In a shocking case of botched workmanship, a disabled woman was left to clean herself with wet wipes and urinate in a bucket after so-called "cowboy builders" she paid £22,000 left her home in ruins.

Mary Lukins, a 59 year old Southampton resident diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 2016, had hired builders on February 24, 2022, for home adaptations to improve accessibility. The work, which included adding a rear single-storey extension with a downstairs bathroom, began on July 7, 2022, following planning approval; however, merely two weeks into the renovation, Mary claims the builders vanished without a trace, leaving her three-bedroom house with shattered drains and a half-built conservatory.

Mary described her life as a "living nightmare over the past year due to unusable plumbing facilities that resulted in water failing to drain and "raw sewage" spewing into her garden each time she attempted to flush the toilet. An independent assessment by another building company, Innerspace Solutions Ltd, revealed that the destruction of Marys drainage system was a consequence of damage incurred during excavation. The report estimated a staggering repair cost of around £11,200.

With funds for the necessary repairs beyond her reach, Mary resorted to relieving herself using a bucket or making trips to a nearby friend's abode and depended heavily on wet wipes along with deodorant for maintaining personal hygiene.

Mary said: "I've worked for over 20 years and every penny has been put into this house because like most people it's my pension. When they smashed all my drains up, I lived for a year without being able to use my toilet, washing machine, dishwasher, and my drains were overflowing with raw sewage.

"Not only did they take £22,000 of my money, they caused over £11,000 worth of damage to my house, and left me living in a hellhole. It's been the worst stress I've ever experienced in my life and I'm disabled, my mobility is rubbish."

Mary, who worked as a family support worker for the council, took early retirement in 2021 after her health started to deteriorate due to her MS, a condition that impedes her mobility and affects the use of her left hand. She had thought about splashing out on a world cruise but decided the "sensible" thing was to "future proof" her home, where she has been since November 2012.

In early 2022, Mary made contact with Checkatrade, a site claiming to link up customers with "guaranteed" builders vetted by their "vetting team". Mary forked out a £9,000 deposit for materials and said: "They looked very professional when they visited."

Permission to commence work was granted on 30 June, with builders descending on her residence the following week.  However, her trust quickly diminished and her mounting concerns led her to contact Southampton Building Control on July 13, asking for a site inspection to verify the quality of workmanship a request that wasn't well-received by the builders.

An official assessed the situation two days later, noting that "the foundation depths and drains needed to be inspected" prior to any further development. Contrarily, the builders convinced Mary they had received a verbal green light from the council and resumed construction, downplaying her apprehensions.

She further explained that they then demanded £7,000 claiming the groundwork to be technically complete, followed by a request for an extra £1,100 for French doors. In a shocking turn in early August, after pocketing an additional £5,000 for the conservatory's dwarf walls, the builders promptly vanished.

"Within five or ten minutes of me paying them, they packed up the cement mixer, took their equipment and that's the last time I ever saw them," Mary revealed mournfully. Her attempts at communication through emails and texts coldly ignored.

Mary was left in a dire situation with a collapsed drain, rendering her unable to use essential facilities like her upstairs toilet, bath, dishwasher, or washing machine due to the water not draining away. Whenever she attempted to flush the toilet, Mary recounted, "raw sewage" would bubble up through her drains and spill into her garden.

"For more than a year, if I needed the toilet I had to jump in the car I could wee in a bucket but for anything else, I had no choice. "I couldn't bathe, because I could still get in the bath, but I couldn't let the water out, so for a year I had to use baby wipes and the odd shower in a can," Mary added.

On better days, she would visit a friend's house for a shower, as she lamented, "Or if I was having a good day, I would go to my friend's house for a shower, because my mobility is very poor." Describing her ordeal, she simply stated, "It was utter hell."

On August 19 2022, Mary took action against the builders by reporting them to Southampton City Council Trading Standards, only to be told that "the Trading Standards service was unable to pursue criminal offences using consumer protection legislation".

Her pleas for help were met with indifference as she expressed her frustration: "I was desperate. I was telling them I have no drains, I'm living in an unsanitary, hazardous house, but nobody cared." Feeling neglected and victimised, Mary concluded, "I felt like I was a victim all over again it was like being mugged in my own home."

Mary later found a series of damning online reviews about the construction firm, realising she wasn't the only victim of their scam. She labelled the original builders as "cowboys".   

Mary reported the firm to Checkatrade, which, following a thorough investigation, delisted the company and compensated Mary with £1,000 as part of their 12-month guarantee scheme. The company stated that cases like Mary's are extremely rare and always treated with utmost seriousness.

A spokesperson for Southampton City Council acknowledged Mrs Lukins' complaints, stating: "These were looked into by the trading standards service and they determined that no criminal offences were committed by the builder." The council's actions were referred to the local government ombudsman, who agreed with the council's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution.