Unfair ASDA PETROL drive away charge from VARS - cashier error and Asda refuse to help

QrizB · 18 July at 9:00PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82073816#Comment_82073816

Exactly. I see you understand my point.

Loss recovery should also be priced in.

Curiosity2017 · 18 July at 9:08PM

As has just been mentioned that would encourage chancers. Why should honest people have to subsidise thieves or people who some how don't manage to remember to pay for things!

If you're happy to do this by all means go to a business which charges you for other peoples dishonesty/incompetence. I'd prefer not to and pay cheaper prices.

Alderbank · 18 July at 9:29PM

Asda has two options to recover their losses:

(1). Asda has complied with the contract but the customer has breached the contract by not paying the agreed sum. Asda can claim what is owed by the contract plus any evidenced costs necessary for recovery. That's all. In English common law, punitive damages (claiming a higher cost than that incurred for recovery) anywhere is extremely rare (particularly since Rookes v Barnard in 1964) and is never allowed in contract law.

(2). If a valid contract was established between the customer and VARS, Asda might be able to recover some or all of their losses that way, it depends what their contract with VARS says. Whether there was a valid contract or not between VARS and the customer will depend on technicalities such where VARS notices are displayed, the type face and choice of words, whether the customer was able to decline the contract by not pumping fuel, etc. But even if VARS can confirm a valid contract they are restricted to claim only what is a reasonable pre-estimate of their costs. Again, it's a contract so no punitive damages allowed.

…No penalty for being the errant customer and no incentive to do the right thing….

No penalty allowed in English law, but some (including me) would say that there is an incentive, a moral incentive, and I believe that most people accept that the right thing to do is to pay for their fuel.

Grumpy_chap · 18 July at 10:09PM

Well, it seems to have been mentioned upthread that the charge was £65. That very probably is a genuine estimate of the costs for recovery and not punitive / penalty.
Consider that ASDA need to cover the costs of obtaining the Keeper's details, plus the letter being generated, plus the admin of processing the late payment, etc. £65 doesn't buy you a great deal these days TBH.

born_again · 19 July at 8:39AM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82073676#Comment_82073676

ASDA have not alleged an offence. No evidence has been offered of an offence being committed.

By the very fact that this has been passed to a 3rd party debt collection co. Is implying that a offence has been committed.

Lets not forget here that it is a criminal offence, depending on intent.

QrizB · 19 July at 9:54AM

the very fact that this has been passed to a 3rd party debt collection co. Is implying that a offence has been committed.

Debt collectors have no authority to pursue offences.

Lets not forget here that it is a criminal offence, depending on intent.

If you have evidence that ASDA have made a criminal allegation, please share it.

born_again · 19 July at 5:08PM

You miss the point.

Clearly asda have found that OP did not pay for fuel. Maybe asda do not have the access to get drivers details? As such they have passed it to a 3rd party to deal with.

I was also pointing out this it is a criminal offence depending on intent, which in this case seems to be a genuine error on all parties. Or asda would have passed to police to deal.

Grumpy_chap · 19 July at 5:43PM

Clearly asda have found that OP did not pay for fuel. Maybe asda do not have the access to get drivers details? As such they have passed it to a 3rd party to deal with.

All of which incurs "additional cost" which Asda would not incur had the OP paid for the fuel at the time of purchase, or immediately returned to pay for the fuel once they checked the receipt and noted the error that had occurred.

I don't see why the individual that failed to pay for the goods at the time of purchase should not meet that "additional cost".

Indeed allowing the individual to only pay for the actual original cost of the fuel once the individual is traced gives an incentive for making mstakes.