A conman who tricked elderly householders into handing over money for smoke alarms he never fitted has been jailed by a judge for nine months.

Julian Hutchinson even told one of his victims that alarms which had been installed by the fire service were in the wrong place and defective, Bradford Crown Court heard yesterday.

Hutchinson had been given a 56-day jail sentence by magistrates for similar deception offences, but in March this year it was cut on appeal to a year's probation.

However two other incidents, which took place in November and December last year, were still being processed and when he appeared for sentence yesterday Judge Rodney Grant decided they were so serious Hutchinson had to go to prison.

He told 51-year-old Hutchinson that it was an aggravating feature of the case that the two offences of obtaining money by deception, which he admitted, were committed while he was on bail pending the appeal hearing.

Prosecutor Paul Wilson said Hutchinson, who operated under the trading name Morecambe Bay Fire Alarms, committed the offences at the homes of an 86-year-old man and a couple also in their 80s.

He told the couple he was fitting alarms for free, but then charged them £34.99 and never came back to carry out the work.

When he was questioned by police Hutchinson, of Frizley Gardens, Frizinghall, Bradford, admitted selling the alarms door-to-door, but denied being involved in any kind of deception.

His barrister Stephen Wood said his client had not been targeting elderly householders in his selling and had fitted thousands of alarms quite legitimately.

He said that his client had not tried to cover his tracks and had even left his home telephone number on some occasions.

"This was not a dishonest enterprise from the very outset," he added.

Mr Wood conceded the probation order imposed in March had been a chance, but he said his client, who is in poor health, was making progress.

But Judge Grant told Hutchinson "These are serious offences. They are wicked offences because they take advantage of the age of the complainants and in my view, because of that, only a custodial sentence is appropriate."