Non payment of fuel
Discussion
vaud said:
Chris32345 said:
You can get cash only cards that can't used for transactions
^^ this. You can get ATM only cards.Breadvan72 said:
I am not sure that all that many of us are terribly interested in the ownership structures of Jet garages.
The document is silly in two ways. First it makes an ineffective threat to charge someone who drives off without paying or leaving their details an uncertain figure. Then it says that if you fill in the form you may get a reduced charge. Reduced from what? The only charge due is the charge for the petrol, and I do not suppose that it is proposed to offer discounts to people who forget ther wallets.
Whilst I bow to your legal knowledge - I do feel it a little unfair for a business to be judged on the actions of an individual site that is only associated with them as they are the fuel supplier. It's like saying you're going to avoid all Spar shops because one individual applies a policy you don't like.The document is silly in two ways. First it makes an ineffective threat to charge someone who drives off without paying or leaving their details an uncertain figure. Then it says that if you fill in the form you may get a reduced charge. Reduced from what? The only charge due is the charge for the petrol, and I do not suppose that it is proposed to offer discounts to people who forget ther wallets.
Secondly - whilst the notice may be utterly useless from a legal perspective, if it deters just a few scrotes per week from driving off or playing the civil recovery game by telling the cashier they forgot their payment, then it has been effective.
This reminds me of my dim and distant memories of criminal law at university.
There was a time before a certain piece of law was brought in that meant that under certain circumstances, you could not be prosecuted for driving off without paying for fuel. You arrived at the petrol station and fully intended to draw petrol and pay for it. You filled your tank and only after filling it you realised you hadn't brought your wallet. At this point, you then made the decision to drive off without paying.
Apparently, you couldn't be prosecuted because there was no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. At the time of taking the petrol, there was no intention to steal it. When the intention to steal it was formed, there was no physical theft as the petrol was already in your tank.
Some of the finer details maybe wrong as this was decades ago. Breadvan may be able to confirm or deny this...
There was a time before a certain piece of law was brought in that meant that under certain circumstances, you could not be prosecuted for driving off without paying for fuel. You arrived at the petrol station and fully intended to draw petrol and pay for it. You filled your tank and only after filling it you realised you hadn't brought your wallet. At this point, you then made the decision to drive off without paying.
Apparently, you couldn't be prosecuted because there was no coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. At the time of taking the petrol, there was no intention to steal it. When the intention to steal it was formed, there was no physical theft as the petrol was already in your tank.
Some of the finer details maybe wrong as this was decades ago. Breadvan may be able to confirm or deny this...
You are correct - good memory!
Here is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Here is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Breadvan72 said:
You are correct - good memory!
Here is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Making off also covers making off from taxi rides and other services where services are obtained up frontHere is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Theft Act 1978 Sec 3
"... a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is
required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and
with intent to avoid payment of the amount due."
Bigends said:
Breadvan72 said:
You are correct - good memory!
Here is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Making off also covers making off from taxi rides and other services where services are obtained up frontHere is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Theft Act 1978 Sec 3
"... a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is
required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and
with intent to avoid payment of the amount due."
Ice cream men.
Artisan hipster street food vendors on Borough Market.
Hookers.
james_gt3rs said:
I can't understand how someone could live without a bank card 
How do you pay for things like car insurance, phoning the bank and arranging transfers or something?
There are many folk out there who are 'cash only'. Maybe the odd cheque or two, but mainly it's readies. How do you pay for things like car insurance, phoning the bank and arranging transfers or something?The Spruce Goose said:
james_gt3rs said:
I can't understand how someone could live without a bank card How do you pay for things like car insurance, phoning the bank and arranging transfers or something?
Benny Hill kept his money under his mattress. How do you pay for things like car insurance, phoning the bank and arranging transfers or something?KungFuPanda said:
Bigends said:
Breadvan72 said:
You are correct - good memory!
Here is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Making off also covers making off from taxi rides and other services where services are obtained up frontHere is the CPS note on the subject. The starting point is that theft under the Theft Act 1968 requires dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent permanently to deprive that other of the property. The CPS say:-
The property must belong to another at the time of appropriation.
In most cases this will not be an issue. However, it may arise where the legal ownership of the property has passed before payment is required. The most common instances are where someone consumes a meal in a restaurant and leaves without paying the bill or refuels a car and drives off from a service station without making payment.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant dishonestly formed the intention not to pay for the food or fuel before consuming/taking it there is no problem with charging an offence of theft – the property belonged to another when the dishonest appropriation took place.
The problem arises where the defendant only formed the dishonest intention not to pay for the property after it was consumed/taken. In such circumstances the property does not ‘belong to another’ when the dishonest intention is formed and there is therefore no theft. (Even if the dishonest intention was in fact formed before the act, it is often difficult to prove this).
See Edwards v Ddin [1976] 1 WLR 942. See also Corcoran v Whent [1977] Crim LR 52.
This situation was rectified by the creation of the offence of making off without payment in the Theft Act 1978.
Theft Act 1978 Sec 3
"... a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is
required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and
with intent to avoid payment of the amount due."
Ice cream men.
Artisan hipster street food vendors on Borough Market.
Hookers.
Bigends said:
Street vendors and Ice cream sellers are just mobile or temparary shops - not restaurants - its their choice if they hand the goodies over to you before payment. Leg it off with your food or ice cream before paying - simple theft. Hooker - yes maybe depending on the t's and c's quoted up front
The 1978 provision is not limited to restaurants - it applies to any sale where payment on the spot is expected, so the aggrieved Mr Whippy and pop-up hipster Avo-toast vendor are covered. As for Miss Whippy, I have never persuaded her to give credit, but maybe she does special deals for the Constabulary. BertBert said:
nonsequitur said:
There are many folk out there who are 'cash only'. Maybe the odd cheque or two, but mainly it's readies.
But how do you pay for your car insurance?Probably other options as well. Of course not all payment methods will be accepted by all insurance companies, but there's certainly more than one way to pay for car insurance.
JM said:
BertBert said:
nonsequitur said:
There are many folk out there who are 'cash only'. Maybe the odd cheque or two, but mainly it's readies.
But how do you pay for your car insurance?Probably other options as well. Of course not all payment methods will be accepted by all insurance companies, but there's certainly more than one way to pay for car insurance.
I guess that's getting pretty rare nowadays though.
james_gt3rs said:
I can't understand how someone could live without a bank card How do you pay for things like car insurance, phoning the bank and arranging transfers or something?
He gets the cash from his mum, who also pays for everything? How do you pay for things like car insurance, phoning the bank and arranging transfers or something?And of course you cannot generally withdraw cash from a bank nowadays without a card and PIN,.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff