Motorists across the UK are raising the alarm over what they describe as aggressive and unjust accusations of fuel theft, leading to hefty fines and widespread bans from filling stations. The controversy centres on a security firm whose evidence, critics say, is often limited to a single photograph.
A Family's 19-Month Forecourt Ban
Amjad Khan and his wife Nasim from Blackburn faced an impossible situation for over a year and a half. After filling up at an Esso petrol station in Manchester in July 2023, they were accused of driving off without paying for £20.01 worth of fuel. Amjad Khan, 58, was adamant he had paid in cash.
Despite his protests, the couple received a letter from VARS Technology, a company providing security and debt recovery services to around one in eight UK forecourts. The letter demanded payment of the fuel cost plus a £30 administration fee, totalling £50.01. When they refused to pay a debt they disputed, the consequences were severe.
Their car was added to a watchlist, barring them from refuelling at more than 1,300 petrol stations using VARS Technology's system. Nasim Khan described the experience as deeply "embarrassing," saying an alarm would sound "as if there was an armed raid" whenever they drove onto a participating forecourt. The restriction was so concerning it prevented them from visiting their son in London, over 200 miles away, for fear of being stranded without fuel.
Flawed Evidence and a Collapsed Court Case
The couple's battle to clear their name revealed what they claim are critical flaws in the evidence against them. Amjad Khan repeatedly requested full video footage from the petrol station and VARS Technology but says he never received it. Instead, during a small claims mediation hearing in 2024, the company presented a still image from its Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera showing him dispensing fuel, alongside a handwritten note from a forecourt employee.
Khan argued the timeline "made no sense." The employee's note stated he drove off at 10.28pm, yet the ANPR image timestamp showed him still at the pump at 10.31pm. Despite this discrepancy, the case escalated. A debt recovery firm, DCBL, later demanded £140.01, and the couple were summoned to Burnley Combined Court Centre for a hearing in February 2025.
However, when they arrived at court, they discovered VARS Technology had discontinued the claim, offering no further explanation. The Khans described their 19-month ordeal as dealing with a company that was "intimidating, aggressive and having zero customer support."
A Wider Pattern of Complaints
The Khan family's experience is not isolated. On consumer review platforms like Trustpilot, numerous individuals have accused VARS Technology of wrongfully issuing fuel theft debts, often with no evidence beyond a still photo of them at the pump.
One such case involves Angela Binns, 59, who was pursued for a debt after allegedly not paying for fuel at an Esso in Leeds in May 2024—despite having a bank statement proving the transaction. Her husband, Mark King, sent the evidence to VARS Technology during the appeals process, but the company continued to pursue the debt through collectors. "They just steamrolled on," King said. The stress led the couple to pay DCBL just to "move on from it."
Adding weight to these complaints, a former employee of VARS Technology told the Guardian that the company's ANPR software was "terrible" and that issues with it had been known since 2023.
Company Response and Industry Impact
VARS Technology, which serves major operators like Asda and EG Group, strongly defended its systems. A spokesperson said: "We completely refute the suggestion that our market-leading ANPR system is unreliable," calling the former employee's claim "false and unsubstantiated."
The company stated its system holds Police Preferred Specification accreditation and is trusted by thousands of stations to combat drive-offs, which pose a "significant threat" to often small, family-run forecourt businesses. They acknowledged that disputed incidents are "rare" and said they "make every effort to resolve them promptly and fairly."
The row highlights the tension between essential security measures for businesses and the rights of consumers, who can face life-disrupting penalties based on evidence they argue is frequently insufficient or incorrect. For drivers like the Khans, the fight for accountability continues long after the pump handle has been put back.
