Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Tomorrow's show features a builder that worked a lot in East Dulwich. The couple who feature in it live in Lewisham but made contact with his other victims through the Forum. We all are trying to make sure he is not able to damage other people's lives - so watch the show! His company is Andrea Build and Design. And when they filmed late last year I understand he was still working as a builder though no longer in East Dulwich.
I met Andrea Binda when I was undertaking building work in Underhill Road and needed photos of extensions on the road for the planning officer. He showed me a project further up the road on which he was working. Shockingly, I recognised the house on last nights programme as the home with the live cables left exposed under the terrace. He is artful and charming and I can well see how many people were deceived by him. He also told me he is an architect. I do hope that the programme yesterday will have been sufficiently viewed to expose this man widely enough to prevent any further damage. I am genuinely shocked by what he has done and feel for the homeowners who have been his victims.


In a perfect world, yes. But the reality is that his face will have been forgotten by me and you in the next few months. Unless, of course, they hand-over the evidence they've compiled on this willfully dishonest criminal - because that's what he is - which leads to a conviction and custodial sentence for putting the lives of his victims in such enormous danger.


Also, was I alone in half-expecting Dominic Littlewood (the bald fella) to produce a pair of handcuffs, wrestle the fat crook to the floor and carry-out some sort of citizen's arrest when he confronted Binda the builder in Gypsy Hill?

And I forgot to set a marker for the programme.


> He also told me he is an architect.


Couldn't find any Binda on the online Architects Registration Board register. Here are some of the people they've prosecuted for calling themselves architect when not duly qualified.

So they caught up with him in Gipsy Hill.... So he's still doing work in the area? Or lives here? I mean, Gipsy Hill is down the road (or rather, up the hill).


The ARB takes *very* seriously the non-registration thing - even if you are qualified but have let your registration lapse. I've found they respond very quickly to a complaint on that.


And he's clearly doing electrical work, which *is* quite strictly controlled now.

I also watched the show and can't help but think he could be prosecuted for fraud. Am I wrong about this? Also he made contracts with several home owners and received money for services not completed. Again, isn't this breaking the law? What needs to be done to prevent this from happening again?

Unfortunately a lot of his 'failings' are simply a breach of contract, so it's civil not criminal and the home owners would need to sue him. The remedy there is financial but if he's been spending every penny he's received there may be no point. Certain matters though, e.g. falsification of documents that have safety implications, and if did any of those electrics himself (more difficult if he hired a 'tradesman' - he didn't look like a man to get his hands dirty himself) and, potentially, leaving the house in a dangerous state may be criminal (although if they 'chose' to occupy the house knowing it wasn't finished that may not work). Fortunately, this programme is quite good at bringing cowboy builders to the court room.

It may be worth anyone who can give witness evidence of his work, or claims of professional status, contacting the programme to offer assistance.

It was me that first posted the warning on this forum which is how Stuart found out that others had suffered with him. Binda told me that he had trained as an architect in Italy but was quite careful to say that he was not qualified here. I believed he had the skills though... I'll come out of my EDF closet and say that I was on the show - my name is Lauraine.


I have sued Binda - and won- but not got a penny. I even tried sending bailiffs in but he never answered his door so nothing happened. hence my pleasure in taking part in the show.


I too was shocked he was working so near by - quite horrified because many of us believed he would not dare to be caught in this area. However one thing that Dom did say to me is that they always pass on all the evidence they have gathered ( and they were very thorough in researching for the show). He told me that three builders were being prosecuted from the earlier series, so I wait in hope to hear that Mr Binda gets his just desserts.


It is quite shocking to realise that you are powerless to stop someone like that...

Scribe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> In a perfect world, yes. But the reality is that

> his face will have been forgotten by me and you in

> the next few months. Unless, of course, they

> hand-over the evidence they've compiled on this

> willfully dishonest criminal - because that's what

> he is - which leads to a conviction and custodial

> sentence for putting the lives of his victims in

> such enormous danger.

>

> Also, was I alone in half-expecting Dominic

> Littlewood (the bald fella) to produce a pair of

> handcuffs, wrestle the fat crook to the floor and

> carry-out some sort of citizen's arrest when he

> confronted Binda the builder in Gypsy Hill?



Pedantic I may be but I recognized the confrontation location as Radstock Street just off Battersea Bridge road.

I watched the program and was appalled at the workmanship of Binda but what I can't understand is why the owners of the house paid Binda over ?100k which was nearly the full price of ?110k quoted, seeing that their house was no where near finished, every level left in a ruin and nothing near completion, the quote should or would have been broken down so when one section was finished pay him and carry on to the next section I do know sections of work overlap and other sections have to be started but to hand over so much money, you can see with the money that was outstanding it was not enough to finish the work!!

I can't believe that people part with their money so easily!


Why didn't they check with National Federation of Builders for a reputable builder.

I agree with "dollydaydream". yes that poor family have been utterly ripped off and the quality of work was totally unexcusable, but why pay all that money upfront? if I had a builder in who wanted that sort of money so quickly alarm bells would certainly start ringing!?
Some people seem happy to just hand over the money in the belief it will all be OK. When I was questioning work on an extension and refusing to pay any more money until problems sorted I was told that they were used to clients handing over the money up front, go away and don't get involved until finished. Not the way I do business though and potentially very costly.

In my experience if a builder says that he needs money up front to buy stuff then he is trading on dangerously thin ice, a reputable and solvent builder should be able to fund most builds as far as materials are concerned, particularly as he should be buying on credit and paying later - if he is having to pay up front for stuff himself it's normally because he has a poor credit rating, which should be warning enough. [That may not be true of a local handyman, operating as a one-man band, but then materals costs are normally small for the sort of job he does].


An agreed quotation, with an agreed payment schedule is normal practice - perhaps 10% up front but then in stages following completion of building stages - with a 5% retention at the end for snagging and problems.


But Binda appears to have been very plausible, which is why people were prepared to pay him for far more than he had done - if someone appears to be nice, nice people think they are nice.

I watched this on OD, it did cross my mind why on earth they had given him so much of the agreed remuneration before the job was even close to being finished. I do think it is fairly standard for builders to have some money up front, and sensible too, their own livelihood is at risk if they were to simply rely on credit! I personally was surprised when Binda was cornered at the end, I don't think I would have employed him, didn't seem unpleasant but also I dont think he could have said the right things in terms of talking about the job to be done- he was after all clueless about basic building practice! Could be the benefit of hindsite or could be that I've had a fair amount of building work done over the last 10 years, fortunately, have only had good experiences with the builders used and have always agreed staged payments.


Hindsite is wonderful... I feel so sorry for the people he ripped off! Horrid situation :-(

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...