The businessman who charged thousands for products that never turned up

A controversial supplier of tree-cutting equipment has come under fire from customers whose orders were never delivered. We initially reported on a series of complaints against businessman Sean Reilly last year and now other clients have shared their nightmare experiences.

The 52-year-old, from Neath Port Talbot, runs two suppliers of forestry machinery — one called Arbforest, the other Equipment & Machinery Supply (EMS). Last September we revealed customers had ordered thousands of pounds' worth of equipment that did not arrive.

Mr Reilly — who previously ran five companies that collapsed with debts totalling more than £1.6million — gave explanations for the delays that ranged from a delivery driver being hospitalised to "everything breaking down".

Now other customers have told us they ordered items that were never delivered, then found themselves presented with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in months-long battles for refunds.

Mr Reilly considers those agreements to be "standard cancellation paperwork". He told us there were "matters out of our control that have affected our ability to satisfy customers' needs".

Discussion 'prohibited'

Dr Thomas Meagher, a 73-year-old retired stud farmer, bought a wood processor from EMS for £9,880 last May. He had switched from oil to wood burning in an effort to be more carbon-conscious.

Two weeks later the company was yet to arrange collection. At one point Mr Reilly texted the customer: "I'm at doctors this morning, I will get on with it this afternoon." Three days later he was asked for an update and replied: "Call you tomorrow, with family today."

Dr Meagher pressed him: "Sean, I am very concerned about my purchase. If matters are not resolved by noon tomorrow I will contact the police to investigate fraud."

The following day Mr Reilly sent a letter to Dr Meagher stating "it has become apparent from your recent conduct and accusations that continuing any further business relationship with yourselves would be detrimental to our organisation".

He added that if the customer wanted a refund, any "public discussion" of their deal would be "prohibited".

Dr Meagher was outraged and could not see why he should have to sign an NDA to be refunded for an order that had not been fulfilled. He felt concerned Mr Reilly was "looking for tactics to stop me speaking out or reporting him to authorities".

Five months later, the refund had yet to arrive so Dr Meagher contacted us for help. We then asked EMS why he had not been repaid.

The firm's solicitor claimed it had requested the customer's bank details so it could refund him, but had not received a response. We pointed out Dr Meagher had provided the bank details months earlier.

Following our approach, EMS did refund Dr Meagher. The company's lawyer also asked WalesOnline to attend his office for a meeting with him and his client.

During the meeting, Mr Reilly claimed the customer's initial email of the bank details had not been sufficient because they were not on "headed paper" from the bank.

He also claimed he had cancelled the order because his firm's money-laundering protocols had been triggered by Dr Meagher originally asking for the invoice to name him personally as the customer and then changing it so the payments would be split between his two companies.

If this was really a concern, we asked, why did EMS accept payment? Mr Reilly claimed he had been looking after his unwell mother when one of his staff sent out the invoice. He also claimed he could not pay a refund until he saw the bank details on headed paper so he could "confirm it was an actual account related to Dr Meagher's companies", which he said he eventually did.

'You feel like you're in a corner'

Last January, a Suffolk farmer named Alan Dunning spent £4,800 on a tree shear that would never be delivered. Twelve months on, he is yet to receive a refund from Arbforest.

First there were months of delivery delays, which Mr Reilly's messages blamed on various issues including illness, an injured mechanic, and a "breakdown" en route to delivery.

Then, on May 28, Mr Reilly wrote to the customer stating the order "has to be cancelled" and that if he wanted a refund he would be prohibited from any public discussion of their dealings.

Mr Dunning signed the agreement but then received a letter from Mr Reilly's solicitors, W Parry and Co, demanding he take down "online comments" he had made about his unhappy experience with Arbforest.

The customer had indeed posted on a farming forum in the hope of some advice on what he could do about the much-delayed order. But he was baffled as to why this was relevant given he had posted it before he signed the NDA.

In July, Mr Dunning sent a message to Mr Reilly asking: "What's happening about my refund? I see you're exhibiting at the Royal Welsh show. I'm looking forward to attending and telling any potential new customers how I've been treated."

This prompted Mr Reilly's lawyers to accuse him of breaching his agreement by threatening to share information with third parties. They warned they could pursue him for damages if he did not agree in writing to desist from "further threats".

By this point Mr Dunning was kicking himself for signing the NDA. "You feel like you're in a corner once you sign it," he said.

When we approached Mr Reilly about this case, he accepted the customer "did not have a good experience in dealing with Arbforest, and we fully acknowledge that a combination of internal and external pressures meant we were unable to deliver the tree shears to him as planned".

He said he understood why Mr Dunning's patience "ran out" but added: "The comments subsequently posted online about our business had a significant impact, including lost sales and customers believing incorrectly that we were operating dishonestly."

Mr Reilly went on: "We remain willing to refund Mr Dunning as soon as he engages with our solicitor and confirms that the damaging activity will cease."

In our meeting with Mr Reilly, we asked why he felt he had the right to stop customers speaking about their experience, particularly when orders had not been delivered.

His finance manager Rhos Gravelle, who was also present, replied that "one-sided" online reviews have "consequences" for a small business.

But customers still had a right to freedom of expression, we pointed out, to which Mr Gravelle replied: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion." So why make them sign an NDA to get a refund? At this point Mr Reilly said he did not consider the refund agreement an NDA but would "potentially" consider reviewing its wording to make this clearer.

'He's a very good talker'

Another customer, a timber merchant, bought a wood processor and a log grab for a combined £17,760 more than six months ago. The log grab that turned up was not the correct model, and the wood processor did not come at all. Neither has a refund.

"I met Sean Reilly at the APF forestry show in Warwickshire, where he showed us the products," said the merchant. "He's a very good talker.

"The log grab we ended up getting had a headstock that didn't meet any standards. I've had to buy another wood processor and I've instructed solicitors to chase a refund. It's been an expensive learning curve."

The customer, who was advised by his solicitor not to sign an NDA, added: "It's hugely impacted my business. I'm a one-man band working seven days a week to make everything add up. It's not acceptable."

In our meeting, Mr Reilly told us he was willing to refund the merchant but that it would need to be over "several tranche payments". Why not a single payment? "Commercial reality," replied his solicitor.

When we asked if the company had spent the money from the unfulfilled order, Mr Reilly said: "That's not something to go into in a public forum."

Mr Reilly also claimed the incorrect log grab still had the same "functionality" the customer had wanted. He blamed "supply issues" for the log grab error and the wood processor delays. And he claimed other clients affected by those issues had received refunds because they had signed the agreement.

Ms Gravelle said: "At no point was there any intention to defraud. We may have stuck to our policies a bit more firmly than you say we should, and we do understand it can cause issues to our customers, but there was never any fraud discovered by any of the agencies."

We previously reported on a bitter dispute with an Australian client which culminated in a member of their family travelling to last year's Royal Welsh Show in Powys — where Mr Reilly was hosting an exhibition — and leaving with one of the machines he had on display. You can read more about that confrontation, and about two other customers who had terrible experiences.

Mr Reilly used to run a company called BioEquipment which, like his current business, also sold Dragonbite tree shears but is now in liquidation. It went bust in 2023 owing some £376,755, according to Companies House records, including £309,969 to the taxman and £10,981 to employees.

Four of his other businesses have been liquidated owing large sums at the time they collapsed:

• Equipment Supply Services had £572,397 in debt including £453,388.93 owed to trade creditors and £75,287 to HMRC.
• Recycling Equipment Solutions had £321,318 in debt including £151,183 owed to a groundwork company.
• Biomass Equipment had £276,541 in debt made up of £258,767 owed to trade creditors and £17,774 to HMRC.
• Reilly Engineering Services had £114,633 in debt made up of £70,386.06 owed to trade creditors, £40,382 to HMRC, and £3,865.34 to employees.

Asked about his failed businesses, Mr Reilly said: "I was one of the biggest creditors." Did he feel any remorse for the others' losses? "Business can be very challenging and difficult. It's never been my intent for anybody to be disadvantaged or hurt by any actions."

EMS and Arbforest claim to have acted "transparently and in line with industry standards", describing the complaints as unrepresentative of "200 or 300" satisfied customers.

After our previous article, Mr Reilly made an unsuccessful complaint about Pulse Media to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. He claimed, among other things, that we had inaccurately referred to his cancellation paperwork as an NDA. But the regulator pointed out that the paperwork prohibited "any public discussion or disclosure of commercial dealings". It rejected every element of his complaint.