AN armed forces veteran says he has been left £18,500 out of pocket amid claims a building firm carried out a botched job at his home.

First Roofing and Building Services were ordered by a court to pay £5112 in compensation to Brian Jameson after he pursued them for what he believed to be substandard roof repairs and roughcasting work at his property in Cypress Street in North Glasgow.

The 54-year-old says he now faces having to fork out thousands of pounds to bring the house back up to scratch.

Brian JamesonBrian Jameson (Image: Colin Mearns) Brian exclusively told the Glasgow Times: “I bought the mid-terraced property at the end of last year and noticed water ingress in the loft not long after moving in. It’s an older property so I decided to get it sorted out and contacted the company based on their good online reviews.

“They seemed to know exactly what needed to be done and I felt comfortable that they would do a good job. I was quoted £18,500 and after being sent the statement of work I paid in full in cash, a decision which I deeply regret now as I was never given a VAT receipt or any guarantee.”

Brian says that alarm bells started ringing with him almost as soon as workmen arrived on the job.


READ NEXT: Childline to cut 10 counselling jobs at Glasgow base


He explained: “Within a day the scaffolding was up and they went around my house like a tornado. The place was left in a state and the roof had visible gaps, causing further water damage to the interior.”

Brian claims there were no nails in sections of the roof tiles, battens were left sticking upwards with no counters or clips on the vents. He also says that old lead was reused, and the chimney was left leaking water.”

He added: “The list went on and on and it was clear they had cut corners.”

Faulty roof repairs at Brian's homeFaulty roof repairs at Brian's home (Image: supplied)

Gaps in Brian's roof Gaps in Brian's roof (Image: supplied)

(Image: supplied) Brian claims that despite lodging repeated complaints with the company, he was forced to wait months before anyone was sent out to remedy the problems.

He said: “The work was carried out in the January, and it took until May before anyone arrived to sort the issues. The guys they sent arrived without what I felt was proper safety equipment for working on the roof and I felt I had to ask them to leave as I was worried about their safety.

"I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing and had no confidence that the issues would be resolved.”

The frustrated former RAF serviceman says he was left with no alternative but to take legal action against the firm, with a judge ordering the four-figure payout after a hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court on August 22. However, the Glasgow Times understands that First Roofing and Building Services are now appealing the award and are bidding to have the case recalled.

(Image: Colin Mearns) Brian said: “I used my life savings to pay for this work and it has caused me no end of stress and upset. I just can’t believe the position I’ve been left in, and the reality is it’s going to cost me thousands and thousands to get my home brought back up to a reasonable standard. I just don’t have that sort of money; I trusted this company to do a good job and feel badly let down.”

A spokesperson for the Kirkintilloch-based firm told the Glasgow Times that they tried on two separate occasions to attend and carry out the necessary repairs.

They added: “We have successfully been in business for many years with a large number of satisfied customers who have come back to us. We do our best and like to think we offer good value and workmanship.

“With a large job like this, it is sometimes inevitable that issues of snagging occur. It is rare, but it does happen occasionally. If and when that happens, our policy is to return to remedy the issue as soon as possible. We attempted to do so twice in this case, but Mr Jameson then raised a court action which frustrated that.

“We have now instructed our solicitor to apply to recall the decree in absence on the basis that we have a valid defence and intend to defend the action robustly. As this now relates to an on-going court case, we are not able to comment much further on the merits of that action until it is concluded.”