Forecourt Eye - Foisted Contract?

[Anus Horribilis]

I've noticed this sign displayed in a few petrol stations recently, and would be interested in other member's views.

 

Although I appreciate the problem of no-pay drive-aways, I don't think this is a proper or lawful way to address it.

 

The purported 'contract' is badly written in a google-translate legal style, and in parts makes no sense at all.

 

 

I dislike the hectoring tone, and the use of a Police image to imply official endorsement.

 

 

And I don't think that the display of this notice creates a contract with effect or enforceability anyway.

 

Firstly because there is no acceptance.

I do not believe they can foist a contractual duty upon customers by simply displaying a sign.

 

 

I could put a sign in my car window say

"any fuel I buy will be priced at 1p per litre, please do not supply fuel if you do not accept these terms",

but no court would uphold it.

 

Secondly,

the alleged parties to the alleged contract are not clearly stated

(at the bottom of the notice there is a bizarre, rambling phrase which amounts to nothing).

 

 

Who exactly am I contracting with here?

They appear to imply that this is a separate contract to the retail purchase of fuel, but the terms are wholly unclear.

 

And following from above,

if this is separate to my purchase of fuel then there is no consideration involved.

 

 

The author of the poster appears to dimly perceive that problem,

and purports that the customer receives value by being granted various options for payment (astonishing nonsense).

 

The end purpose of this exercise is that if one day I forget my wallet, or my credit card won't work in the POS terminal, they want me to pay a penalty.

 

 

This has happened to me twice in nearly 40yrs of driving, and on both occasions I have left my name and address and returned later to pay the cost of the drawn fuel 'over the counter'.

 

 

I have no intention of accepting any other arrangement, and I would not accept this process being foisted upon me.

 

So that's my opinion, would be interested in what others think?

Edited February 4, 2017 by Anus Horribilis
corrected title

[dx100uk]

load of BS me thinks.

 

 

dx

[sameagle]

Perhaps the private car parks racketeers are feeling the pinch, so they are chancing their arms elsewhere?

 

Sam

[silverfox1961]

Perhaps the private car parks racketeers are feeling the pinch, so they are chancing their arms elsewhere?

 

Sam

Methinks you may be correct.

 

Gary Deegan is a director of Network Eye and this company is under 2 years old. He is a director of Parking Plus Ltd. and UKCPS

 

I feel these signs have no official standing.

In the event of a deliberate drive off, the police can take action but I fail to see how Forecourt Eye can do the same. I wonder if the fact the director is a member of a relevant ATA, they get automatic access to the DVLA database but by doing so will put them in breach of the requirements of their codes of practice.

[Crofty1985]

Too our knowledge they run several companies from the same building sharing information on people and cars ( not allowed) according to companies house a nicholas fisher is also a director of both facewatch and forecourteye so are they also sharing images of facial recognition too sounds fishy to us. This is all run by ukcps car parking too our information received...contact the forecourts they run from and boycott them as this will hurt them so will then get rid of the cowboys.

[BankFodder]

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491618-ForeCourt-Eye&p=5164561#post5164561