QDR Solicitors letter receieved for non payment of fuel

matt_drummer

tyco99 said:

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 

But they would be guilty of a crime if their car was used in a bank robbery and they knew who was driving but refused to tell the police.

Aretnap

matt_drummer said:

tyco99 said:

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 

But they would be guilty of a crime if their car was used in a bank robbery and they knew who was driving but refused to tell the police.

What crime would that be? 

And in any event the police are not involved here and no crime is alleged.

matt_drummer

Aretnap said:

matt_drummer said:

tyco99 said:

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 

But they would be guilty of a crime if their car was used in a bank robbery and they knew who was driving but refused to tell the police.

What crime would that be? 

And in any event the police are not involved here and no crime is alleged.

Aiding and abetting a bank robbery.

The crime alleged by @tyco99 is theft of fuel.

They state that the theft of fuel is the same as the car being used in a bank robbery, no liability on the RK.

I have simply stated that I don't think think the RK would have no liability if their car was used in a bank robbery where they knew who did it and refused to cooperate with the police.

paul_c123

matt_drummer said:

Aretnap said:

matt_drummer said:

tyco99 said:

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 

But they would be guilty of a crime if their car was used in a bank robbery and they knew who was driving but refused to tell the police.

What crime would that be? 

And in any event the police are not involved here and no crime is alleged.

Aiding and abetting a bank robbery.

The crime alleged by @tyco99 is theft of fuel.

They state that the theft of fuel is the same as the car being used in a bank robbery, no liability on the RK.

I have simply stated that I don't think think the RK would have no liability if their car was used in a bank robbery where they knew who did it and refused to cooperate with the police.

The crime would be "obstructing a police investigation" or "perjury" though, in that scenario, depending on what was said. And the police would also have a far higher burden of proof than simply the RK not furnishing details via Section 172, which doesn't apply here because its not a motoring offence.

But its NOT a police matter. Sainsbury's could have chosen to go down a criminal route and inform the police of the situation but they haven't, and I suspect under these circumstances, the police would rightfully say "not our problem" since its not even a drive-off, but a bug within their payment processing system.

matt_drummer

paul_c123 said:

The crime would be "obstructing a police investigation" or "perjury" though, in that scenario, depending on what was said. And the police would also have a far higher burden of proof than simply the RK not furnishing details via Section 172, which doesn't apply here because its not a motoring offence.

But its NOT a police matter. Sainsbury's could have chosen to go down a criminal route and inform the police of the situation but they haven't, and I suspect under these circumstances, the police would rightfully say "not our problem" since its not even a drive-off, but a bug within their payment processing system.

OK, still a crime or an offence of some kind. I know that this is not a police matter, somebody was comparing it to a bank robbery, it's clearly nothing like it.

This is just a payment processing issue.

The OP just needs to offer payment for the fuel and it it is not accepted then they have done all they can.

Nobody would ever find in favour of Sainbury's or the solicitors in this case, it's ridiculous.

paul_c123

matt_drummer said:

paul_c123 said:

The crime would be "obstructing a police investigation" or "perjury" though, in that scenario, depending on what was said. And the police would also have a far higher burden of proof than simply the RK not furnishing details via Section 172, which doesn't apply here because its not a motoring offence.

But its NOT a police matter. Sainsbury's could have chosen to go down a criminal route and inform the police of the situation but they haven't, and I suspect under these circumstances, the police would rightfully say "not our problem" since its not even a drive-off, but a bug within their payment processing system.

OK, still a crime or an offence of some kind. 

NO ITS NOT!!!!!!!

My first sentence related to the analogy of if the car were involved in a clearly criminal matter such as a bank robbery. Which doesn't relate to this scenario.

If it is a crime..........say which one it is.

matt_drummer

paul_c123 said:

matt_drummer said:

paul_c123 said:

The crime would be "obstructing a police investigation" or "perjury" though, in that scenario, depending on what was said. And the police would also have a far higher burden of proof than simply the RK not furnishing details via Section 172, which doesn't apply here because its not a motoring offence.

But its NOT a police matter. Sainsbury's could have chosen to go down a criminal route and inform the police of the situation but they haven't, and I suspect under these circumstances, the police would rightfully say "not our problem" since its not even a drive-off, but a bug within their payment processing system.

OK, still a crime or an offence of some kind. 

NO ITS NOT!!!!!!!

My first sentence related to the analogy of if the car were involved in a clearly criminal matter such as a bank robbery. Which doesn't relate to this scenario.

If it is a crime..........say which one it is.

So does mine, I am only referring to the bank robbery scenario brought up by another poster.

There is no crime here.

The only people that are wrong are Sainsbury's.

paul_c123

There is no requirement for a customer to offer payment twice.

Take an analogy, you go into a shop and buy something, you pay in cash and leave the cash on the counter. The till operator fumbles the cash (let's say its a £10 note) and it flutters away in the wind, it lands in some quick setting concrete outside and is quickly covered by more wet concrete, rendering it unreachable by the shop.

The analogy fits well here: 1) customer offered payment (pre-auth), 2) retailer error meant they didn't collect payment. The only difference being, because the bank DO do things properly, unfulfilled pre-auths don't sit in limbo for ever, they are strictly bound by rules so after some period of time, the pre-auth times out and the hold is released so the customer's available credit returns to its previous level (respecting any further spends or CC payments made etc).

matt_drummer

paul_c123 said:

There is no requirement for a customer to offer payment twice.

Take an analogy, you go into a shop and buy something, you pay in cash and leave the cash on the counter. The till operator fumbles the cash (let's say its a £10 note) and it flutters away in the wind, it lands in some quick setting concrete outside and is quickly covered by more wet concrete, rendering it unreachable by the shop.

The analogy fits well here: 1) customer offered payment (pre-auth), 2) retailer error meant they didn't collect payment. The only difference being, because the bank DO do things properly, unfulfilled pre-auths don't sit in limbo for ever, they are strictly bound by rules so after some period of time, the pre-auth times out and the hold is released so the customer's available credit returns to its previous level (respecting any further spends or CC payments made etc).

You may well be right.

I would just want it to go away as soon as possible.

TooManyPoints

But we’re not talking about criminal procedure here. If the police were to investigate a drive-off (which this is not) they have the power to require the RK to name the driver (s172 RTA) or face a penalty if he does not. There are also offences such as obstructing the police and possibly perjury or perverting the course of justice.

None of that applies. What we have here is a firm of solicitors claiming money under a false pretence. In an earlier thread one of their letters was posted up and it contained the following: 

“You are the current Registered Keeper of this vehicle and we require you to make full payment of the debt [plus their fees] within the next seven days.”

Unsurprisingly they don’t mention on what basis they make this demand. That’s because what they are doing is taking advantage of motorists’ gullibility. They know that many of them will be aware that in some circumstances certain decriminalised offences can attract “keeper liability”. The legislation surrounding that process is specific and relates only to a limited number of offences. But they go on to give the impression (though not stated in so many words) that Registered Keepers are liable to settle a debt  in the event of fuel drive-offs.

They are not. Only the driver is liable and even with the lower burden of proof required in the civil court, a deficiency as fundamental as the claimant being unable to show who is responsible for the debt would see any action fail.

We don’t know whether the OP is the RK, the driver, both or neither. It doesn’t really matter because it seems he wants to make good Sainsbury’s loss in this case (I think I would in similar circumstances). But he should resist all attempts from QDR to claim their fees (in fact I would not correspond with them at all). He should also make it absolutely clear to Sainsbury’s that this was not a drive-off, they should never have involved solicitors as a first step and that their branch manager should have taken more responsibility for seeing it properly sorted.