Petrol station fined me £90 after the attendant forgot to charge me for fuel. Must I pay it? DEAN DUNHAM replies

I filled my car with petrol, and bought two items of confectionery when I went to pay.

After checking my bank statement, it appears the attendant only charged for the confectionery, which I didn’t notice at the time.

I am being chased to pay for the fuel, which I am happy to do; but also a charge of about £90, which I’m refusing to pay.

Dean Dunham replies: You are right to pay for the fuel and right to dig your heels in over the rest, so let me explain why your instinct is sound.

You took petrol and haven’t paid for it, so morally and legally you owe that money. The key point in your favour is intent.

The offence of making off without payment requires you to have dishonestly left knowing payment was due.

A petrol station operator has fined a reader £90 after the attendant only charged them for confectionary and not fuel

You tried to pay, but the attendant’s error meant only the sweets were charged, and you didn’t realise. That’s an honest mistake, so you’re correct to settle the fuel bill promptly. This also removes any suggestion of wrongdoing.

Turning to the £90 ‘fine’, there is a crucial distinction. A petrol station is a private company, and a private company cannot issue you a fine.

Only a court of law can do that. What they’re really doing is adding an administrative charge, and demanding money on top of the fuel cost.

The question is whether they’re legally entitled to levy such a charge. The answer lies in contract law. A charge like this is only enforceable if you genuinely agreed to it and it reflects a reasonable, proportionate pre-estimate of the company’s actual costs.

A £90 sum bolted onto a simple forecourt error, caused partly by their attendant, looks difficult to justify.

The courts are generally hostile to penalty charges that are disproportionate to the real administrative cost of recovering the money.

Pay the fuel in full, immediately and in writing, making clear it was an honest mistake. Expressly dispute the £90 as an unenforceable penalty, and invite them to justify how the figure was calculated.

If they persist, don’t be intimidated by threatening letters. The fuel you owe; the inflated charge you can properly challenge.

Members of my family are buried in our local cemetery.

Each summer, the council hires a firm to cut the grass and they damage the headstones with their machinery.

This is upsetting and as the marble is badly chipped I face having to pay for repairs. The council refuses to accept liability.

I’ve complained and sent a notice of my intent to pursue legal action, but nothing has worked. What are my legal rights please?

Dean Dunham replies: This is a particularly distressing situation for you but the council’s blanket refusal to accept liability does not reflect where the law actually stands. The key legal principle here is negligence.

The council, through the contractor it hires, owes a duty to take reasonable care when working around the headstones.

If its machinery is repeatedly chipping and damaging your family’s memorials, that points to careless work falling below the standard reasonably expected.

Where damage is caused by such negligence, the responsible party is liable to put it right or pay for the repairs.

An organisation that engages a firm to carry out work on its land generally remains responsible for ensuring that work is done with reasonable care.

So ‘it wasn’t us, it was the grass-cutting firm’ is not the defence the council may think it is.

There’s an important point on ownership too. Although the cemetery land belongs to the council, the headstone remains the property of your family.

That means the damage is to your property, and you have a direct right to claim for its repair.

Gather your evidence: dated photographs of the damage, ideally showing it worsening each summer after the cutting, plus quotes from a stonemason for the repair cost. Put a formal claim in writing, holding the council liable in negligence and requesting reimbursement.

If they continue to refuse, this is a straightforward matter for the small claims court, which is designed for exactly this kind of modest, well-evidenced claim. No solicitor is needed.

Do you have a legal question for Dean Dunham? Email d.dunham@dailymail.co.uk, with brief details of your question or problem.

No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail and This is Money for answers given.

> Read all of our consumer rights expert Dean Dunham’s previous columns

Affiliate links: If you take out a product This is Money may earn a commission. These deals are chosen by our editorial team, as we think they are worth highlighting. This does not affect our editorial independence. Terms and conditions apply on all offers.