WHEN Miriam Chung handed over £1,200 to a man who claimed he would replace her windows she never expected him to vanish with her money.

Two years later, and with no sign of the rogue trader ever returning to fit the double glazing, she had all but given up hope.

But now she has received half of her money, with the rest to follow in the next two months, after Trading Standards stepped in and tracked down the conman.

Last night, 66-year-old Miss Chung, from Marston, Oxford, praised the Oxfordshire County Council-run investigators for helping her claw back her money.

It comes as doorstep crime team leader Martin Woodley revealed that, for the first time, last month his team retrieved more money for victims than rogue workmen stole from Oxfordshire residents.

During September, victims innocently paid conmen £18,700, but Trading Standards managed to get back £20,600.

They did this by stepping in and terminating contracts within the seven-day cancellation window, or by simply asking the traders to hand back cash.

Mr Woodley described the break-through as a turning point, and said it showed more people were wising up to conmen thanks to publicity in the Oxford Mail and on television, which have raised awareness of rogue traders.

He also praised the work of Pc Jayne Newman, who has been in place for four months to work alongside the Trading Standards team, based in West Oxford, and provide access to police data.

She has assisted in 20 arrests in four months.

He said: “It’s brilliant, this is the first time since our records began 48 months ago that we have saved and retrieved more money than was paid out.

“They are not getting the money they used to.”

In the financial year 2008/2009, £836,000 was paid to rogue traders, but so far this year, they have only managed £136,000.

Mr Woodley added: “Normally by now they would have had £350,000.”

Miss Chung, who has banked £550 returned to her, said: “Trading Standards do an excellent job, they really impressed me. Their work is very valuable.

“They have made one person very happy.”

Trading Standards asked the Oxford Mail not to name the trader due to on-going investigations.

Miss Chung, who has asked us not to report her address to protect her from other conmen, spent eight years saving to replace her windows. She is hoping to get them done in the new year.

She said: “That man was horrible, and very cunning. It is totally unacceptable to rip off an old woman.”

Pc Newman said changes to the Fraud Act in 2006 meant authorities can now deal with rogue traders. She said: “Now it’s an offence that can be dealt with.

There wasn’t a lot we could do years ago.”

  • For a list of reputable local businesses checked by Trading Standards see their Buy With Confidence scheme at oxfordshire.gov.uk/tradingstandards

CATALOGUE OF CONS

RECENT examples of rogue trading – and the money Trading Standards officers managed to retrieve:

  • Removed four branches and demanded £2,000 from a 91-year-old who paid out £2,000 but got the money back.

  • A 60-year-old victim paid £8,000 for a man to wash his roof, but Trading Standards intervened before the money left his account.

  • A rogue trader charged a 62-year-old woman £8,655 to repaint the walls of her house. She paid £2,100, but investigators stepped in and saved her £6,555.

  • A man paid £2,500 for work to be done on his driveway, but he has so far managed to get £1,650 back.

HOW TO SPOT THE CHEATS

  • Somebody who knocks at your door and has a polite, friendly but insistent manner while selling his services.

  • They may say “I’m working in your area and noticed that your drive/roof needs urgent attention”.

  • Often they quote a low price without looking at the work required and then charge a higher price at the end.

  • They tell you that they have got some asphalt, or other materials, left over from another job.

  • They state that the work required to your property is urgent and they can repair it straight away.

  • They rarely give any paperwork, but if they do there is often no address and the details on it are vague or fictitious.

  • Although the quote may be reasonable, often the work will be poor or non-existent. In most instances the cost is vastly increased at the end of the job.

  • Fear and intimidation can be used to ensure that the victim pays – even to the extent of being escorted to the bank to withdraw cash.