AN electrician faces a court bill of nearly £2,000 after he falsely claimed to belong to a trade association that protects consumers from rogue tradesmen.

In one York house that David Pearce rewired, other workmen claimed they received an electric shock from the walls.

The owner had been so dissatisfied with the standard of his work she had not paid him all the agreed fee, Matt Boxall of York trading standards, told the city’s magistrates.

In a second York house, months after Pearce finished working there, the owner discovered he had not installed the right fusebox.

Julian Tanikal, for Pearce, denied that his work was inadequate. He said the electrician was fully qualified to be a member of the trade association. There was no risk to anyone in the first house from Pearce’s work and he was not the only tradesman working in it.

Pearce had wanted to deal with the householder’s complaints but had been refused entry into the property.

In the second house, Pearce had been commissioned to install lighting in the bathroom and bedrooms with some power sockets, and had told the owner the electrics were so old the entire house needed rewiring. In particular, the existing electrical installations meant he could not install the correct fusebox.

When she said she could not afford the rewiring work, he had installed an older form of fusebox that could be fitted with the existing wiring.

Pearce, 45, of Keble Drive, Bishopthorpe, pleaded guilty to four charges of displaying a trade association logo he was not entitled to and one of displaying a “trust mark” he was not entitled to, and was fined £1,000 with £250 compensation to the second owner, £670 prosecution costs and a standard £15 victim surcharge.

Mr Boxall said Pearce’s firm used quotation forms bearing the logo of the National Association Of Professional Inspectors And Testers and used a trust mark linked to the same organisation.

He also displayed the logo on his firm’s website. But he was not, and never had been, a member.

Both householders employed him because of his alleged membership.

Mr Tanikal said Pearce had never set up a business before and sought help.

Another person in the same occupation had given him quotation and invoice forms he had copied. He had not realised that the website could be accessed by the public. His business was no longer operating as he was in full-time employment working on his employers’ site.