Fuel Drive off in my car wasn't me

Goudy

matt_drummer said:

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?

The OP would have parked the car with some fuel in it.
The son used that fuel (effectively stole it) then stole more to replace it from the petrol station.
 
I can't understand how the car owner would be even partly responsible for any of that.

If I took a tenner from your wallet, then stole one from someone else to replace the tenner I took from your wallet, are you guilty of anything?

paul_c123

matt_drummer said:

TooManyPoints said:

 how does the business get paid, 

For the most part, probably 90% of cases, the driver IS the RK and the not-quite-legal threat works, especially if there is also the possibility of being blacklisted.

The OP has an edge case, where it wasn't him but neither was it a completely legit situation eg if it were his spouse, who would have been named on the insurance and (implicitly, probably) has fairly unlimited permission to use the car too).

While the filling station can't recover from the RK in this case, neither can they obligate the RK to assist them in further identifying the driver (unlike criminal driving offences, via S.172), nor take ownership of the debt incurred. They could press legal action (civil action for their loss) and then it would be decided on the balance of probability who the driver was, rightly or wrongly. Without the son being on the insurance, the Shaggy defence ("It wasn't me") may not work; but with the OP having named the actual driver (but nothing more) at the outset, this also is thrown into doubt.

Obviously there's a back-story regarding the son taking the car without permission and also making off without paying, but that isn't the concern of us.

matt_drummer

Goudy said:

The OP would have parked the car with some fuel in it.
The son used that fuel (effectively stole it) then stole more to replace it from the petrol station.
 
I can't understand how the car owner would be even partly responsible for any of that.

If I took a tenner from your wallet, then stole one from someone else to replace the tenner I took from your wallet, are you guilty of anything?

Yes, I think I would be guilty of receiving stolen goods.

I would not be guilty of theft tough.

It is not the same tenner that was stolen from me.

Just because I have had something stolen from me doesn't make replacing it with stolen goods legal.

.

TooManyPoints

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

You are introducing scenarios that are not really relevant.

If you are making an issue of the fuel somehow becoming part of the car, imagine that instead of filling the car's tank, the fuel was fed into a separate portable fuel can in the boot. Do you believe it would be justified to pursue the RK if the fuel was in the car's tank, but not if it was in the fuel can? If so, why? Fuel has been stolen. How it was transported away is irrelevant.

You seem to have some issue with the retailer trying to get paid,...

I have no issues at all with retailers getting paid and I condemn theft of any sort unreservedly. But the person suffering the loss (or their agents) .must chase the person who caused it, not somebody who didn't. 

....but really, how does the business get paid, or do they just write it off?

Report it to the police in the same way as the supermarket would have to report the theft of their booze. The police could then issue a s172 notice to the RK, requiring him to provide the driver's details (or suffer a fine and six points if he didn't). The fact that they almost certainly wouldn't bother is not a justification to pursue somebody else.

…these `legal' companies may not be the nicest,…

It isn’t a question of them being nice or otherwise. They are lazy. In this case the RK has informed them he was not responsible for the drive-off and has identified to them who was. But they can’t be bothered to pursue the culprit. Instead they will pester the RK for a while, sending him increasingly threatening letters, giving him the impression (though probably not saying so in so many words) that he is responsible for making good the retailer’s loss. 

Most drivers know that in certain circumstances, responsibility for parking penalties can be transferred from the driver to the keeper. The debt agencies are using this to convince keepers that liability for other transgressions can be similarly transferred to them, and they know that many will simply pay up. 

So when a question arises on a forum like this, it doesn’t hurt to explain the truth. Readers can then choose how to proceed. And how they do will depend on the circumstances and their integrity..

matt_drummer

The RK is not being pursued for theft.

The RK is in possession or was in possession of stolen goods, they are or were in her car.

The stolen goods have been used or will be used to power her car even if she was not the driver.

As she has not reported the car as stolen it must have been being used by her son with her consent.

It is for this reason I believe that the RK and the driver are jointly and severally liable for the debt.

Car_54

TooManyPoints said:

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

You are introducing scenarios that are not really relevant.

If you are making an issue of the fuel somehow becoming part of the car, imagine that instead of filling the car's tank, the fuel was fed into a separate portable fuel can in the boot. Do you believe it would be justified to pursue the RK if the fuel was in the car's tank, but not if it was in the fuel can? If so, why? Fuel has been stolen. How it was transported away is irrelevant.

You seem to have some issue with the retailer trying to get paid,...

I have no issues at all with retailers getting paid and I condemn theft of any sort unreservedly. But the person suffering the loss (or their agents) .must chase the person who caused it, not somebody who didn't. 

....but really, how does the business get paid, or do they just write it off?

Report it to the police in the same way as the supermarket would have to report the theft of their booze. The police could then issue a s172 notice to the RK, requiring him to provide the driver's details (or suffer a fine and six points if he didn't). The fact that they almost certainly wouldn't bother is not a justification to pursue somebody else.

…these `legal' companies may not be the nicest,…

It isn’t a question of them being nice or otherwise. They are lazy. In this case the RK has informed them he was not responsible for the drive-off and has identified to them who was. But they can’t be bothered to pursue the culprit. Instead they will pester the RK for a while, sending him increasingly threatening letters, giving him the impression (though probably not saying so in so many words) that he is responsible for making good the retailer’s loss. 

Most drivers know that in certain circumstances, responsibility for parking penalties can be transferred from the driver to the keeper. The debt agencies are using this to convince keepers that liability for other transgressions can be similarly transferred to them, and they know that many will simply pay up. 

So when a question arises on a forum like this, it doesn’t hurt to explain the truth. Readers can then choose how to proceed. And how es spethey do will depend on the circumstances and their integrity..e.

The police could not issue a s172 notice - that process is only available for certain motoring offences specified in the section, not for theft or anything els

TooManyPoints

that process is only available for certain motoring offences specified in the section, not for theft or anything else

Section 172:

(1)This section applies—

(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—

(i)an offence under Part V, or

(ii)an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 120,

and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,

(b)to any offence under sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,

(c)to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads,

I would suggest that making off without payment having filled up with fuel, constitutes an "...offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads."

As she has not reported the car as stolen it must have been being used by her son with her consent.

That's a bit of a jump. And even if it was true, I doubt she gave her consent for her son to steal petrol. Messrs Hertz and Avis (among others) give their consent for their cars to be used by others. Would they be jointly and severally liable for debts resulting from fuel theft?

saajan_12

All this chat about holding stolen goods (ie fuel) is really irrelevant. Who's to say the son didn't use all the full they filled up? Or even the OP used it up before finding out the fuel was stolen? Its not OP's responsibility to recompense the garage for goods the OP didn't steal and no longer has. 

Also I didn't think its mandatory to report stolen and then returned items, ie the car - it might be useful proof that it wasn't the RK who committed the theft, but in this case there is other proof, ie CCTV so the police report (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. 

Removing the above tangents, with a known person who entered the contract and subsequently didn't pay for the fuel, corroborated by CCTV so this has nothing to do with the OP. 

stressedboymum

Thanks for all the replies.My son was the only driver of the car and he was the one to use the fuel .

BlueonBlue

The Debt collectors/Solictors dont care less who was driving the whole thing is a robo claim scam attempting to frighten the registered keeper into paying up.

 As stated earlier they are attempting to con you into paying by lying that the registered keeper is liable..... which is a non event if you fight back.

Read TooManyPoints posts above in summary as they are very clear .

Failing the above you could post again on the private parking board where they counter any silly posts ,noise or emotional dribble ....with facts.