Pair guilty after preying on retired couple for £3k

Their victims were pressured to put their signature to paper and told if they did not do so immediately then they would lose a discount totalling thousands of pounds.

The work they offered came with a promise that painting the roof would reduce a loss in heating of up to 40 per cent – but neither the salesman or company boss could prove the figure was correct.

Yesterday, firm boss Edward Hogan and salesman Stewart Fawke, from Roofguard Protective Coatings Limited, were together found guilty of 12 charges after a trial at Dudley Magistrates' Court.

The pair were caught when trading standards officers from Dudley Council turned up at the home of the victims in Halesowen as the company began £2,883 worth of work.

Finding them guilty, Mrs Anne Robinson, chairman of the bench, said: "We find that the sales process as a whole together with the disparity between quoted costs of works a deliberate, well orchestrated course of action designed to exert undue influence, coercion and harassment."

The trial heard how Fawke, aged 46, of Shirley Road in Birmingham, had visited the couple's address and shown a leaflet and DVD which made a claim that the paint could save up to 40 per cent heat loss. He then quoted them a price of £5,115.

He then dropped the price to £2,883. Mrs Robinson said: "The quotation gave misleading and false information designed to induce the customer to sign the contract immediately." The trial heard how Hogan, aged 56, of Chapel Street in Derby, was responsible for the leaflet, as owner of the company.

In interview, he said he relied on information given by the roof product supplier.

Fawke was found guilty of two charges of fraud by false representation. Hogan was found guilty of two counts aiding and abetting a dishonest failure to disclose information. The pair were found guilty of three counts of engaging in a commercial practice which is a misleading action containing false information and one count of engaging in a commercial practice which was aggressive.

Both were cleared on one charge of engaging in a commercial practice which is a misleading action containing false information.

The firm, based in Derby, was found guilty of two counts of fraud by false representation, three counts engaging in a commercial practice which is a misleading action containing false information and three counts of engaging in a commercial practice which was aggressive.

The firm had entered a guilty plea on one charge of engaging in a commercial practice which is a misleading action containing false information.

Sentencing is on February 25.