ForeCourt Eye

[BankFodder]

Sorry, but this is all sheer nonsense.

 

The theft act 1968 section 1 says that theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.

 

There is no dishonesty here and there is no intention to make any permanent deprivation. The facts speak for themselves the evidence is clear.

 

Because of the problem of people going off without paying for their petrol and then later on saying that they intended to pay, section 3 of the theft act 1978 was passed which creates the offence of "making off without payment"

 

Once again, it is very clear that there has to be an intention to avoid paying.

 

The evidence is clear here that the OP tried to pay and was prevented from doing so. The garage are not entitled to refuse payment. I don't know who these new bounty hunters are – FCE - frankly you should tell them to go and do one.

 

In respect of the posts which I have quoted above, I apologise because generally speaking the quality of advice that you get on this forum is much better than this.

[BankFodder]

I haven't bothered to follow those links but if they merely appear to confirm what you are saying then they are talking rubbish. The one that you have quoted above in an earlier post is extremely generalised and frankly misleading. It's honestly written by a policeman and not somebody who understands the law.

 

Our police are excellent and they do an excellent job but they need guidance on the law and you should not treat them as an authority.

[BankFodder]

I don't think he said he had no intention of paying for the fuel?

 

From what the OP has told us, that is very clearly the case. He has gone to reasonable lengths to pay the money and if they refuse payment then that is their lookout.

 

It doesn't mean that he stops showing it to them. He does. He should be careful to make sure that the money is in the bank to cover the cheque or the for some other reason it doesn't bounce. He could then be liable for a civil claim where he would lose and he would also find themselves liable for the claimant's costs.

 

I don't think there's anything more he could easily do. Mind you he ought to sort himself out and be a bit more careful about these kinds of things in the future. You can see the knock-on problems that this causes for everyone concerned.

[BankFodder]

Absolutely correct. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.