QDR Solicitors £50 admin charge - advice required

sheramber

therealbadders said:

Grey_Critic said:

They can charge as much as they want. You drove off without paying and there is no excuse. Be thankful they did not decide to prosecute. If they had not come after you would you voluntarily would you have gone back and said sorry I made a mistake OR would you say if they let me more fool them.

If I knew I hadn't paid. Yes I would go back and say I've made a mistake - I'm not a thief. I've been to the same petrol station twice since the incident and paid as per pay at the pump as usual. 

You have admitted you know you didn’t pay. 

sheramber

therealbadders said:

DeathByFluffy said:

On what grounds are you disputing the charge? 
You know you didn't pay, you also know people don't work for free and the DVLA also charge for handing out vehicle keeper details. 

I think £50 is a much better option than criminal prosecution for theft of fuel. 

I want to understand where £50 admin fee is from when I have seen others quoted £18 e.g https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6607380/qdr-solicitors-non-payment-of-fuel-advice-required/p1 

You need to ask those who are charging you the £50. 

BlueonBlue

I wouldnt do what some of the more damming ramdom MSE posters suggest ....QDR are robo claiming scammers that will set a trap .....do not get in contact with them .

I believe they have nothing except hollow threats as the driver is unknown and realistically you can forget about cctv .
They only want money via robo claiming hollow threat nothing else matters... except more threats to illicit money ....this is the pathway to get the low hanging fruit to pay up and profit.

Head over to the private parking sub forum as said earlier for a real world reality check on all this .
You are far from the first or last in this situation...

You will need to pay for the fuel of course ....but not via QDR robo claimers/scammers who work on scaring you into paying more than is owed...its just how to go about paying for the fuel exactly that is the issue as they may not make it easy to do so .

GDB2222

BlueonBlue said:

I wouldnt do what some of the more damming ramdom MSE posters suggest ....QDR are robo claiming scammers that will set a trap .....do not get in contact with them .

I believe they have nothing except hollow threats as the driver is unknown and realistically you can forget about cctv .
They only want money via robo claiming hollow threat nothing else matters... except more threats to illicit money ....this is the pathway to get the low hanging fruit to pay up and profit.

Head over to the private parking sub forum as said earlier for a real world reality check on all this .
You are far from the first or last in this situation...

You will need to pay for the fuel of course ....but not via QDR robo claimers/scammers who work on scaring you into paying more than is owed...its just how to go about paying for the fuel exactly that is the issue as they may not make it easy to do so .

Is it possible to pay QDR the fuel cost, but not the £50 extra? Having dealt with the fuel cost, I’d let them sue for the £50 and defend the case on the basis it is without merit.

paul_c123

MyRealNameToo said:

Car_54 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

TooManyPoints said:

Be thankful they did not decide to prosecute.

I'm not aware that QDR is an authorised prosecuting authority. Even if they were, who would they prosecute and on what basis?

The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 preserves the rights of private prosecutions 

But it doesn't give them the means to identify the culprit.

I was answering the first bit, the authority to prosecute. 

No but they have the name of the keeper from the DVLA, they presumably also have the CCTV so assuming OP is both the registered keeper and the culprit its not going to be too hard to workout if its the same person - most people have online profiles with their photo on it. Were one the spouse and one the OP then equally simple. Things get harder if the OP is the cousin 3 times removed of the person who;s company hires the vehicle but given they did mention about it going through a dozen hands before getting to them its probably the first one. 

Its an assumption a criminal court won't make though - they would need further evidence the person being charged was the driver and the non-payer of the fuel at the time. (Mainly for other cases, when QDR non-payment of fuel crops up).

In this case, it would depend how the OP inadvertently identified themselves to QDR whether the link could later be made in court.

But anyway, the main issue will be having the car reg plate be put on an industry-wide blacklist. There's plenty of unattended pumps and even attended ones where they use ANPR to authorise the starting of pumping fuel, or block those on the blacklist. I've had it before (not my car), switching to a different pump allowed me to take fuel though.

Mildly_Miffed

There's no suggestion of a criminal offence being prosecuted.

There is a civil debt.
There is video evidence that a car registered to the OP filled up without paying.
There will be video evidence of the OP being the driver.
The OP admits that it was them...

The OP unequivocally owes the money.
That debt would not have reached the OP for settlement without QDR incurring costs...
The OP admits this, and is willing to pay both fuel and a fee...

The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable.

If the OP does not wish to pay the £50, then the question becomes one of how much a small claim court would order the OP to pay...

By the time it reaches that point, far more costs will have been incurred. Equally importantly, far more time and blood pressure on the OP's part will have been involved.

The question is one of how much time and blood pressure the OP is willing to expend in order to save a figure they put at just £32...

Is it an expensive lesson in basic life admin? Yes.
Is it a lesson the OP really shouldn't need to be taught? Equally, yes.

jimjames

GDB2222 said:

However, he owes the garage the money for the petrol. The garage can of course appoint QDR as their agent to collect this.

It's also possible (albeit unlikely based on the post) and has been reported on other threads relating to this company that they paid for the fuel and Sainsburys released the £100 hold that had been taken but didn't take payment itself.

TooManyPoints

The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable.

Neither is reasonable. This incident would not have occurred had Sainsbury’s equipment not been faulty:

“I went inside to ask if there was an issue to which the staff weren't aware and one came out to check and tried the pump herself which still wouldn't work when pressing the lever.”

QDR’s method involves nothing other than pursuing the RK in the hope that he (wrongly) accepts he is liable simply on the basis that he is the RK.

One of the earlier cases involving QDR (which I believe was on here) involved the RK informing them that he was not the person who made off without payment (i.e. he was not the person responsible for the debt) and offered to provide the details of the person who was.  They didn’t want to know.

QDR has no intention of pursuing a criminal prosecution. I would not be surprised if they had no idea how to begin one. As explained, it is highly unlikely that one has been committed at all anyway. Theft cannot be committed mistakenly or negligently. The OP had deposited £100 for fuel before the malfunctioning pump was discovered. Somebody intent on theft does not usually do that.

QDR’s only interest is to get their fifty quid for obtaining the RK’s details and sending a pro-forma letter. They have no interest in establishing the circumstances or in finding out who is actually responsible for the debt. Their involvement in this stems solely from the fact that the OP made a mistake having had to fanny about when filling up because of a faulty pump.

The OP should write to Sainsbury’s (copied to a senior manager in their HO) to thank them for getting their agents to point out the driver’s oversight following the inconvenience he suffered due to their faulty equipment. He should offer to pay the sum due and ask them how and where he can make payment.

As for QDR…..

Mildly_Miffed

TooManyPoints said:

The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable.

Neither is reasonable. This incident would not have occurred had Sainsbury’s equipment not been faulty:

“I went inside to ask if there was an issue to which the staff weren't aware and one came out to check and tried the pump herself which still wouldn't work when pressing the lever.”

One pump was faulty.

Did the OP give up, drive off and fill up elsewhere? No, they used a different pump, pay-in-kiosk... then didn't bother to pay. All the rest is excuses.

They filled up. They didn't pay.

If QDR hadn't been hired, they still would not have paid.

GDB2222

Mildly_Miffed said:

TooManyPoints said:

The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable.

Neither is reasonable. This incident would not have occurred had Sainsbury’s equipment not been faulty:

“I went inside to ask if there was an issue to which the staff weren't aware and one came out to check and tried the pump herself which still wouldn't work when pressing the lever.”

One pump was faulty.

Did the OP give up, drive off and fill up elsewhere? No, they used a different pump, pay-in-kiosk... then didn't bother to pay. All the rest is excuses.

They filled up. They didn't pay.

If QDR hadn't been hired, they still would not have paid.

My wife picked up a free newspaper the other day. Only, when she got it home, she realised it wasn’t a free newspaper and had made a mistake. So, next time we go to the store we will proffer the money. 

If, before then, the store tracks us down and demands payment we will happily pay it and cross it off the list of jobs. However, if they demand additional payment for the work of tracking us down, we will need them to explain the contractual basis for this demand. The same applies if the store gets QDR to act for them.