Petrol station confiscates mobile for not having money to pay for petrol!!

[aloofy]

A friend of mine called at the texaco petrol station this morning to fill up on her way to work. She went in to pay and realised that she had forgotten her purse and was unable to pay, the cashier asked if she had any items of value on her. She told him that she had her mobile in the car, the cashier took her mobile (blackberry curve ) and kept it until she returned with payment.

 

I was horrified by this and was curious to know if this was even legal? When it happened to me in the past all I had to do was leave my contact details.

[andydd]

I suspect that if she said can you leave your mobile and your friend said yes then it was a simple agreement and that is the end of the matter.

 

Andy

[aloofy]

Surely a well known petrol station like texaco should have some sort of procedure in place for this situation though? Do you think it would be worth even taking it up with the manager or head office?

[ashmk]

Texaco is a franchise so each garage proberly have their own way of dealing with it.

If your friend has paid and the phone has been returned I would forget it and get on with my life.

[Conniff]

There is an alternative, they could inform the police that petrol was obtained by deception and without the funds to pay for it.

The only other way would have been for the customer to wait while a friend or relative was called and asked to bring the money. I see nothing wrong with asking for some security.

[The Chez]

In all fairness, at least your friend was honest and didn't drive off without paying for the petrol. Petrol stations are blighted with drivers filling up then scooting off without paying, so I can understand them asking for some security. As for the legality of it, if your friend willingly handed over the phone, then I think it became some sort of agreement between them and the petrol station, until payment was received. It would have become a criminal matter if she has paid, but then they had still refused to hand back the phone. She should have asked for a written receipt of leaving the phone, to protect her in the instance they said something like 'what phone, we have no record of you leaving a phone with us' etc.

 

Also if any personal data has been viewed or taken from the phone, that would probably be an offence under the DPA, but again, I am no lawyer.

[perplexity]

Would you prefer it if they clamped the car?

 

I would be surprised if there is not a precedent of some sort, about the deliberate seizure of goods for security, but I lack the time to look.

[postggj]

Please dont quote me on this as i do not have a definitive answer

 

the way i see it is no petrol station has the right to demand security, be it mobile phone etc.

Filling up an not having the means to pay is not a criminal offence

 

its driving off with the deliberate intention of not paying.

this is then a civil matter and the police should not be involved. If they are called then you may have a right to redress from the garage.

 

If you have no cash or your card is declined then the garage would take your name and address with valid id and give say 24 hours to return with payment. If you do not return then they arte at liberty to call the police

[perplexity]

Fraud is the dishonest attempt to gain financially or to harm another by making a false representation, or by failing to disclose, and may be implied.

 

If a motorist fills a car with fuel with the intention of declaring a shortage of cash to the proprietor on the expectation of being allowed the credit, that could be prosecuted as fraud because the credit is itself a gain (and a loss to the other), whether or not the intention was to pay for the fuel itself, eventually.

 

Section 5 of the Fraud Act specifies that "gain" and "loss" .. "include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;"

[postggj]

the key to your statement is intention to declare a shortage

 

say the bank rejects your card and you have no cash, thats not your fault at the end of the day

 

i can see no pecunary advantage in this

[raydetinu]

Most just take your name and address and you sign a declaration that you will return and pay within 7 days. Tesco and sainsbury anyway.

If you do not, then they resort to any other of collecting a debt, wite you a letter asking for payment then maybe take you to court.

[perplexity]

Sounds like an easy way to avoid an overdraft surcharge, before the pay cheque arrives at the end of a month.

 

Who else consents to credit on demand, for no fee or interest? This could catch on.

[Crapstone]

Where there is no 'intention' there is no fraud or any offence committed without the mens rea after the actus reus. Any claim after admitting the mistake, freely, is a tort and a civil matter.

 

Faced with the same I would quite happily leave my car at the pump as security, as my local one has a 2 hour parking limit across the site. I could easily get the the money within 5 minutes should I forget the cash, the cash machine fails or my card doesn't work. 2 hours is a long time to have their pump out of service, trade wise, if they chose to be awkward.

 

It's reasonable to ask for security but just as reasonable to deny it as the forms, cameras and data they have should be enough to prove the the ownership of the car and identify the person driving it. I would be asking Texaco what their protocol is in this type of situation and get it in writing.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Crapstone

[perplexity]

The suspicion would be that something ostensibly admitted as a mistake was in fact deliberate, not a genuine mistake.

 

It reminds me of Ken Dodd.

 

When charged with tax evasion his defence was that "Some accountants are comedians, but comedians are never accountants".

 

To convince a jury of as much as that, to be acquitted, the need is not only to make them laugh, but also to convey the impression of being especially absent minded about it.

[Crapstone]

The onus is on the offended party to prove that and given the facts, there is no avoidance or attempt to defraud. They can be as suspicious as they like but that does not mean a crime has or is being committed.

 

What on earth Ken Dodd has to do with it I have no idea as he instructed his accountant, who was a 3rd party, and it was over a period of time. Not a one off incident at a petrol station.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

To err is human and we can all be subject to that as well as situations beyond our control. You seem to bring a 'criminal' element into all your posts and read what is written rather than taking into account the spirit and the ethos that is behind it.

 

A person that had a problem with paying at a petrol station would not face a jury. You've got more chance of seeing Lord Lucan turning up riding Shergar.

[perplexity]

I point out the laws, as a matter of fact because it is otherwise obvious that the truth of what they state is widely ignored or underestimated.

 

I am also attempting to appreciate the point of view of the service station.

 

You tell me: Is a person who remembers to take a mobile phone but forgets to take a purse the sort of person you trust to repay a loan?

 

This is beside the point, but I am not so sure that a comedian with £336,000 in cash stashed in suitcases in his attic is the sort to have left it all to an accountant to manage.

 

It is a question of credibility.

[postggj]

we are still missing the point

 

if no deliberate intention of not paying has occured then its a civil matter

 

providing details have been exchanged then thats the end of the matter

 

for the petrol station to call the police and report theft would be very dangerous for the garage defamation etc

 

ITS ONLY A CRIMINAL MATTER IF YOU DRIVE OFF AND /OR HAVE NO INTENTION OF PAYING

[perplexity]

In the event of dishonesty the applicable legislation would be the Fraud Act 2006, not the Theft Act 1968, parts of which were repealed and replaced by the Fraud Act.

 

The Legal Guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service makes a fair job of explaining the present situation.

 

It is a qualified privilege to make a communication that is defamatory, where the person receiving the communication has a legitimate interest in doing so, to report a suspicion of crime to the Police for instance. This, therefore, is what a business ought to do, always, with a suspicion of dishonesty in mind.

 

There is no such privilege, however, if you turn up to an online forum to defame, a fact that those who do could well be more aware of, and a point that I often make.

 

That, however, is not what is happening here. I am merely pointing out that the temporary gain of deliberately delaying a payment for goods or services is enough to be covered by the terms of Section 5 of the Fraud Act

[Conniff]

This, therefore, is what a business ought to do, always, with a suspicion of dishonesty in mind.

 

So right, especially in the 21st century.

[caledfwlch]

we are still missing the point

 

if no deliberate intention of not paying has occured then its a civil matter

 

providing details have been exchanged then thats the end of the matter

 

for the petrol station to call the police and report theft would be very dangerous for the garage defamation etc

 

ITS ONLY A CRIMINAL MATTER IF YOU DRIVE OFF AND /OR HAVE NO INTENTION OF PAYING

 

This is correct I believe.

 

I worked for a company last year, where an employee tried to pay on a maxed out company credit card, knowing, it turns out full well it was maxed out - when she failed to return with the money after 24 hours, the Garage emailed the video footage to the employer and the police, and a police visit was made.

[perplexity]

I worked for a company last year, where an employee tried to pay on a maxed out company credit card, knowing, it turns out full well it was maxed out - when she failed to return with the money after 24 hours, the Garage emailed the video footage to the employer and the police, and a police visit was made.

 

Whether or not she returned and paid is beside the point. Prior to the Fraud Act 2006 there would have to be an actual gain, a theft, to count as fraud.

 

Since 15th January 2007 the offence of fraud is in the attempt.

 

If an offender has a change of heart and decides to pay, exchange details or watever else to make amends, that may mitigate but would not eliminate the offence which is indeed a question of intention. Whether or not a misrepresentation, omission or abuse of position is dishonest is eventually for a judge or jury to decide as a matter of common sense.

[Crapstone]

Whether or not she returned and paid is beside the point. Prior to the Fraud Act 2006 there would have to be an actual gain, a theft, to count as fraud.

 

Since 15th January 2007 the offence of fraud is in the attempt.

 

If an offender has a change of heart and decides to pay, exchange details or watever else to make amends, that may mitigate but would not eliminate the offence which is indeed a question of intention. Whether or not a misrepresentation, omission or abuse of position is dishonest is eventually for a judge or jury to decide as a matter of common sense.

 

This so off the original topic of a mistake being made according to the OP and any intention to defraud. A person cannot be classed as an 'offender' as they aren't guilty until proven otherwise.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Crapstone

[mattyprice4004]

A friend of mine called at the texaco petrol station this morning to fill up on her way to work. She went in to pay and realised that she had forgotten her purse and was unable to pay, the cashier asked if she had any items of value on her. She told him that she had her mobile in the car, the cashier took her mobile (blackberry curve ) and kept it until she returned with payment.

 

I was horrified by this and was curious to know if this was even legal? When it happened to me in the past all I had to do was leave my contact details.

 

Horrified? Sounds like you need something real to worry about....

[patdavies]

Perhaps you were lucky it was only a mobile; with the current price of fuel it will be the deeds to your house next....