A JUDGE spoke of his shock that only one man was appearing in the dock over a Tarmac con that led to customers paying out thousands of pounds for work, some of which was shoddily done.
Judge Gary Burrell QC heard how Noah Smith had been involved with two businesses, Roadtech and Surfacing Division. The former was working in Eastleigh and the latter in the New Milton area in the summer of 2013, and Smith cold called on local householders on the companies’ behalf.
Smith told victims they were employed by the local authority, had over-ordered the amount of Tarmac needed for the work and he and his colleagues wanted to get rid of it at reduced prices.
He also said he would provide a service and only charge for the labour.
He also procured vehicles to which appropriate signage was applied as well as tools and materials.
Prosecuor Jonathan Underhill said although Hampshire County Council was carrying out work in both places at the time, neither Roadtech and Surfacing Division were authorised contractors with the local authority.
Appearing on behalf Trading Standards, Mr Underhill submitted: “He specifically targeted areas in which legitimate highway works were ongoing and we say it was integral to his attempt to present his activities as those of a legitimate company.”
He told Southampton Crown Court quotations for the work amounted to almost £20,000 but only work amounting to £11,880 was carried out to seven homes.
Smith, 40, of Winners Enclosure, Horton Heath, admitted two counts of fraud and two of being engaged in an unfair commercial practice.
In mitigation, Gareth Underhill said Smith accepted his main role had been that of salesman but he had been “directed” by others and had been “reckless”.
He accepted he knocked on doors, placed orders and provided vehicles with magnetic labels. “But there was a team who would collect the money and it would go to those responsible. He was not the only person involved in this enterprise.”
Giving him an eight-month suspended sentence, the judge said he was “at a loss” that others were not in the dock. “I am concerned that those who gave the orders have not been brought to justice.”
He told Smith that he would not have received the suspended sentence if others had been in the dock.
“You have been left to carry the can and it would be unfair to saddle you with the full responsibility for what went on,” adding that he was aware of his “input” into his family and the impact of a custodial sentence would have on his four children.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel