In a dramatic turn of events, a family from Blackburn has found themselves barred from over 1,000 petrol stations across the UK for more than a year, following accusations of fuel theft. The incident has sparked a heated debate over the practices of a leading petrol station security company accused of issuing “false” debts.
Amjad Khan and his family were prohibited from refueling at numerous petrol stations after an incident at an Esso station in Manchester. Khan was accused of leaving without paying for £20.01 worth of fuel. The security company, VARS Technology, which operates at one in eight UK petrol stations, demanded payment from Nasim Khan, the registered owner of the vehicle, including a £30 administrative fee, totaling £50.01.
The Dispute and Its Impact
Amjad Khan, 58, maintains that he paid the amount in cash, leading to a prolonged 19-month dispute with VARS Technology. During this period, the family’s vehicle was effectively blacklisted from over 1,300 petrol stations equipped with the company’s security systems, severely impacting their mobility.
Nasim Khan described the ordeal as “embarrassing,” recounting how alarms would sound as if there was “an armed raid” whenever they entered a forecourt. The situation was so dire that the family avoided visiting their son in London, fearing they would be stranded without fuel.
Efforts to Prove Innocence
Amjad Khan sought video evidence from VARS Technology and the petrol station to substantiate his claim of payment but was unsuccessful. Instead, the family received a demand from a debt recovery firm, DCBL, for £140.01, with threats of legal action if unpaid.
In a small claims mediation session, VARS Technology presented a still image from their ANPR camera and a handwritten note by a forecourt employee as evidence. However, inconsistencies in the timeline, with the note stating a departure time of 10:28 PM and the image showing fuel dispensing at 10:31 PM, cast doubt on the company’s claims.
Despite their efforts, the Khans were summoned to court, only to find that VARS Technology had withdrawn their claim before the hearing. Throughout the ordeal, they described the company as “intimidating and aggressive,” with little customer support.
Wider Implications and Reactions
The Khans are not alone in their frustration. Numerous individuals have voiced similar grievances against VARS Technology on platforms like Trustpilot, accusing the company of issuing wrongful debts with scant evidence beyond a still photo.
Angela Binns, another motorist, faced a similar situation in Leeds, despite having bank statements proving payment. Her husband, Mark King, criticized the company’s handling of their appeal, which led them to reluctantly settle the debt to alleviate stress and anxiety.
“They just steamrolled on to debt collection and should have stopped the process as soon as they received the appeal,” said King. “This has had a huge impact on my wife, to the point she can’t even talk about it without getting stressed.”
Company’s Defense and Industry Concerns
An ex-employee of VARS Technology has criticized the company’s ANPR software, calling it “terrible” and citing it as a known issue since 2023. However, VARS Technology has robustly defended its system.
“We completely refute the suggestion that our market-leading ANPR system is unreliable,” a spokesperson for VARS Technology stated. “The system is trusted by thousands of petrol stations to protect them against the growing issue of drive-offs.”
The company emphasized its role in supporting small, family-owned businesses where fuel theft poses a significant threat. They claim to handle thousands of fuel recovery claims weekly, with incidents like those involving the Khans being rare exceptions.
Looking Forward
This controversy highlights the challenges faced by both consumers and businesses in the era of automated security systems. While companies like VARS Technology play a crucial role in protecting businesses from theft, the potential for errors and the impact on innocent individuals cannot be overlooked.
As the Khans move on from their ordeal, the broader industry may need to reassess the balance between security measures and customer rights, ensuring that technological solutions do not inadvertently penalize those they are meant to protect.
