total value of his building contract was £64,000 and so none of his money was covered.
“I would never have paid in advance if I had not assumed that I was protected and if I had known about the loophole regarding the £30,000 limit,” Duncan said.
CountyLine boasted of being a member of an impressive range of trade bodies, but the comfort they offered Duncan proved short-lived.
There was Quality Assured National Warranties, an independent organisation which secures deposits which says: "We place consumer protection at the heart of everything we do".
“They said that my job had never been registered with them, therefore I was not covered,” Duncan said.
CountyLine was also a member of the Federation of Master Builders, which Duncan says did not respond when he filed a complaint.
It was a member of the Government-endorsed TrustMark scheme, which says it thoroughly vets members and if a problem does arise it has “a range of remedies to give further protection to consumers”.
Duncan says it did nothing beyond axing CountyLine’s membership.
He thought that Sussex Police might take an interest in what he regards as a fraud, but these hopes were dashed when an officer emailed to say that they were passing the case to Lewisham Trading Standards in London.
This watchdog’s investigation came to a halt when CountyLine entered liquidation, with Duncan receiving an email stating: “Given this, it is no longer viable to continue legal action.”
The latest report from the liquidators PCR LLP from last October states: "We have ascertained a number of third party to whom the company paid monies and are continuing our enquiries to ascertain for what purpose and for what consideration those monies were paid.
"We have instructed solicitors Hillyer McKeown to assist us and, if necessary, to compel the third parties to provide us with the information we require."
It added that it was not yet possible to say if any creditors would receive any of their money back.
Duncan did recover around £10,000 via a Visa chargeback but that still leaves him out of pocket by £5,243, which he had paid by bank transfer.
"All the money would have been covered, including any cash payments, should Santander have decided Section 75 was applicable: if you pay £100 on credit card then any credit and cash payments relating to the item are also covered," he said.
"If I was to buy a car for £29,999 and paid £100 on credit card and £29,899 on cash and the car was never delivered – Section 75 protection would refund the entire £29,999.
'If I paid £2.00 more - £30,001 – I would be entitled to £0 compensation, it is a cliff edge in protection.
"So any building company that quotes more than £30,000 for works - in London anyone doing a loft or rear extension will fall into this category - then the customer has no protection from section 75.
"Yet every builder I spoke to explained how you are protected. Either they are ignorant of the legislation or are deceiving people deliberately but either way when they give a contract or quote for more than £30,00 which has a Section 75 logo stamped on it, they are lulling people into a sense of false protection leaving you exposed to crooked builders.
"If I can help warn others by telling my story and hopefully protect someone else from losing money, that could at least be a small positive to come out of this.
“Now I am left with no support or guidance about what to do, while the director of Countyline is free to go about his business with an estimated £1.6 million of money taken from individuals like myself and no ongoing police investigation,” said Duncan.
“I just don’t understand how in the UK this type of behaviour is allowed.
“I have tried every avenue to get my funds back but have hit a dead end and don’t know what else I can do.”
Here’s how the watchdogs responded.
Federation of Master Builders . Chief executive Brian Berry said that CountyLine met its vetting criteria when it joined but was expelled in May 2018 following complaints. He said: “Mr MacFarlane contacted the FMB after the firm had been expelled, at which point we were unable to take further action.
"In the intervening two years there have been no such allegations of fraud made against any FMB members.”
Quality Assured National Warranties.
It stated that CountyLine was a member of a "Competent Persons Scheme" that gave insurance for replacement doors and windows but this membership ended in May 2018, and it had no record of Duncan’s complaint, which he made by telephone.
TrustMark. Simon Ayers, chief executive, said he was very sorry to hear of Duncan’s situation but said it was a matter for the police and trading standards: "TrustMark was engaged with the agencies to ensure they were supplied with all information required to support that investigation."
He added that they were revising the way businesses are checked “to ensure their suitability to be registered” but warned: "In some cases, where a business is aggressively acquired and then used for criminal gain in a very short time span, it will remain a difficult situation to monitor and act upon."
Santander. The bank expressed sympathy but stuck to its position that Duncan was not entitled to a credit card refund because his building contract was for more than £30,000, adding that the Financial Ombudsman Service had rejected his complaint.
Lewisham Trading Standards. Councillor Brenda Dacres, Cabinet Member for Safer Communities, said: “The Trading Standards team, together with the National Trading Standards Regional Investigation Team, worked very hard to try to resolve this case, and have deep sympathy for Mr MacFarlane’s plight.
“However, as the company in question was liquidated, this left us with few options to pursue. The case remains open and should further evidence or cases come to light, we will investigate fully.”
Sussex Police. Did not respond to requests to comment.
Update: Sussex Police have replied, six days after my first enquiry, to say: "We passed this matter onto Trading Standards, who lead on the investigation."
I was unable to reach Paul Davies.
