Consumer Rights Expert Addresses Reader Queries on Petrol Station Charges and Cemetery Damage

Consumer rights expert Dean Dunham has provided guidance to readers on two separate issues: a petrol station's attempt to charge an additional fee for an attendant's error and a council's alleged damage to family gravestones.

In the first case, a reader reported filling their car with petrol and purchasing confectionery, only to discover later that the attendant had charged them solely for the sweets. The reader is willing to pay for the fuel but disputes a subsequent £90 charge, which they refer to as a fine. Dunham explained that the reader is correct to pay for the fuel, as the intent was to pay, and the oversight was an honest mistake by the attendant. He clarified that private companies cannot issue fines; only a court can impose such penalties. The £90 charge is likely an administrative fee, which may not be legally enforceable unless the reader explicitly agreed to it and it represents a reasonable pre-estimate of the company's actual costs. Dunham advises the reader to pay the fuel bill immediately and in writing, while also disputing the £90 charge as an unenforceable penalty and requesting justification for the amount. He cautioned against being intimidated by threatening letters, asserting that the reader owes the fuel cost but can legally challenge the inflated charge.

In the second scenario, a reader complained that council-hired grass-cutting contractors repeatedly damaged family gravestones with their machinery, leading to chipped marble and repair costs. The council has refused to accept liability. Dunham stated that the council owes a duty of care to take reasonable precautions when working around headstones. If machinery is causing damage, it suggests negligent work that falls below a reasonably expected standard. The party responsible for such negligence is liable for repairs or the cost thereof. He further noted that a council cannot evade responsibility by blaming the contractor it hired, as it remains accountable for ensuring the work is performed with reasonable care. Dunham also pointed out that while the land belongs to the council, the headstone remains the property of the family, meaning the damage is to their property. He recommended gathering evidence, such as dated photographs of the damage and repair quotes from a stonemason, and submitting a formal claim in writing. If the council continues to refuse, the matter can be pursued in a small claims court without the need for a solicitor.