| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
1.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Even at this late stage of the day, I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House a very serious and growing problem of criminal activity, which is particularly targeted at elderly and vulnerable people. Cold calling covers a multitude of sins but, in essence, it means making an unrequested and unarranged approach to a person with a view to selling them something. There is much telephone cold calling, but I am concerned with people calling in person, unrequested, at other people's houses. Sometimes, that is a front for what is known as distraction robbery, but that is not what I am concerned about on this occasion.
The Bill deals with individuals, or more often gangs, who approach people at their home and offer property repairs. The most common property repair offered appears to be the laying of tarmac on people's drives, although other repairs are also offered—of course, sometimes the work is genuine and well done. However, the problem is increasing, and criminal gangs are making a dishonest living from preying on vulnerable and elderly people in our society.
Let me give some examples. An elderly woman from north Yorkshire was called and quoted £3 per sq m for resurfacing her drive. She was told that the people were from the local highways department and that they had some leftover materials. After laying approximately 120 sq m extremely poorly, they told her that the charge would be nearly £7,000 and that they would return later to collect the money. Mrs. L contacted both the police and trading standards officers. She tried to reason with the trader, but she was told that, unless she paid, someone would come round and damage her property, and that gentleman added that he did not mind doing another five years in prison, as he had already done 14. Mrs. L felt so vulnerable, distressed and fearful that she paid up in any case and declined to make a statement or otherwise assist further with the investigation.
Another elderly woman from West Yorkshire was happy to help when a caller asked to leave a large roller in her drive overnight, rather than taking it back to his yard. The following morning he called and thanked her for her kindness, and to say "thank you," he told her that he had some tarmac left over from a previous job and that he would do her drive for just £400. She replied that she did not have £400—so, as a favour, they agreed on £300, but when the job was done, he demanded £2,600, saying that she must have misheard, and he became threatening. He ordered a taxi and drove her down to the bank to withdraw the cash, although she did not hand it over immediately. When she returned to her home, she slipped out of the backdoor to a neighbour's house to ask for help. She phoned the trading standards officers, only to be told that they could not help; it was a police matter. She phoned the police, who said that it had nothing to do with them; it was civil matter. She remains worried to this day. One might ask what sort of person is around in our society who treats elderly people like that. Again, that is a rather sad reflection on society.
Another example from closer to home, from my constituency, involves not an elderly or vulnerable person, but a small business man—fit, healthy and in middle age. I shall quote his case because it is a very good illustration of such criminal activity. In November 2001, he wrote to me about extortion rackets in Leicestershire, and said:
- "This Extortion Racket seems commonplace . . . and because the Police turned their back on it, I believe that it is important to bring it to your attention.
I do not want my name used in publicity . . . the police cannot and will not protect me . . .
On Thursday, I was offered a load tarmac from an Irishman at the gate at work. Over the years we have bought a large number of loads of road scrapings when the roads are being resurfaced and have never had any problem. I negotiated . . . a very favourable price of £25 per load and . . . doubled checked that . . .
After it was laid the gang who laid it asked for £5,000 at £25 per square yard. When I protested they attacked me and pushed"—
- "before jumping in the car shouting threats. From Thursday morning until today . . . they have been phoning every 5 minutes promising violence to me, my family and my staff . . .
The police said it was a commercial dispute. They listened to a phone call when I was being threatened but said they could do nothing about it. I should settle . . .
The Irishmen kept telling me that the police could not and would not touch them and that they did not bother taxing their cars, nor with the drink drive laws. They claimed that the police were scared stiff of them . . . It may be bravado, but the reaction of the police rather bore out their claims.
I employed a . . . security guard . . .
After two days of harassment, my staff were scared stiff. I decided to settle and agreed to pay them £2,200. They sent a taxi driver to collect it."
- "Whilst the officer was with your constituent, four telephone calls were received from the suppliers . . . in relation to payment for the service . . . It is clear that prior to this there has been some intimidation".
- "I did not want to pursue the complaint because we are a very vulnerable site and a lot of damage could be done to my site . . . In addition at this time of the year many female staff are going home, alone, in the dark, many of them on bicycles and the perpetrators had made it quite clear what they would like to do with my female staff. If the police cannot realistically protect them then it is irresponsible of me to put their safety at risk . . . if the Police want assistance in bringing the perpetrators to justice I will testify, so long as I can be assured of police protection".
Last week, like all hon. Members, I received an update on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I should like to quote from it:
- "Operation Delham was run by the London Crime Squad, and targeted a crime family, the Vincents, based in Orpington . . . Three generations of the family targeted elderly vulnerable victims
- in the South London area . . . who they would approach and persuade that essential roofing work was necessary to their properties. Once the victims agreed either no work or badly completed work was carried out, resulting in an inflated bill. The average amount charged to re-roof a 3 bedroom house would be in the region of £37,000."
As a final illustration, I might mention my late father, who had a similar although less dreadful experience when aged about 80. He was approached on the basis that his drive needed retarmacking, and he unwisely agreed. The job was done very badly and very quickly, for the grand sum, as I recall, of about £2,000, which he had to pay in cash. Of course, he subsequently had to have the drive redone, as the tarmac was a complete waste of time and money. My father, to whom I was devoted, was extremely embarrassed, although he was fortunate in being able to afford the rip-off.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): I cannot over-emphasise the importance of what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve in his Bill. He may be aware that I brought to the attention of the House a similar experience when my then 89-year-old father was tricked into repeatedly going to the bank to withdraw a total of £7,500 in cash to give to a builder, purely because the builder recognised that he had a short-term memory problem. The only reason why this scoundrel was exposed was that I was able to raise the matter in the House, and "The Ferret"—an investigative programme in Wales—exposed him. We definitely need protection from this form of ruthless exploitation.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the point that such things are happening not only in the midlands, but throughout the country. They are a real and growing problem and are targeted at elderly and vulnerable people such as both our fathers.
It is estimated that at least 16,000 similar bogus trading incidents are reported to trading standards each year, but centralised figures reported to the police on top of those are not available, so the problem is almost certainly much more widespread, and I believe that it is growing. At the same time, it has been calculated that the average cost of such property repairs, whether to drives or roofs, is £2,000, so we are talking about crime that involves at least £32 million a year, although the true amount is probably greatly in excess of that figure.
It is not only the crime that is a concern, but the fear and distress that is caused to many people. Hon. Members may have read in the newspapers on 5 March about a plumber remanded to Lewes Crown court for sentencing after being blamed for contributing to the death of a pensioner. The plumber, Gary Seabrook, charged 73-year-old Muriel Burbage £5,225 for clearing a drain. He drove her down to the post office, so that she could hand over her pension, and then to the bank to withdraw money. Miss Burbage died two months later, and Seabrook was blamed for bringing about her rapid physical and mental decline.
I refer to that case, which would not be covered by my Bill, to show how ruthless people can prey on the elderly and how inflated bills can deeply distress pensioners in particular, who may have money worries anyway, to which the factor of fear and intimidation is added.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |