HOMEOWNERS in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale have been warned of their rights to cancel building work - even after shaking on a deal - after a Colne contractor was left with a £5,000 legal bill.

Trading standards officials have prosecuted Tony Philpott, of Russell Avenue, for repeatedly failing to offer 'cooling-off' periods before commencing major jobs.

Philpott admitted three offences of engaging in unfair commercial practice, trading as Affordable Driveways Ltd, and was fined £1,000 with a £3,236 compensation order and £1,000 court costs.

Nick McNamara, prosecuting on behalf of Lancashire trading standards, told Preston magistrates that the first offences involved John Proctor, 87, of Leyland, who was looking to have his driveway relaid when he came across Philpott's firm doing work on his road.

Mr Proctor told them the driveway would need to be carefully drained as he had mobility problems. But he was not given a notice explaining how he had seven days notice to reconsider alternative quotes, after shaking hands on the £2,500 deal.

The court heard that the pensioner, who eventually paid £2,800, eventually had to have the driveway taken up and relaid by alternative contractors.

Another Leyland resident and neighbour of Mr Proctor's, Carol Jones, had paid £8,400 and also not received a cancellation notice. She was happy with the driveway but was given a garage which was smaller than the one she agreed to.

Rita Rossall, 83, another Affordable Driveways' customer, from Lostock Hall, had work totalling £3,000 done, again without a cooling-off notice. Work started almost immediately but trading standards intervened after a complaint.

Mr McNamara said Philpott and his company, based in Preston Old Road, Blackpool, had been convicted of similar offences by Reedley magistrates in 2013 and warned about complying with requirements about cancellation rights.

He added: "Records held by trading standards indicate that, prior to the prosecution in 2013, officers had on four occasions sent written guidance to Mr Philpott and his company about complying with these requirements. These and the conviction for him and his company have seemingly been ignored."