Roof firm fined over misleading heat-loss spray claim

But there was no proof that the spray, which they were offering as part of a service costing almost £3,000, would work.

Now Roofguard Protective Coatings Ltd, its owner and one of its salesmen have been fined for their claims. The company, based on Lower Hall Lane, Walsall, its 100 per cent shareholder Edward Hogan, and salesman Stewart Fawke have also been prosecuted for using 'aggressive' sales tactics when selling the product to a Halesowen couple. They were all fined yesterday during a hearing at Wolverhampton Crown Court.

Mr Gary Cook, prosecuting, said: "The company offers a service which includes cleaning the tiles of customers' roofs before spraying a roof coating, which the company asserts will reduce heat loss by up to 40 per cent.

During a three-day trial at Dudley Magistrates' Court last month, an expert witness said that the minimum thickness required in a substance to save just 25 per cent heat loss is at least 40 to 52 millimetres.

The spray was only 0.15mm, the court was told.

The company's misleading information about the spray came to the attention of Dudley Council's trading standards when a couple living in Cherry Tree Lane, Halesowen, were visited by Fawke on November 18 2011, who tried to sell them the treatment and other services. He was found during the trial to have used pressured sales tactics but

no money was handed over.

Mr Gary Bell QC, defending, said that Hogan had inherited the statistic that the spray could prevent a roof's heat loss by 40 per cent from a previous owner and director of the company.

He also said Hogan accepted the cancellation rights were never provided properly.

For eight charges of engaging in misleading or aggressive commercial practice, one of which it admitted before trial, the company was fined a total of £8,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

Fawke, aged 47, from Shirley Road in Cotteridge, was fined £2,500 for five similar offences. Hogan, aged 57, from Worksworth Road in Duffield, Derbyshire, faced six charges of the same offences plus one of obstructing a trading standards officer and was fined £6,000. Both were also ordered to pay £2,500 costs. They are all offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.