Petrol - no means to pay declaration?

Fat_Walt

Aretnap wrote: »

No it doesn't. The crucial question in cases f theft or other crimes of dishonesty is the OP's intention at the time of the incident. If he made an honest attempt to pay then clearly there was no intention to steal petrol on his part, so no offence. It does not and cannot retrospectively become theft because he takes longer than the retailer would like for him to settle his bill, or even if he never pays up at all. Any more than you can be arrested for stealing gas because you're late paying your gas bill.

See the CPS guidance on this type of case here, and in particular the section on single incidents (tl;dr - they will only be prosecuted in the most clear cut cases of dishonesty).

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_act_offences/#b09

If he decides not to pay after 7 days then it maybe theft then.

Car_54

Fat_Walt wrote: »

If he decides not to pay after 7 days then it maybe theft then.

No. It says "It would be difficult to prove dishonesty in the absence of a direct admission of an intention not to pay. A single failure to pay cannot in itself prove that the original appropriation or the 'making off' were dishonest or that the agreement to pay was a misrepresentation of the person's true intentions at the relevant time."

In this case it was clearly the OP's intention to pay, using the same means of payment he/she had used many times before.

Fat_Walt

Car_54 wrote: »

No. It says "It would be difficult to prove dishonesty in the absence of a direct admission of an intention not to pay. A single failure to pay cannot in itself prove that the original appropriation or the 'making off' were dishonest or that the agreement to pay was a misrepresentation of the person's true intentions at the relevant time."

In this case it was clearly the OP's intention to pay, using the same means of payment he/she had used many times before.

If he decides not to pay after seven days, then that's when he dishonestly appropriates the petrol.

AdrianC

Car54, I think you're actually agreeing with my "much less clear-cut", which was quite deliberate wording.

At the very least, there is a debt which can be enforced through the courts.

boliston

Fat_Walt wrote: »

If he decides not to pay after seven days, then that's when he dishonestly appropriates the petrol.

He would be in breach of the agreed payment terms which would be a purely civil matter.

20aday

Was the forecourt busy at the time you were filling up?

I used to work in a petrol station and at busy times we were doing 10 things at once; it's not always possible to remember who pays with cash, card etc.

The site in question has likely stopped accepting Key Fuels because some PHH AllStar cards are becoming co-branded; I know of some businesses who used AllStar and cancelled them because of the fees incurred.

It's cheaper for a site to take Key Fuels I believe and I *think* people using Key Fuels pay slightly less than the price quoted at the pumps.

It's a civil matter; we had a fair few instances where people were in a world of their own and drove off without intending to. More often than not the police weren't interested whatsoever.

It'd only be a criminal offence if you'd knowingly dispensed fuel with no valid form of payment.

Rain_Shadow

glentoran99 wrote: »

when she walked in yes, but the face wouldn't have been clear on the camera

At the filling stations I use the cashier sees the customers by looking out of the window.

jimjames

usefulmale wrote: »

If you can't find 50 quid within 7 days, what are you going to do if you boiler packs up, pick up a speeding ticket or your washing machine bursts into flames?

According to surveys there are a surprisingly high number of people who have no savings.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5521954

dannyrst

Car_54 wrote: »

No. It says "It would be difficult to prove dishonesty in the absence of a direct admission of an intention not to pay. A single failure to pay cannot in itself prove that the original appropriation or the 'making off' were dishonest or that the agreement to pay was a misrepresentation of the person's true intentions at the relevant time."

In this case it was clearly the OP's intention to pay, using the same means of payment he/she had used many times before.

What if the OP knew that the card was no longer accepted when he went to fill up...thinking he'd get a tank full of fuel for free?

AdrianC

jimjames wrote: »

According to surveys there are a surprisingly high number of people who have no savings.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5521954

There's a difference between not having savings, and not having access to money.