Fuel Drive off in my car wasn't me

eddddy

It's not really relevant whether the car was taken with or without permission.

(Giving somebody permission to use your car doesn't make you liable, if that person then uses the car to take petrol without paying.)


Either...

• The son filled up with petrol with the intention of not paying - so the son is guilty of theft of the petrol

Or

• The son filled-up with petrol intending to pay, but forgot to pay (!!!) - which would be a breach of contract. So the son still owes the petrol station for the petrol they took

Either way, the OP isn't liable to pay for the petrol.

But I guess if the petrol was stolen, the petrol still belongs to the garage, so the OP should probably offer to return the stolen petrol to the garage. (Or I guess the OP could offer to buy the petrol from the garage, instead.)

Okell

tacpot12 said:

This issue is covered in this thread: QDR Solicitors non-payment of fuel advice required — MoneySavingExpert Forum

It says that you can't be help liable. I am inclined to believe it, but you might want to take professional legal advice from a solicitor with experience of civil litigation. If you have home insurance and have legal expenses cover, you can get this legal advice for free. You might be able to get it for free if you ask a local solicitor for some advice over the phone on the basis that you will use them (and pay them something) if you need to go to court to defend yourself. 

I'm not sure that is the conclusion I take from that thread.  Plus the OP did the right thing in that thread and eventually paid up for the fuel.

Also here the OP has identified their son to the compnaies as the miscreant

TooManyPoints

"...there is a criminal and civil matter, "

The civil matter is a non-starter because the debt agency do not know who stole the goods.

Whilst the burden of proof is far lower to obtain a judgement in the civil court than it is to secure a conviction in the criminal court, the claimant must still show "on the balance of probabilities" that the defendant is liable for the debt. They cannot do that here because they have no evidence to show that the is. Instead they are relying on the gullibility of registered keepers to pay up in the same way they might if their car had a parking ticket slapped on it.

The problem the OP has is that these people will not accept that liability rests with someone else and chase them. They doggedly pursue the RK. In the earlier thread the debt agency clearly gave the RK he impression that they he is liable for the debt ("You are the current Registered Keeper of this vehicle and we require you to make full payment of the debt..."). They don't say on what basis they make that requirement (which is not surprising). 

It's even worse than that. They have been told in his case that the car was taken without permission. They have been told who took it. But still they pursue the Registered Keeper.  

Don't get me wrong - I do not condone theft of fuel. But these agencies are collecting debt (and their fees) on what is a false premise, and I consider that to be sharp practice.

matt_drummer

TooManyPoints said:

The civil matter is a non-starter because the debt agency do not know who stole the goods.

They know who has them though!

And that person should give the goods back or pay for the goods.

In this case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the person in possession of the goods to pay for them having regard for what the goods actually are.

paul_c123

Hang on.......the son probably took the car, put some fuel in it and used that fuel. Unless the OP keeps an accurate log of the fuel level and mileometer etc, there is nothing he needs to pay back. It is all down to the son - or more accurately, down to the filling station to show their loss and to claim off the person who took it.

I believe the filling station will have reported this to the police also.

I could believe the police showed no interest whatsoever in doing their jobs and taking any further action of their own, though.

Herzlos

That's where it gets messy. If someone stole sweets from the petrol station and left them in the car, the owner of the car could presumably return them, but you can't really return petrol. You'd still be in posession of it and would gain from the theft so morally paying for what you can still use (minus whatever the thief used up) would seem like the appropriate action. Legally I've got no idea. 

TooManyPoints

They know who has them though!

No they don't. As above, the person who committed the drive off could have used all the stolen fuel and the tank could contain other petrol. 

As tricky as that would be to unravel, it doesn't matter. The debt agency is not interested in recovering the stolen fuel. All they are concerned with is seeing payment for it. And they can't do that unless they know who stole it.

HedgehogRulez

Sounds like a parenting issue

Alderbank

Filling station operators know that the police won't do much so they subscribe to a third party company who collect and share ANPR registrations of drive-off vehicles.

The OP will soon find that their car is blacklisted and no-one will let them fill up (at least, not until the outstanding bills are paid).

WellKnownSid

HedgehogRulez said:

Sounds like a parenting issue

Behavioural parenting doesn't work for all children / young adults.