Loft Conversions

Bob Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Although I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), will respond to the debate, it could equally have been replied to by a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government. The account that I am about to give relates not only to the responsibilities of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—from the perspective of consumer protection, company regulation and good business practice—but to those of DCLG in relation to building control and inspection.

Both Departments have responsibilities for tackling cowboy builders, which in this case involves companies associated with a Mr Robin Kiddle. He once had a company called Cavendish Conversions Ltd, but it is now “In Liquidation”, as stated on the credit check website, company-director-check.co.uk. Mr Kiddle then formed a new company called Cavendish Loft Conversions Ltd, in what I say was a cunning and despicable way to avoid paying my constituent, Ms Lisa Handley, when she successfully sued his former company.

Alas for Ms Handley, the judgment was against Cavendish Conversions Ltd, not Mr Robin Kiddle. He emerged, phoenix-like, from the ashes of that company to appear as owner of a company with a very similar name, with the insertion of the word “Loft” into the title. With one leap, he was free of the winding-up petition that was granted in August 2006, having been advertised in the London Gazette in June of that year. He simply carried on trading in his new guise.

There were insufficient funds in the liquidated company to pay what Ms Handley was entitled to from the winding-up. She estimates that, thanks to the shambolic cowboy building work of Mr Kiddle’s company, she is now some £90,000 the poorer, and her home is now unsaleable other than at a huge loss. In its current state, no mortgage company would make a loan.

I am no building expert, but I have visited my constituent’s home and I was appalled at what I saw. Even I could recognise that invading the loft space of the adjoining semi-detached house is a serious matter, and something that any self-respecting builder would not do. That also brings into question the laxity of the inspection system, which should be there to protect consumers. More of that later, for that is another area where systems designed to protect consumers have failed in spectacular fashion.

This unhappy saga dates back to October 2004, when Ms Handley and her partner approached Cavendish Conversions Ltd about a loft conversion. The agreed price was £24,750—originally £28,576—on the proviso that £7,000 was paid in cash. Drawings were completed by someone trading as MR Designs, and submitted to Colchester borough council. Work commenced in March 2005.

Seven years have elapsed since Ms Handley first approached the loft conversion company; that is a longer period than the second world war, but in this battle my constituent has been abandoned and let down by all those whom consumers are led to believe are there to protect them. If the Minister tells me that there are statutory measures to protect consumers from cowboy builders such as Mr Robin Kiddle, whatever name he trades under—he is listed as being associated with two other dissolved companies—I have to tell him that they are not effective.

In summary, my constituent and her partner dispensed with Cavendish Conversions Ltd after a litany of criticisms and complaints about the poor and unsafe work carried out on their semi-detached house in Colchester. Detailed records kept by Ms Handley—the box file that I have with me today are just my records of this appalling failure of fairness and justice to my constituent—list a catalogue of failures that bring shame on those responsible for the shoddy workmanship, and for providing protection to the consumer.

In March 2005, Ms Handley made her first complaint to the Federation of Master Builders. Perhaps if it had acted then, we would not today be hearing of nearly seven years of failure of the system that we are told is there to assist consumers and protect them from cowboy builders. In June 2005, she made a formal complaint to the FMB. Much correspondence has followed, including lots of letters sent on her behalf to the FMB and others. I have also tabled parliamentary questions and written to Ministers in both this and the previous Government.

Ms Handley had requested money for remedial works. By then, Mr Kiddle had set up another company, virtually identical in name but with the word “Loft” inserted between “Cavendish” and “Conversion”. The original company was liquidated—how convenient! I submit that this was a deliberate move by Mr Kiddle to ensure that my constituent would not be able to extract any money from him, because her legal action was against the company, not him as an individual. It is my contention that that move could in itself represent fraudulent behaviour in breach of the Fraud Act 2006. Essex police have so far declined to take the matter forward. As a result of today’s debate, I shall be drawing the matter to the personal attention of the chief constable, to request that it be investigated at the highest level.

Where is the Federation of Master Builders in all this? Cavendish Conversions Ltd was a member of the FMB, but the FMB proved more of an obstacle than a help to Ms Handley when she sought its support. Although I had hitherto always thought highly of the FMB—in many respects, I still do—I have to say that its dealings in this particular case did not constitute its finest hour. To put it bluntly, the FMB proved to be more a defender of its rogue member than a help to the aggrieved consumer. The culpability of the FMB is obvious. As Ms Handley told me, referring to what happened in July 2007 when the regional complaints committee hearing took place,

“They found no fault with Kiddle or his workmanship or the fact that he had lied and deceived the FMB; and they condoned his conduct.”

Ms Handley is a fighter, not a quitter. She took on the FMB with such effect that it eventually felt obliged to strip Mr Kiddle’s new company, Cavendish Loft Conversions Ltd, of membership of the FMB. Perhaps this shut the stable door after the horse had bolted, but it is hoped that it will ensure that others thinking of engaging the company in future will notice that it is not recognised by the FMB.

What is extraordinary is that the FMB awarded membership to the new company in clear breach of its own rules, which state that a company has to be in existence for three years before membership can be considered. In effect, it simply allowed Mr Kiddle to switch membership from a liquidated company, against which there was clear evidence of poor and unsafe work, to a new company. Interestingly, both the liquidated company and the new company were given the same FMB membership number—12901. We can make of that what we will, but I contend that, if the FMB regarded them as the same entity, they should have compensated my constituent, not abandoned her.

Ms Handley asked me:

“Are the FMB fit to be a TrustMark approved scheme operator when they are willing to give such a highly regarded status to a cowboy builder?”

Mr Kiddle’s original company was in clear breach of both the Federation of Master Builders code of practice and the Government-endorsed TrustMark standards. An attempt by Ms Handley to involve TrustMark in spring 2006 did not make any significant progress. After this debate, I hope that the Minister will instruct his officials to investigate the body that had responsibility for TrustMark, because it is clear to me that its inept performance was a further example of those in the building industry who have a responsibility—so we are told—to protect the interests of consumers backing the builder, despite the clear and justified complaint made by my constituent. I ask the Minister: who regulates those who have responsibility for allegedly looking after the interests of aggrieved consumers? Clearly, the current arrangements are not working.

Essex trading standards was contacted in March 2008. Sadly, it was not able to help bring about a resolution to the situation relating to Mr Kiddle and his performance. The Health and Safety Executive was also consulted, but a blank was drawn there as well. In December 2008, Mr Kiddle was required, under section 235 of the Insolvency Act 1986, to be subject to an oral examination. Again, it did not produce a satisfactory outcome. Ms Handley told me:

“Kiddle told a pack of lies—he committed perjury.”

A year later, there was a further court hearing. I shall return later to aspects relating to a letter that Ms Handley wrote on 25 February 2010 to Lord McKenzie, who was, seemingly, then the relevant Minister, in which she said:

“I possess factual, documented evidence of fraud, abuse of power, misrepresentation, corruption and perverting the course of justice.”

I can vouch for the fact that her signature was forged on one document relating to the so-called inspection process, but more on that later.

To confuse matters a little further, in addition to the two companies with the name “Cavendish” that are associated with Mr Robin Kiddle, there is a third company with the word “Cavendish” in its title. This is Cavendish Lofts Ltd, which is not to be confused with either Cavendish Loft Conversions Ltd or the liquidated Cavendish Conversions Ltd. By an amazing coincidence, Cavendish Lofts Ltd is owned by a Mr Eric Anthony Kiddle, who I believe is the brother of Mr Robin Kiddle. By an even greater amazing coincidence, the registered address of the companies run by the brothers Kiddle is the same: Normans Corner, 41 Church lane, Fulbourn, Cambridge. I believe that Mr Robin Kiddle lives in Braintree, Essex.

Mr Robin Kiddle is confused about how many years he has been engaged in the building trade. When I checked his websites this morning, I read on one:

“we are a family run business with over 20 years experience”.

However, on another site, the business is said to be a

“family firm with over 15 years experience.”

Both are clearly misleading statements, because the company has only been in operation for six years.

The registration date for Cavendish Loft Conversions Ltd is 31 August 2005. That is significant. The company was established after the serious problems with the work on Ms Handley’s house emerged, but before legal proceedings were concluded. Cavendish Lofts Ltd, run by Mr Eric Anthony Kiddle, was registered on 16 August 2004. His company states that he is a member of the Federation of Master Builders and

“the new MasterBond and EBC”,

whatever those are. No such claim is made by Mr Robin Kiddle in respect of his company but, remember, he had been stripped of his FMB accreditation. Although the brothers operate identical businesses—albeit with different names—from the same address, it is the actions of Mr Robin Kiddle that are central to my debate.

I now come to another organisation that is supposed to protect consumers: the Construction Industry Council. In the case of my constituent, the CIC’s performance is just as bad as the FMB’s. The CIC seems more interested in protecting the approved inspector, Mr Ron Hilsden, who is trading as RH Building Consultancy, based in Cherry Hinton, Cambridge. Mr Hilsden seems to have failed to notice the shoddy workmanship of Cavendish Conversions Ltd during inspections of my constituent’s home. It is in the paperwork associated with those inspections that Ms Handley’s signature was forged. That paperwork consists of the initial notice submitted by RH Building Consultancy to the building control service of Colchester borough council with a signature, presumably that of Mr Hilsden, dated 14 February 2005, and the forged signature of Ms Handley, dated 11 February. I am not sure who appointed the approved inspector, but I wonder if it is perhaps more than a coincidence that RH Building Consultancy and Mr Kiddle’s company are both based in the Cambridge area.

On 14 December 2009, I wrote to Lord Mandelson, who was Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills at the time, and told him:

“It now transpires that crucial documentation includes a forged signature in the name of my constituent. Despite this, the building industry’s regulators have been unable to assist her. They have been shown to be useless in defending the consumer—it is time for the Government to intervene!”

There is further evidence relating to the activities of Mr Hilsden that perhaps should be the subject of an independent investigation—not one carried out by the CIC, whose performance in this matter falls well short of giving my constituent and me any confidence. For example, it failed to address matters relating to the Building Act 1984. There is a serious suggestion that offences have been committed, and Ms Handley is prepared to give evidence in support of that contention.

There is obviously a lot of detail associated with what has transpired over the past seven years that time does not permit me to mention. That said, my constituent is prepared to make herself available—I am prepared to make myself available, too—to any investigatory body that the Minister feels should look into the whole situation. Clearly things have gone seriously wrong with the way that Mr Robin Kiddle has been operating his separate loft conversion companies with confusingly similar names. The following matters need consideration: the manner in which he has avoided paying to put right the appalling shoddy work carried out at my constituent’s home; the prospect of the police being called in to review the manner in which the first company went into liquidation; and the abject failure of the bodies with responsibility for protecting consumers. In the case of Ms Handley, those bodies have not done the job that they are supposed to do.

As Ms Handley said in a heartfelt letter that she wrote to the then Prime Minister on 15 November 2009:

“I am a victim of a rogue builder, a corrupt approved inspector and an even more corrupt system operating under the guise of offering quality workmanship and consumer protection when nothing could be further from the truth”.

Later in her letter, she told the Prime Minister:

“I have been the victim of fraud, corruption, blatant cover-ups and perverting the cause of justice from the builder through to central Government. Why are my human rights, as a private citizen of this country, being so easily dismissed? Why are laws on the statute books being so easily flouted and ignored? And why are senior officials within the Construction Industry Council getting away with allowing their members to break the law whilst they go to any lengths to cover it all up?”

Minister, I trust that today’s debate is not the end of the matter. Serious issues have been exposed in what I have said this afternoon. They need to be seriously investigated. My constituent Ms Handley and I are available to help with such an investigation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for bringing this matter to the House and securing the debate. It certainly gives me a chance to put on the record our view about consumer protections. Clearly, he will be aware that I am not au fait with all the details of his constituent’s case. The record will show that my hon. Friend has referred to his box file, which could no doubt add to my weekend reading. However, I would welcome his writing to me with a summary of the proposals, possibly providing a bit more detail than he has had time to do today. Although I cannot say that there will be a formal investigation, I will at least look at the matter with my officials and provide him with some comments that I hope he and his constituent will find helpful. I will take a dispassionate but constructive approach to the problems that he has raised.

Like him, I have constituents who have had problems with, shall we say, cowboy builders, who disappear and are difficult to trace or who reappear in a different form. The Secretary of State has raised the matter in the past, and we are therefore minded to consider what can be done in terms of consumer legislation and the consumer framework. My hon. Friend recognises that no law or framework can deal with absolutely every single circumstance, but we clearly need to improve things. I hope that he will not take what I will say today as being complacent and that he will recognise that we are trying to develop the strengths of the existing system and to improve it where we can.

My hon. Friend knows that loft conversion work comes under general consumer legislation covering the construction industry. He also knows what an important role the construction industry plays in our economy and how many of the business people in that sector are honest traders who do a fantastic job, many of whom have small businesses. He has given an example of a builder who appears to have been trading in a dishonest manner. Obviously, I will need to look at the details of the case before I can comment further, but we are aware that a small minority of builders apply their trade in a dishonest way and deliberately target specific groups of consumers—for example, vulnerable consumers and the elderly—and we therefore need protections.

[Bob Russell]

I point out that Ms Handley is a very articulate person and is not a vulnerable person. I am concerned that she could be duped in that way. What the Minister says is right, but if a very articulate person can be duped, we are talking about serious issues.

[Mr Davey]

From the way in which my hon. Friend has articulated his constituent’s case, it is clear that his constituent is a very capable lady who can fight her corner. However, I am sure that he accepts the point that we need to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected in the regimes that we design, because if can protect vulnerable consumers, we are much more likely also to support those who are more articulate.

We must take a multi-pronged approach to protecting consumers in the broadest sense. The new Government have taken an approach that seeks to empower the consumer and make sure that they have all the relevant assistance from organisations to get the right information, so that they can make the right choices. The matter cannot simply rest there. We must have a legislative framework, which, of course, there is. The question is whether that framework can be reformed. We currently have the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which requires traders to provide the services being offered with reasonable care and skill, in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. However, the Government are examining how that law might be modernised and simplified, so that consumers can have a clearer understanding of their rights and a greater awareness of their right to redress when they have experienced shoddy workmanship or have paid for goods that turn out to be defective.

On 19 September, I announced that, subject to consultation, we hope to introduce a consumer bill of rights, which will bring together 12 separate pieces of legislation to try to achieve those objectives. The 1982 Act is accompanied by other measures to protect consumers from unfair selling in their homes. Builders, including those undertaking loft conversions, fall within their scope. The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 give consumers the right to cancel a contract that they have signed without penalty within seven days. That cooling-off period is a valuable protection. It may well not have applied in the case presented by my hon. Friend, but he will understand that it is an important part of the protection framework.

In addition to empowering consumers and having a legislative framework of consumer protections, there are enforcement bodies. It is important to ensure that enforcers, such as the Office for Fair Trading and local authority trading standards officers, have the right tools at their disposal to deal with dodgy builders. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations—known as the CPRs to those, such as myself, who write lots of letters about them—give enforcement bodies more effective means of tackling unscrupulous practices and rogue traders. That was a welcome reform introduced by the previous Government. CPRs can be used to ban traders in any sector from unfair commercial practices against consumers, particularly in relation to the sale and marketing of services. The regulations also ban any commercial practices that use harassment, coercion or undue influence that is likely to impair significantly the average consumer’s freedom of choice in relation to goods or services.

Taking those various measures together, there is a robust legislative framework. However, I have indicated that we want to reform it, because it is clearly not perfect. We also support a project being undertaken jointly by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, which is examining how private law might be reformed to provide consumers with a simple, clear right of redress where they are the victims of misleading or aggressive selling. We have also given funding this year worth £3.2 million to scambuster teams, so that they can continue the fight against rogue traders. We maintain their funding, despite the difficult financial circumstances, because we want to chase these rogues down.

[Bob Russell]

That is all very well. This situation involved a company knowing that it was going to be taken to the cleaners and going into liquidation, and the owners starting up another company and carrying on as if nothing had happened. Where is the legislation to deal with that?

[Mr Davey]

There is legislation, and the Insolvency Service, for which I am the Minister responsible, can take action in certain circumstances. One reason why I invited my hon. Friend to write to me is to consider what action could have been taken in that case. The Insolvency Service targets cases of misconduct or criminality and submits reports to the court for disqualification of directors for terms of various years based on the seriousness of the offence. I had a case in my constituency that was not dissimilar to my hon. Friend’s, and that was the route that we were advised to go down.

As I do not know the details of my hon. Friend’s case, it is difficult for me to comment further, or indeed pass any judgment, on what has happened. However, that is why I started my remarks by inviting him to write to me with a synopsis of the case to see how it could potentially have been dealt with in a different and more successful way.

In the remaining time left to me, I want to touch on TrustMark, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. It is sometimes difficult for consumers to know whether a builder is entirely genuine and can be trusted. For extra peace of mind when people are looking for tradespeople, the TrustMark scheme has been developed as a form of accreditation. It is a fairly easy way for consumers to identify a builder who has agreed to abide by industry standards for competence and fair trading, and to be independently inspected to ensure that they are meeting these standards.

In his case, my hon. Friend explained how the Federation of Master Builders, which I assume—I am not absolutely sure from his remarks—was accredited by the TrustMark scheme in this case, appears, from the remarks that he has made, not to have taken the action that he and his constituent wanted it to take. Again, one needs to look at the detail before making a judgment on exactly what happened. However, TrustMark scheme operators, such as the FMB, are required to investigate complaints against tradespeople and can de-list traders where it is found that traders are not up to the required standard. In many cases, TrustMark can carry out that role in addition to other schemes, such as the competent persons scheme and those operated by other trade bodies. It is, therefore, an important body in the building industry.

I do not know about the involvement of TrustMark and whether it investigated how the FMB dealt with the complaint. That is one of the reasons why I invited my hon. Friend to write to me, so that we can have a look at the details of his case. Clearly, the TrustMark scheme, which I think is valued and highly thought of by many people, needs to ensure that, if cases are brought to its attention, they are dealt with in a proper fashion, which is the way forward. The TrustMark scheme has an important role to play, and it is therefore important to ensure that it retains the confidence of consumers and those in the industry.

I hope my hon. Friend feels that I have dealt with his case. I have given him the chance to contact me personally, and he has given me the chance to describe the overall system that is in operation to support consumers.