QDR Solicitors letter receieved for non payment of fuel

molerat

I would be tempted to write to sainsbobs, not revealing the name of the driver, along the lines of

On xx/xx/xx I, as RK, received a letter from QDR alleging drive off

The driver on the day has checked with their credit card provider and found that on that date a £100 holding charge was made but no further collection activity was taken by yourselves.

The driver contacted the store management on xx/xx/xx who showed absolutely no interest in helping correct your error in not collecting the funds.

I hope as a gesture of goodwill you will be willing to write of this small amount for the severe distress of being accused of criminal behaviour caused solely by your failure to process the transaction correctly and the aggressive tone and flawed legal basis of the communication from your agents.

Cornucopia

I think I'd emphasise that payment was made in the form of pre-authorisation.   It was Sainsburys error (presumably) that eventual payment wasn't made.

Aretnap

towills said:

Thanks for all the inputs guys...I'm slightly confused with the next steps...just keep quiet or write to Sainsburys copied to QDR asking why their system didnt charge at the pump?

I don't think it's a case of there being a single right or wrong way of dealing with it - you're not being taken to court so it's not as if there is a formal legal process to be followed.

But personally I would want to put something in writing to show that I'd made an attempt to be reasonable, so I'd go with the letter. Be polite but firm and avoid emotive language - you are not appealing to their better nature; you are (calmy) informing them of what you are and aren't willing to pay, and why. Something along these lines

"Dear Sir

I am in reciept of a letter from a firm of solicitors claiming to represent you, demanding £52 plus additional fees and collection costs, for a fuel purchase on (date) for which payment was apparently not taken.

I am somewhat confused as to why payment was not taken as this was a pay at pump transaction. My* credit card provider has confirmed that the card was pre-authorised correctly, and indeed the fuel would not have been dispensed had this not been the case. I can only assume that your system has failed to convert the pre-authorisation to an actual payment in the correct manner.

Naturally I am still willing to make the correct payment of £52 for the fuel, although I note that the store manager was extremely unhelpful when I attempted to do so in store on (date). If you would like me to make such a payment then please provide me with details of how and where I should send it.**  However, clearly I am not responsible for additional charges arising from the failure of your system to take the payment correctly at the point of purchase, and I will not enter into further correspondance if you or your representatives continue to attempt to browbeat me into paying such fees.

Yours sincerely etc etc"

* As I said I wouldn't bother being coy about who took the fuel; it's hardly a secret given that you used your credit card, and IMO messing about just makes you look shifty when you're trying to look reasonable. But you could say "the driver" if you prefer, I suppose.

** If I still had a chequebook that I could find then I might even enclose a cheque for £52 and say someting along the lines of "I trust that this closes the matter and that you will not be demanding further payment for collection costs etc arising out of the failure of your system..."

letom

paul_c123 said:

Aretnap said:

paul_c123 said:

Aretnap said:

paul_c123 said:

Baldytyke88 said:

TooManyPoints said:

I'm not familiar with this "holding fee" process. Does it require he cardholder o do anything after he has finished filling up?

It's usually automatic; perhaps the card was removed before the transaction could be completed?

It wouldn't/shouldn't have completed the pre-authorisation if the card was removed before it was complete.

It sounds like what's happened is there's an issue with the payment processing after the pre-auth was taken and after the fuel was taken, but it was Sainsbury's error. I don't think the OP owes Sainsbury's or QDR anything. Their error has effectively 'gifted' the fuel to him.

I'm not at all convinced that their error entitles the OP to free fuel. A debt doesn't go away simply because the creditor makes a mistake while collecting payment. 

There is no debt, the OP didn't enter into a credit agreement. They offered to pay, Sainsbury's didn't take it.

Nope, he (or whatever was driving the car, nudge nudge wink wink) took petrol knowing the price Sainsbury's were charging for it. By any reasonable standard he entered a contract to pay for it.

Its not a creditor-debtor arrangement though. Its an exchange of payment (the credit card pre-authorisation was concluded) and a product (the petrol).

The issue is 100% Sainsbury's. They have not followed the correct steps to process the payment by presenting a credit card transaction after the true amount was known, using the valid pre-auth they had.

Sainsbury's have then shot themselves in the foot by passing it to QDR because 1) they both have no right whatsoever to demand payment (this is NOT a drive-off), 2) by going all legal, they have lost the opportunity to write politely to the OP, say their payment system made an error and they weren't charged, and ask for payment.

OP is 0% in the wrong here, I would advise next step is to do nothing. If QDR continue to contact them, report them for harrassment.

As someone who has dealt with financial litigation with cases worth billions I can confidently say this is completely wrong. No court would consider a failed payment as a waiver of rights to claim for payment, it's a bonkers argument which no reasonable person/solicitor would use. Simple example, if you changed your bank account and your employer therefore wasn't able to pay you last month's salary because it didn't go through, would you consider that you therefore weren't owed your salary. The OP entered into a contract where consideration was thought at the time to be exchanged at that time, both parties reasonably expected this to occur. A court would simple wish to enforce the contract if it ever went to court.

OP you are a debtor as far as Sainsbury's are concerned, this isn't up for debate, it's literally how accounting works. Sainsbury's are treating you like any other debtor and trying to collect, their internal process means this goes to an outside law firm who no doubt send templated letters.

My view would be to write to head office as you have done, but change the tone so it's clear the failure to perform the contract was on their end and that you have tried to settle the bill in store. Make sure all of this is well documented. I would probably visit the petrol station again and try to pay, I would tell the manager that you need their name, details etc and to make clear that they are refusing take payment. I would also make clear to them that if this went to litigation it will be your defence that you spoke to them and they refused payment, the thought of potentially being named in court documents and having to produce statements for the court might persuade them to take payment. If this fails again, you write finally to head office confirming all correspondence and their unwillingness to take payment, at this point you simply wait for them to take you to court. I wouldn't engage with QDR.

TooManyPoints

OP you are a debtor as far as Sainsbury's are concerned, this isn't up for debate,

That is only true if the OP was the driver the time. We don't know that and nor does anybody else - especially Sainsbury's or .QDR solicitors.

The OP or the RK (from whom the debt is being claimed) might like to help Sainsbury's out a bit following the failure of their payment system. But that's not the same as being responsible for the debt. 

letom

TooManyPoints said:

OP you are a debtor as far as Sainsbury's are concerned, this isn't up for debate,

That is only true if the OP was the driver the time. We don't know that and nor does anybody else - especially Sainsbury's or .QDR solicitors.

The OP or the RK (from whom the debt is being claimed) might like to help Sainsbury's out a bit following the failure of their payment system. But that's not the same as being responsible for the debt. 

Correct the driver is the debtor.

Cornucopia

Isn't there a legal requirement for proof of debt - its amount and justification, as well as formally tracing the debtor?

user1977

Cornucopia said:

Isn't there a legal requirement for proof of debt - its amount and justification, as well as formally tracing the debtor?

Yes, but the OP isn't suggesting there's any dispute about the fact the driver bought the fuel.

tyco99

This happened to me earlier in the year, although my employer was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

In the end, they sought advice from a solicitor, who confirmed that in this situation it’s effectively treated as theft of fuel and that there is no keeper liability — in the same way that the registered keeper wouldn’t be held responsible if their vehicle were used to commit a bank robbery. There advice was to just ignore the letters 

Cornucopia

user1977 said:

Cornucopia said:

Isn't there a legal requirement for proof of debt - its amount and justification, as well as formally tracing the debtor?

Yes, but the OP isn't suggesting there's any dispute about the fact the driver bought the fuel.

I'm just thinking that Sainsburys/QDR haven't traced the debtor and they haven't proven the debt, either, by the sounds of it.

I also agree with the point above about there being no duty on the RK to identify the driver.