A burst pipe, a broken heater or a locked door: when something in the house suddenly stops working, there is often no time for lengthy price comparisons. This very situation can become dangerous for consumers. A current trial before the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Regensburg shows how quickly the search for fast help can turn into an expensive problem.
At the center of the case is Thomas M. from Regensburg. He was originally accused of numerous counts of fraud and usury (Wucher). After a total of 54 days of hearings, however, considerably less remains of the original scope of the indictment. Instead of 212 cases, the trial now concerns only eleven cases of commercial fraud (gewerbsmäßiger Betrug). The alleged damage is in the mid four-figure range.
Nevertheless, the public prosecutor's office considers a significant sentence appropriate and is additionally seeking a five-year occupational ban (Berufsverbot).
When fast help suddenly becomes really expensive
The business model described at trial sounds simple at first: people search the internet for an emergency tradesman service, come across a corresponding phone number and expect fast help from someone nearby.
According to the public prosecutor's office, however, the actual organization was considerably more complex. Customers were to be reached through numerous websites and phone numbers. In the background were call centers and various companies.
The problem from the prosecution's point of view: in some cases, customers allegedly could not tell who was actually behind the referral service and what costs they would face. Instead of a tradesman from the immediate vicinity, companies with longer travel distances were sometimes sent out.
The price differences cited at trial are particularly striking. According to the prosecutor, the invoices were on average around 80 percent above local price levels.
For consumers, this is an important warning: especially with emergency services, you should not rely solely on a website looking professional or a phone number giving the impression of a local business.
A ranking apparently determines who gets the job
The case becomes even more interesting when you look at the internal organization.
According to the public prosecutor's office, tradesmen in the call centers were not selected based only on how close they were. A ranking number, which allegedly depended on the amount of the referral commission, is also said to have played a role.
Put simply, the allegation is this: the deciding factor was supposedly not only the question “Who can get to the customer fastest?” but also the question “Who brings the referral service the most money?”.
Public prosecutor Dr. Simon Pschorr summed up his view of the business model in one blunt sentence: “Everything was designed for maximum revenue.”
And this is exactly where the central problem lies. Anyone looking for a tradesman in an emergency can hardly judge the quality of a referral model. At first, the customer only sees a website, a phone number and a promise: fast help.
Whether this promise is backed by a fairly priced offer or by a system geared toward the highest possible revenue is initially not apparent to the consumer.
A major case turns into a much smaller allegation
Despite the serious original allegations, the case has changed considerably.
The public prosecutor's office started out in February 2025 with a case comprising 212 counts and several defendants. The proceedings against the four co-defendants have since been discontinued, in some cases in return for monetary conditions (Geldauflagen).
For the remaining allegations, too, the evidence apparently proved more difficult than initially assumed. Some witnesses could no longer remember sufficiently or did not appear. On top of that came the complicated question of which prices were actually reasonable for certain trade services.
In the end, eleven cases remain.
This shows an important aspect of criminal proceedings: a serious suspicion is not yet proof. In court, every single allegation must be proven. The longer ago events took place and the more complex the business processes, the more difficult this review can become.
Thomas M. denies the allegations against him and calls them unfounded. At this point, there is therefore no final conviction.
Why an occupational ban is still being sought
The public prosecutor's office is seeking a prison sentence of one year and two months for Thomas M., to be suspended on probation. In addition, he is to be barred for five years from working as a managing director, broker or consultant in the trades sector.
The reasoning behind this is understandable: it is not only about punishing possible past offenses. In the prosecution's view, an occupational ban is also meant to prevent similar business practices from happening again.
The prosecution points in particular to the structures that allegedly stood behind the various websites, phone numbers and call centers.
Whether the court will follow this assessment is another question. What ultimately matters is what can actually be proven and what consequences may be drawn from it.
What consumers can learn from the case
The trial is also interesting because it makes an everyday risk visible. Anyone who needs a tradesman in the middle of the night usually has little interest in first collecting ten quotes. At the same time, it is completely normal for an emergency service to cost more than a regular call-out. Surcharges for nights, weekends or public holidays as well as additional travel costs can be entirely justified.
What matters, therefore, is whether the costs charged still seem understandable and reasonable for the specific situation. A significantly higher bill can certainly be justified for an emergency call-out. However, if the price becomes so high that it hardly seems plausible even taking the special circumstances into account, consumers should take a closer look. It is therefore important to clarify, ideally before the work begins, who is taking on the job, what services will be provided and what costs to expect.
You should be particularly careful if a website suggests a local emergency service but it is not clear which specific company will actually be sent. With a referral service, too, it should be clear who your contractual partner will be and who will ultimately issue the invoice.
Above all, the Regensburg case shows one thing: a phone number on the internet is by no means a promise of quality.
The critical view of Recht 24/7
The real scandal would not be that an emergency service wants to make money. That is perfectly legitimate. It becomes problematic when an emergency is turned into a business model and the customer is meant to know as little as possible about the price and the actual provider.
Business models are particularly worrying when the internet creates the impression of a fast, local helper while a complex network of brokers, call centers and companies operates in the background.
At the same time, one thing must not be forgotten: in the end, it is not public opinion that decides, but the court, based on the proven facts. 212 originally charged cases have become eleven. That is not a minor detail, but a clear indication of how wide the gap between a suspicion and a conviction that holds up in court can be.
For consumers, a simple rule therefore remains: if you need help in an emergency, you should not only look for “available immediately”, but also ask “What does it cost?” and “Who is actually coming to my home?”. Because with an emergency service, the supposedly fastest solution can end up being the most expensive.
Are you a victim of a tradesman rip-off? Get legal support and resolve your case as quickly as possible!
to the lawyerAt a fixed price of 169 EURO (gross)
