Police probe building firm amid claims nearly 40 families ‘scammed’ out of £500,000 for work never carried out
Sussex Police are investigating reports of alleged fraud involving South Coast Construction (Sussex) Ltd, after customers said they paid for home improvements that were never carried out. The allegations matter because dozens of households say they lost substantial deposits, while the company’s director denies deliberately taking money without intending to do the work.
Thirty-seven households say they paid the firm £478,840 for projects including loft conversions and extensions, with some deposits exceeding £15,000. Twenty-nine have received refunds through their banks, while eight are pursuing the matter through the Financial Ombudsman Service after being told it was civil. Customers also allege the company misrepresented its Home Improvement Protection membership; the scheme says SCC was expelled in May for presenting its membership certificate as proof of insurance.
- Police are investigating reports linked to South Coast Construction.
- Thirty-seven households say they paid £478,840 for work not done.
- Eight families are still seeking refunds.
New here? Start with this
Home improvement scams can leave families out of pocket when contractors take deposits but fail to deliver the promised work. In this case, a building firm based in Sussex is at the centre of police investigations after dozens of customers claim they paid for projects like loft conversions and extensions that were never completed. The allegations involve substantial sums, with some families reporting deposits of over £15,000.
Thirty-seven households have reported paying South Coast Construction (Sussex) Ltd a total of nearly £480,000 for work they say never happened. Twenty-nine have recovered their money through their banks' refund schemes, but eight others are continuing to pursue compensation through the Financial Ombudsman Service. The company's director has disputed the allegations of deliberate fraud.
The Home Improvement Protection scheme became part of the allegations when customers claimed the company used its membership to appear legitimate. The scheme confirmed it expelled the firm in May after finding it had presented its membership certificate as evidence of insurance, which membership does not provide.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The investigation remains ongoing and the company director denies any intent to commit fraud; the fact that several customers have already received refunds through their banks suggests engagement with complaints rather than an outright refusal to address them. This situation may reflect poor project management, financial difficulties preventing completion of work, or contractual disputes over specifications and timescales rather than a deliberate scheme to extract money without any intention of delivering services.
The case against
Thirty-seven independent households report paying substantial deposits—many exceeding £15,000—for work never carried out, and the company demonstrably misrepresented its regulatory credentials, being formally expelled from its industry scheme for fraudulently presenting membership certificates. This pattern of credential deception combined with widespread non-delivery across dozens of families points to systematic wrongdoing rather than isolated business difficulties or contractual disagreements.