Fuel Drive off in my car wasn't me

Isthisforreal99

Alderbank said:

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).

Think that could be got round by going to a purely self-serve petrol station?

BlueonBlue

Except .....your completely wrong..... along with most all the armchair opinions on here.

TooManyPoints is on point ......along with the previous linked thread on this

born_again

paul_c123 said:

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.

They have proved their loss. Car filled with fuel & driven off. Fact that person who did it only took enough for their drive is irrelevant.
OP knows who did it & fails to act on getting that person to pay up.
Or is OP telling porkies in the hope of getting away with it. Given it seems they did not report car stolen to police? Which will be garage argument on not chasing them.

Guessing you drive. So in effect you are paying for this person driving off without paying. As these will be built into garage costs.

Goudy

BlueonBlue said:

TooManyPoints is on point ......along with the previous linked thread on this

Yes, it's just being treated as a debt not any offence.

The debt collection agency is just chasing the RK as they don't care who actually pays this debt and as far as they are concerned, the RK is responsible.

I reality the RK isn't, the debt was created by whoever filled up the car with fuel and drove off.

If it got to court, magistrates aren't stupid and would want to see a link between the debt and the alleged debtor.
A V5C and an image of the OP would do it, but given the debt agency's evidence is cctv footage of a car registered to the OP and someone else using it, well it doesn't look good for the debt collection agency.

Now throw in the RK telling the court they immediately informed the debt collection agency who actually ran the debt up and it looks a lot worse for them.

The debt collection agency know this, so it would never get anywhere near court. They'd just pester the RK and confuse them with legal jargon and hollow threats until they paid up.

Morally, well that's a whole different subject.

paul_c123

born_again said:

paul_c123 said:

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.

They have proved their loss. Car filled with fuel & driven off. Fact that person who did it only took enough for their drive is irrelevant.
OP knows who did it & fails to act on getting that person to pay up.
Or is OP telling porkies in the hope of getting away with it. Given it seems they did not report car stolen to police? Which will be garage argument on not chasing them.

Guessing you drive. So in effect you are paying for this person driving off without paying. As these will be built into garage costs.

The filling station have showed their loss but not tried to claim off the person who took it.

Its not the OP's job to act on behalf of the garage, if he doesn't want to. He's not legally obligated to do so.

I think we need to take the OP at face value, otherwise every post on this forum could be an invention and an invitation to make a more convenient story up, then have a bunch of White Knights type something in that makes them feel better.

matt_drummer

I think the obligations on the registered keeper of a motor vehicle are more onerous than is being presented by some posters here.

If I let somebody drive my car without checking that they are entitled to do so, that is licenced and insured, I am liable to penalties.

That is how I understand the law.

What makes this any different?

Allowing somebody to use your car and steal fuel with it.

Hasn't the registered keeper been negligent in this case?

born_again

paul_c123 said:

born_again said:

paul_c123 said:

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.

They have proved their loss. Car filled with fuel & driven off. Fact that person who did it only took enough for their drive is irrelevant.
OP knows who did it & fails to act on getting that person to pay up.
Or is OP telling porkies in the hope of getting away with it. Given it seems they did not report car stolen to police? Which will be garage argument on not chasing them.

Guessing you drive. So in effect you are paying for this person driving off without paying. As these will be built into garage costs.

The filling station have showed their loss but not tried to claim off the person who took it.

Its not the OP's job to act on behalf of the garage, if he doesn't want to. He's not legally obligated to do so.

I think we need to take the OP at face value, otherwise every post on this forum could be an invention and an invitation to make a more convenient story up, then have a bunch of White Knights type something in that makes them feel better.

While I agree we should take OP at face value. 
Most people if it was true would have sorted the issue & reclaimed funds.

If the garage were to involve the police. Then if OP had not informed police car was stolen each time, given more than once & most likely no insurance. It will not look good for them. Aiding & abetting?

 I am refusing to pay on principle.
Could turn out to be a bite off nose to spite face moment for them..

BlueonBlue

If the uk population doesnt focus on the Robo Claim Debt Collectors lies ,deceit and Manipulation of the law in bullying people into paying via ANPR cameras ......it already is very very bad and is going to get alot worse .

Private parking is already at 14.5 million invoices per year which is not about parking management its all about profit using the small claims track as a debt collection agency clogging up the court system .

In this case or variation of the above they are making out the registered keeper must pay yet they cant do that ....it does not apply.....it will never get to court as that costs them money .

They will take it as far as poss with simple bullying tactics to see if you cave in and pay up.... like a mug.... as they are working on the low hanging fruit that will just pay up ....ching ching.

You need to look at the big picture on how these scammers work ....as the big picture is going to alot get worse for anyone that drives .

TooManyPoints

If I let somebody drive my car without checking that they are entitled to do so, that is licenced and insured, I am liable to penalties.

That is how I understand the law.

That understanding is correct.

What makes this any different?

What makes this different is that the Road Traffic Act makes a specific offence of permitting somebody to drive a vehicle without a licence and/or insurance. It does not make it an offence to permit somebody to drive off without paying. And that's leaving aside the fact that this car was taken without consent, so the "permitting" charges would not fly anyway.

The only possible parallel with this incident is for the OP to be accused of aiding or abetting the theft. Since he wasn’t present and his car had been taken without his consent, that might be a bit difficult to prove.

Allowing somebody to use your car and steal fuel with it.

He didn't allow his car to be taken and he certainly didn't allow (or even condone) somebody stealing fuel with it.

Hasn't the registered keeper been negligent in this case?

Possibly. We don't know his domestic circumstances which allowed his son to take the car. But that doesn't make him liable for a theft which he didn't commit.

An easier way to consider this is to imagine the scenario I painted in the earlier thread: you gave permission to somebody to use your car of which you are the RK (and you were satisfied they had a licence and insurance to drive it). They went to a supermarket, walked out with a load of of booze without paying, shoved it into the boot and drove off. Would you consider the RK of the car could be held liable (either criminally or civilly) for the theft?

Of course you wouldn't (at least I would hope not). There is absolutely no difference in those circumstances between a boot full of booze and a tank full of petrol. The only person to be held liable for it is the person who made off.

The debt agencies know this (or at least they should). But they know that a carefully worded letter, purporting to make the RK liable, will often pay off. 

matt_drummer

TooManyPoints said:

If I let somebody drive my car without checking that they are entitled to do so, that is licenced and insured, I am liable to penalties.

That is how I understand the law.

That understanding is correct.

What makes this any different?

What makes this different is that the Road Traffic Act makes a specific offence of permitting somebody to drive a vehicle without a licence and/or insurance. It does not make it an offence to permit somebody to drive off without paying. And that's leaving aside the fact that this car was taken without consent, so the "permitting" charges would not fly anyway.

The only possible parallel with this incident is for the OP to be accused of aiding or abetting the theft. Since he wasn’t present and his car had been taken without his consent, that might be a bit difficult to prove.

Allowing somebody to use your car and steal fuel with it.

He didn't allow his car to be taken and he certainly didn't allow (or even condone) somebody stealing fuel with it.

Hasn't the registered keeper been negligent in this case?

Possibly. We don't know his domestic circumstances which allowed his son to take the car. But that doesn't make him liable for a theft which he didn't commit.

An easier way to consider this is to imagine the scenario I painted in the earlier thread: you gave permission to somebody to use your car of which you are the RK (and you were satisfied they had a licence and insurance to drive it). They went to a supermarket, walked out with a load of of booze without paying, shoved it into the boot and drove off. Would you consider the RK of the car could be held liable (either criminally or civilly) for the theft?

Of course you wouldn't (at least I would hope not). There is absolutely no difference in those circumstances between a boot full of booze and a tank full of petrol. The only person to be held liable for it is the person who made off.

The debt agencies know this (or at least they should). But they know that a carefully worded letter, purporting to make the RK liable, will often pay off. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you in the most part.

I think there is a difference here though.

The fuel becomes part of the car (unlike the boot full of booze). It's a subtle difference but still a difference.

In your example, if I drunk some of the stolen booze knowing that it was stolen, would I not also be guilty of receiving stolen goods?

What about if her son took the car to a garage to be repaired and then drove off without paying?

Would the RK then be liable? The work has been done to their car but they weren't the ones to drive off without paying for the repairs. They get the benefit but don't have to pay as they didn't commit the offence?

In this case, whilst it's not easy to determine what fuel in the tank was obtained legally and which was stolen, the RK does know that her car has been running on stolen fuel, she knows who stole it and has not reported the car as stolen.

You seem to have some issue with the retailer trying to get paid, these `legal' companies may not be the nicest, but really, how does the business get paid, or do they just write it off?