Brother’s jail sentence appeal rejected

Errol and Timothy Flynn

Errol and Timothy Flynn

By Gabriel Filan

Two brothers who conned pensioners out of tens of thousands of pounds after fictitiously claiming their homes were plagued by maggots or rats have failed to have their jail sentences cut.

Errol Flynn, aged 47, and younger brother Timothy Flynn, 36, had appealed against the jail sentences they received after being convicted of running a bogus pest control racket that saw pensioners in Quinton and Solihull targeted.

The crooked duo charged a 76-year-old man and another man in his 80s around £25,000 each to deal with the alleged infestations.

Timothy Flynn, of Elizabeth Grove, Shirley, was jailed for five years and four months last year after taking part in both scams.

Errol Flynn, also from Shirley, was jailed for four-and-a-half years after being involved in the first scam in Quinton. In that instance the brothers, along with a third, unidentified man, went into the pensioner’s loft returning with a dead rat in January last year.

Claiming to be from the environment agency, the trio told the 76-year-old he could pay their £25,000 bill in installments.

They then had the audacity to tell their vulnerable victim they could waive the VAT if he kept quiet about the work.

Described in courts as “ruthless”, the Flynn brothers were caught as one of their victims was about to make his final payment on the £25,000 bill.

Their second victim, aged in his 80s, was told his roof was swarming with maggots and would need to be replaced.

The Flynns’ appeal saw the case reach the Appeal Court when their lawyers challenged their sentences for being too tough.

But Mr Justice Holroyde, sitting with Lady Justice Sharp and Judge Peter Lakin, said their crimes involved “targeting elderly and vulnerable victims from whom as much money as possible was callously extracted”.

Timothy Flynn accepted that he “participated in defrauding the second victim by over-charging for the work done”, said the judge. “These offences were committed by men with very bad records for committing this sort of offence,” said Mr Justice Holroyde.

“They didn’t care about any lasting harm caused to their victims.”

Dismissing the brothers’ appeals, the judge said that “severe punishment was necessary in both cases”.