Five year directorship ban for businessman who used bogus address and logos

A businessman who used a 'dummy address' in Leyland for his home improvements firm has been disqualified from being a director for five years.

Wednesday, 15th November 2017, 1:43 pm
Updated Tuesday, 12th December 2017, 3:52 am
Centurion Estate, Leyland

Umran Suleman, 37, also bore the logos of the as Safe, NICEIC and Lancashire County Council’s Safe Trader scheme on his business vehicle without authorisation.

Preston Crown Court heard one consumer had paid a deposit of £1,650 for plastering work that was never done, and was told a refund would be placed in his bank.

When he went to the site on the invoice - on Centurion Industrial Estate, Leyland - he was met by a legitimate business which had never heard of U&A Drylining.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

A second victim paid £270 in cash for some boiler repairs and £745 for other work quoted on an invoice, but after the work the electrics blew, the kitchen radiator was leaking and damaging the flooring, and the boiler was faulty.

She was told to visit the Centurion Industrial Estate office to collect a partial refund but when she arrived she too found the company had never been located there.

Trading Standards officers later found the company did not have permission to use the logos belonging to trade organisations Gas Safe and NICEIC on their invoices.

U&A Drylining admitted failing to provide a consumer with a cancellation notice, six offences involving logo misuse, and giving false or misleading information.

Suleman, of Torsway Avenue, Blackpool, admits the same offences, and three relating to logos on a vehicle for his other business, Right Choice Contractors.

Prosecuting, Jack Troup said: “The provision of a false address by U & A Drylining Ltd could be seen as a deliberate attempt to prevent consumers from having any sort of redress to follow up complaints.”

Suleman was given a curfew, 120 hours unpaid work, and must pay an £85 victim surcharge, £2682 costs and £2665 compensation, while the firm was fined £600.

Six other offences were taken into consideration.