Fuel theft by Driver not registered keeper

KeithP

Grizebeck said:

KeithP said:

Surely theft of fuel is a criminal matter, not one for a civil court?

Probably to do with the terms at the petrol pump

What, agreeing a contract not to steal fuel?  

I know people like DCB Legal Ltd - involved here - will need to diversify now that the parking gravy train is coming to an end, but surely this isn't the next big con?

Johnersh

The Particulars of Claim are pretty rubbish for this.

1. The claim is for D's failure to pay (on an unspecified date) a sum for fuel
2. C says that there are signs displayed and that creates a contract such that a failure to pay makes D liable. It is not expressed as to how that occurred. The implication is that D was present to agree terms, since it seems unlikely that any visitor fueling a vehicle and departing would also lead to D being liable.  D was, of course, not present.

Critically, the claim does not plead that D's liability arises through the omission of his servants or agents. This is a significant failure if C intends to make those arguments.

The Road Traffic Acts do not confer liability on the keeper of a vehicle, but the driver. If parliament had wanted to do that, they could have done (see, for example France and most other European countries where the keeper is liable until he directs otherwise). In E&W it is clear that parliament expressly wanted to avoid a keeper presumption. That is why POFA exists. In defined and specific circumstances, liability for parking charges can be transferred to a keeper. Sadly for C, that does not extend to contractual debts. The scope of POFA is limited only to parking charges.

It is misleading to suggest that the delay in completing the V5C paperwork renders D liable (and they appear not to believe that themselves, referring to the law of agency as an alternative).

There is no reason for C to have assumed that the driver was acting as an agent for D when the fuel was taken (i.e. the contract was entered into). There was no express or implied authority from D. The existance of the sign is a contract with the driver, who bore personal responsibility of any acts or omission (as they would with speeding offences etc).

They have not pleaded illegality nor have they reported the matter to the police. It would stand to reason that there is no evidence that D personally has made off without payment . C will therefore need to prove on balance of probabilities that he did and/or that the third party X was acting upon instruction. That would seem a challenge.

I note that within the document pack a till receipt is relied upon. Is it the case that the driver paid for his mars bar and omitted to pay for fuel/inform the garage he had obtained fuel? That is to say they cannot actually prove that it wasn't oversight by both cashier and driver, they can only prove fuel was taken and not paid for.  In any event, they are on notice as to whom the driver is. It is their lookout that they have brought proceedings against the wrong individual (nothing to stop them issuing two claim forms, but that would involve thought).

Castle

Has anybody asked for copies of CCTV covering the forecourt and shop to identify the driver?

kryten3000

This absolutely looks like the next "outrageous scam".  As with parking charges, DCB Legal hope the Defendant will panic and pay up to avoid a CCJ or ignore so they get a Default Judgment,

The very fact this has been defended (however poorly) is good news for the Defendant, getting it to the Small Claims Track also helps as it should be possible to pad out the Witness Statement with more detail if it becomes necessary.

Coupon-mad

It does look like the latest scam plan from PPC World.

This and moving traffic 'offence' fakery, allegations of littering from cars whilst on private land, leaving engines idling...picking your nose whilst in a car... you name it, if it involves a vehicle then there's money to be made from it if the Labour Ministers fall for it.

I believe this sort of thing is why the new 'joint CoP' collusion between the BPA and IPC (which looks to the uninitiated, like it mimics the statutory DLUHC version but it damn well doesn't) has carefully dropped the word 'parking' from their definition of 'relevant obligation'.

Anyone else spot that little nugget?

I did..