A ‘HANDYMAN’ who took money from two elderly couples but never turned up to do any work has admitted a series of unfair trading charges.

Denzil Michael Thomas, 57, took deposits for the work before firing off a host of excuses and ignoring calls and questions from the victims.

Thomas appeared before magistrates in Haverfordwest on January 13 and pleaded guilty to five offences under the Consumer Protection Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 following an investigation by Pembrokeshire County Council’s Trading Standards team.

The first couple contacted Thomas after seeing an advert for ‘Branching Out Garden Services’ in a local shop.

Thomas, of St Mark’s Close, Merlins Bridge, Haverfordwest, visited and agreed to carry out work totalling £460.

The victims asked for a copy of the contract but it never materialised.

Thomas asked for half of the money up-front to purchase materials but had to settle for £70, which was all the couple had.

Thomas then failed to return to complete the work.

The couple contacted Thomas to cancel and asked for the £70 to be refunded, which he never did. 

At various times Thomas told them he lived at Eglwyswrw and then at Llangoedmor.

The second complainants contacted Thomas about replacing a short length of wooden fence using wire and metal posts which had already been purchased.

Thomas gave a verbal estimate of £900 and said he would need a payment of £280 to start work the following week.

A cheque was written and cashed but no paperwork was handed over.

Thomas did not return and stated the work would begin the following week. The complainant opted for a refund. Thomas phoned the complainant to say his son would phone him to drop off the money but nothing further was heard from him.

Magistrates sentenced Thomas to a 36-month conditional discharge and ordered him to pay compensation of £70 to the first complainants and £280 to the second complainants.

Thomas will pay £750 costs and £22 victim surcharge.

Sandra McSparron, of Pembrokeshire County Council, said: “Mr Thomas was quick to call out and take deposits, yet giving a refund proved much more difficult.

“He misled these consumers as to the whereabouts of his business to evade any chance of redress and gave them false hope that he would initially refund their money using a smokescreen of excuses."