Is it normal for fuel stations to display prices which includes a split of 60/40?

[Thepipdoc]

Having only just taken possession of my first diesel boat and even more recently decided to fill it up to the brim I was expecting the price displayed for the diesel (£1.00 per litre) to be reduced by whatever amount I chose to apportion for domestic use.
I've been taking note of what the tax man considers acceptable and was all geared up for paying something in the region of £0.85 per litre when a split of 60/40 was applied to fuel which was advertised at £1.00, and this was confirmed by the fuel pump attendant prior to commencing the filling process.
Only when I had completed filling both tanks with over 300 litres of diesel ( they were already half full before I started to fill them) and I entered the kiosk from where the payment was made, did it become apparent to both myself and the fuel attendant that a split of 60/40 had already been applied and that no further reduction to the advertised price of £1.00 would be made. This was made clear by a small sign in the kiosk which was sited about 10 metres away from the fuel pump(the point of sale).
It appears the fuel attendant was only filling in for the short staffed marina and he didn't normally do this particular job.
I duly paid the full amount having first of all made it clear that this was not expected and I wasn't happy.
On Monday I contacted the manager of the marina concerned and explained what had happened only to be told by him that they've "Always done that" and that they could display whatever price they chose.
I agreed that this may be the case but surely they should also make it very clear at the point of sale that whatever price is being displayed INCLUDES an apportionment for domestic fuel use. He disagreed and I’ve been left bemused by what appears to be an incident similar to that of highway (seaway!) robbery, only when Dick Turpin robbed passing travellers he wore a mask. It seems a shirt and tie is now the attire of the local pirate!
“What would have I paid if I didn’t wish to apply an amount for domestic fuel use”? I asked “You would have paid more than £1.00 per litre” I was informed.
This surely can’t be right can it?
Isn't this breach of contract?

 

[TrueBlue]

It's a matter of custom and practice -

To my mind it would have been more sensible to quote the price for "Red" fuel - which would make it much easier for people to calculate whatever split they were claiming.

But the industry has decided to adopt HMRC's suggested split, being in effect the modal price.

Some marinas have added a note in small print to say 60/40 split.

Even on the canal system where the split is more often (and justifiably) 40/60, or even 20/80 the "standard" rate is quoted.

All very confusing.

 

[rafiki_]

I can't comment on the legalities, but if it makes you feel any better, I paid £1.10 per litre a couple of weeks ago at Upton Marina.

 

[Philiz]

I wonder how much he sells it for to boaters who don't have diesel heating on board?

 

[benjenbav]

I don't think there's a uniform approach. This year I've bought marine diesel from outlets deplaying the price on a 60:40 split and others displaying the "red" price. The only display I can't say I've seen is at the full unrebated price.

 

[jfm]

To be honest I don't see what they've done wrong. The devil is in the detail of course but from your post it seems they advertised £1 per litre and charged that. If your point is that you struck a contract to buy fuel at a price of £1 adjusted by removing tax from 40% of it, then you'd have a point, but it's not clear that's what happened. It depends very precisely on what discussion you had with the pump attendant and whether it was reasonble for you to think that what he said was done with authority for the firm he was an employee of, bearing in mind there was a figure of £1 displayed and he wasn't the CEO. Devil is in the detail

 

[Thepipdoc]

To be honest I don't see what they've done wrong. The devil is in the detail of course but from your post it seems they advertised £1 per litre and charged that. If your point is that you struck a contract to buy fuel at a price of £1 adjusted by removing tax from 40% of it, then you'd have a point, but it's not clear that's what happened. It depends very precisely on what discussion you had with the pump attendant and whether it was reasonble for you to think that what he said was done with authority for the firm he was an employee of, bearing in mind there was a figure of £1 displayed and he wasn't the CEO. Devil is in the detail

Would you feel the same if you bought fuel and were not entitled to any rebate?
Let assume you arrived at the marina pump with £100 in your pocket and absolutely no other means of paying for 100 litres of fuel which was advertised at £1.00 per litre.
Lets assume you fill up with 100 litres and the fuel attendant then asks you to pay a sum greater than you expected to pay i.e. £120.00.
There’s no sign anywhere near the price board informing customers that duty had already been applied at the rate of 60/40 which is clearly indicated alongside the fuel pump that fuel is charged at £1.00 per litre.
The nearest sign stating that 60/40 split had been applied is 10m away on the wall of a small kiosk do not see until you have put your 100 litres of fuel in.
I suspect the average man in the street (or finger pontoon) would consider that unreasonable - and that’s my point. Getting a refund on the additional money I feel they have overcharged me is not my motivator here – getting this particular marina to see that what they are doing is wrong is.

 

[Searush]

FWIW, the canal shops (and garages) that sell red round my area (Midlands) quote a tax free price & add whatever tax you tell them to.

 

[l'escargot]

...I suspect the average man in the street (or finger pontoon) would consider that unreasonable - and that’s my point. Getting a refund on the additional money I feel they have overcharged me is not my motivator here – getting this particular marina to see that what they are doing is wrong is.

I suspect the average man in the street would be well aware that £1 a litre is not the standard (pre rebate price) price - if it were there would be a very long queue. At the end of the day you have not been "overcharged", you just didn't get the bargain you mistakenly thought you were getting.

 

[Thepipdoc]

I suspect the average man in the street would be well aware that £1 a litre is not the standard (pre rebate price) price - if it were there would be a very long queue. At the end of the day you have not been "overcharged", you just didn't get the bargain you mistakenly thought you were getting.

Just about every one of the comments so far clearly indicate that confusion reigns! Every one of the posters so far has a different experience and opinion.
If I hadn't been using this forum I certainly wouldn't know anything about diesel fuel being charged at whatever rate I decide (well up to a point I can decide)!

I've spoken to several men(and women) and they agree.

 

[jfm]

Let assume you arrived at the marina pump with £100 in your pocket and absolutely no other means of paying for 100 litres of fuel which was advertised at £1.00 per litre.
Lets assume you fill up with 100 litres and the fuel attendant then asks you to pay a sum greater than you expected to pay i.e. £120.00.

But that isn't what happened. You were charged £100, the advertised price. Not £120

The correct price isn't influenced by emotive factors like silly hypotheticals such as going boating with £100 in my pocket and no credit cards, and having to cry when you can't pay the bill. So cut that craap, and stick to the question of whether the fuel seller was wrong

The only basis upon which the fuel seller is in the wrong here is if you made a (proper enforceable) bargain with the pump guy that DESPITE the £1 advertised price there would be tax removed from the £1 for 40% of the fuel you bought, resulting in 85p (or whatever) per litre overall price. But whether such a bargain was actually made is a devil in the detail matter, and you don't give enough detail about your interaction with the pump guy

 

[Thepipdoc]

So cut that craap, and stick to the question of whether the fuel seller was wrong

Say what you mean why don't you?

The fuel attendant clearly confirmed to me prior to filling the tanks that tax would be taken off the advertised price of £1.00 and the marina accept that he said this, but simply state that he made a mistake.
At the point of convesring with fuel attendant surely I made a contract with the marina to purchase their fuel at a price less than the advertised price didn't I?

 

[jfm]

Say what you mean why don't you?

The fuel attendant clearly confirmed to me prior to filling the tanks that tax would be taken off the advertised price of £1.00 and the marina accept that he said this, but simply state that he made a mistake.
At the point of convesring with fuel attendant surely I made a contract with the marina to purchase their fuel at a price less than the advertised price didn't I?

Yup I was indeed saying what i mean. The tale about having only £100 in your pocket and being billed £120 was complete red herring stuff

Now in your second paragraph you have added the devil-in-detail that was missing. Yes indeed it seems you made a contract to buy at 85p. Your position is particularly strong in that the marina firm accepts their employee said what he said. (would be very helpful if that is email, not verbal, but if it's verbal make a contemporaneous note of who said it and when etc). I would say, based on those new facts, you're completely in the right and they owe you 15p per litre in change.

Tricky part is enforcing that as, no doubt, they will refuse to pay and generally stonewall you. It aint worth pursuing in court of course, cos it's too little money and waste of your time. At a practical level, your best bet if you have the stomach for it is go there with (using made up numbers - you substitute the correct figures) £85 in your pocket and no cr cards, then take on £100 worth of fuel, and hand them £85 cash and say the other £15 is paid by offset against the £15 they owe you. Offer to sign a deed of release from the £15 they owe you, if you want to be geeky, but perhaps not necessary. Make sure you have someone on your boat when you are in the kiosk, so thay cannot say they have posession of your boat, and ideally use your lines to tie up not theirs. This way they have no lien. They cannot stop you walking back to your boat and driving off. Leave your correct name and address and mobile number etc.

As a general point of uk law, if you owe me £15 and I owe you £40, I only have to give you £25 and we're quits. You cannot force me to hand over £40 to you. Unless my debt to you of £40 expressly states I may not exercise right of set off, but the T+Cs of a fuel dock wont contain such language I bet.

That said of course, you'll ever be able to refuel there again, Mr Blacklisted. But you'll get justice, and I reckon that's worth it

Good luck and tell us how it goes. Put the vid on youtube

 

[benjenbav]

Oh lordy pipdoc, you're taking me back to my law school days when I had to learn about incorporation of exclusion clauses in contracts, the law of mistake and so on. Believe me it's of head-exploding tedium and complexity. You're much better off even if you think you lost a few quid than having to meet my therapy bill for having to think about that stuff over again.

 

[jfm]

Oh lordy, you're taking me back to my law school days when I had to learn about incorporation of terms in contracts, the law of mistake and so on. Believe me it's of head exploding complexity. You're much better off even if you think you lost a few quid than having to meet my therapy bill for having to think about tht stuff over again.

BJB, my head is hurting too ref law school memories. But i reckon:

1. Fuel seller cannot say it was a mistake. The leading case is the one where someone contract to sell a million ounces of silver for a million quid but said it was a million KILOS, or something. The person who had got the silver dead cheap lost, because judge said the mistake was so obvious no-one could have thought the seller meant per Kilo. But if a fuel dock offers you fuel at 85/litre, that is not a gross mistake and John Doe can reasonbly beleive it is the right price. Ergo PipDoc wins

2. Then there is vicarious liability. If the pump jockey was "on a frolic of his own" as the judge put it, the fuel dock company can not be bound by/vicariously liable for what he said. But saying the fuel is 85p and that the £1 is adjusted by removing the tax on 40% of the fuel is not a gross error, so not a frolic of his own, so fuel company is vicarioulsy liable etc etc

So I reckon PipDoc is in the right here. (Pipdoc, that conclusion very much relies on your account of what happened being 100% accurate)

 

[Thepipdoc]

BJB, my head is hurting too ref law school memories. But i reckon:

1. Fuel seller cannot say it was a mistake. The leading case is the one where someone contract to sell a million ounces of silver for a million quid but said it was a million KILOS, or something. The person who had got the silver dead cheap lost, because judge said the mistake was so obvious no-one could have thought the seller meant per Kilo. But if a fuel dock offers you fuel at 85/litre, that is not a gross mistake and John Doe can reasonbly beleive it is the right price. Ergo PipDoc wins

2. Then there is vicarious liability. If the pump jockey was "on a frolic of his own" as the judge put it, the fuel dock company can not be bound by/vicariously liable for what he said. But saying the fuel is 85p and that the £1 is adjusted by removing the tax on 40% of the fuel is not a gross error, so not a frolic of his own, so fuel company is vicarioulsy liable etc etc

So I reckon PipDoc is in the right here. (Pipdoc, that conclusion very much relies on your account of what happened being 100% accurate)

Thanks for the very sound advice.
My account is as accurate as a few posts on this forum will allow.
I've had two conversations with the marina manager on thsi subject and he accepts that what I'm sying is true regarding the signage and the fuel attendant he still can't see that what he has done and is continuing to do is wrong.
The letter I've written to their head office might gee him up a bit and the impending visit from the Trading Standards people might just help.
I will of course report back the outcome.

 

[jfm]

Thanks for the very sound advice.
My account is as accurate as a few posts on this forum will allow.
I've had two conversations with the marina manager on thsi subject and he accepts that what I'm sying is true regarding the signage and the fuel attendant he still can't see that what he has done and is continuing to do is wrong.
The letter I've written to their head office might gee him up a bit and the impending visit from the Trading Standards people might just help.
I will of course report back the outcome.

You are going to do the hit and run though, aren't you? Trading standards is way too civilised. Look, I'll even volunteer to come with you when you hand over the £255 cash for £300 of fuel

Do make detailed contemporaneous note of your conversations with marina manager. Handwritten is fine, but contemporaneous is important. To avoid us going to jail following the hit and run, I mean

 

[benjenbav]

BJB, my head is hurting too ref law school memories. But i reckon:

1. Fuel seller cannot say it was a mistake. The leading case is the one where someone contract to sell a million ounces of silver for a million quid but said it was a million KILOS, or something. The person who had got the silver dead cheap lost, because judge said the mistake was so obvious no-one could have thought the seller meant per Kilo. But if a fuel dock offers you fuel at 85/litre, that is not a gross mistake and John Doe can reasonbly beleive it is the right price. Ergo PipDoc wins

2. Then there is vicarious liability. If the pump jockey was "on a frolic of his own" as the judge put it, the fuel dock company can not be bound by/vicariously liable for what he said. But saying the fuel is 85p and that the £1 is adjusted by removing the tax on 40% of the fuel is not a gross error, so not a frolic of his own, so fuel company is vicarioulsy liable etc etc

So I reckon PipDoc is in the right here. (Pipdoc, that conclusion very much relies on your account of what happened being 100% accurate)

I'm with you on this one. If pipdoc said something like, "I'm claiming a 60:40 split so it'll be less than the price on the sign won't it?" and the marina guy said "yes" then it's pretty clear what the contract is.

If I was arguing it from the marina's point of view (assuming they wanted to stick to their guns and alienate a customer who would otherwise perhaps spend 100x the cost of making him happy now over the course of the next year) I would say: you can't have possibly have believed the full price was £1 cos you drive a car and every day you go past 15 fuel stations selling at £1.20 and no way could you imagine we can undercut Tesco by 15%.

 

[l'escargot]

Just about every one of the comments so far clearly indicate that confusion reigns! Every one of the posters so far has a different experience and opinion.
If I hadn't been using this forum I certainly wouldn't know anything about diesel fuel being charged at whatever rate I decide (well up to a point I can decide)!

I've spoken to several men(and women) and they agree.

Then they clearly do not fill up very often or pay much attention to fuel prices. I bet if you asked a random group of people what the price of a litre of diesel was many would give you a figure of about £1.20 a litre and I would be surprised if many gave you a figure of 80p a litre.

You can't get away from the fact that you were charged the correct price. On that basis I think it unlikely that trading standards will be that interested.

 

[jfm]

You can't get away from the fact that you were charged the correct price. On that basis I think it unlikely that trading standards will be that interested.

But hang on L'escargot. There is no "correct" here. It isn't a maths exam. The question is what are the rights and duties of the 2 parties in contract. I would say PipDoc had a contractual obligation to pay 85p and should have been charged only that

I agree however that TS wont be interested. This is not of a generic enough type of problem for them. They'll see it as a private dsipute outside their remit

Which brings me back to rocking up with £255 in pocket and buying £300 of fuel, as the only workable solution