THE boss of a kitchen company has blamed his staff for being taken to court accused of conspiring to defraud customers.
Vance Miller, of Cemetery Road, Ramsbottom, agreed with a witness who pointed the finger of blame at employees of the firm he ran in Oldham.
The case at Manchester Crown Court, brought by Oldham Trading Standards, is that Miller and three of his colleagues conspired to defraud customers by advertising their kitchens as being made of solid, or real, wood when they were not. They all deny the charges.
Customer Darryl Gough complained after he bought units from Miller’s Kitchens firm, but said he was given the “runaround”.
He told Miller: “I went to your staff with my problems and asked to be passed onto management level. That didn’t happen. I think that is some of the reason why you are here today.”
Miller, who is representing himself, replied: “My staff?” to which Mr Gough said: “Yes.”
Miller said he agreed.
The court also heard from customer Nigel Musgrove. He paid a £50 deposit for a kitchen from another of Miller’s firms, Discount Kitchens Direct, and claimed he was assured by a salesman that it would not contain chipboard.
However, when it arrived Mr Musgrave said chipboard was evident. After rowing with the driver and the salesman, he refused to have the kitchen and it was taken back.
Cross examining, Miller said: “When the salesman came to your house, Mr Musgrave, did he say to you if you don't like it when it gets there, just send it back?
“Did he say ‘Just give me a deposit’, rather than take the full amount?”
“Yes,” replied Mr Cosgrave.
Miller added: “When your kitchen arrived and you didn’t like what you saw, did you send it back?”
“Yes,” said Mr Musgrave.
Miller, aged 44, is in the dock with co-defendants Nichola Brodie, aged 33, of Square Street, Ramsbottom, Sadiya Hussain, aged 29, of Newfield Head, Milnrow, and Alan Ford, aged 45, of Firbank Close, Ashton under Lyne. They all deny conspiracy to defraud customers by dishonestly representing by adverts kitchens as solid or real wood.
Miller and Ford also deny conspiracy to commit fraud by making false representation of the nature and quality of the supplied goods. Both also deny a charge of conspiracy to defraud by failing to disclose the names of persons carrying on the business.
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 hereComments are closed on this article