No wonder forecourt operators feel let down by the justice system. Just weeks after our exclusive investigation found few police forces have successfully pursued – or bother to pursue – incidents of so-called drive-offs, our latest straw poll of retailers reveals that around one in three don’t bother to report such crimes to the authorities.
It is a state of affairs some might say reflects a wider disillusionment with the ability of the police and the courts to tackle non-violent crime, whether that be shoplifting, casual vandalism, fly-tipping, domestic burglaries, or driving off without paying for fuel. Overstressed police forces lack the resources to investigate such misdemeanours, and businesses and the wider public realise contacting them will only involve time and hassle – and without resolution.
Many forecourt operators wearily regard drive-offs, along with shop theft, as ‘shrinkage’, accepting that each year a proportion of their profits will be lost to crime. Tragic cases such as that of petrol station worker Srisankar Subramanian, left with life-changing injuries after he tried to stop a teenager driving off without paying for fuel, mean employers are unlikely to encourage staff to confront wrongdoers directly.
Aside from incidents such as that of Subramanian – for which the offender has just received a custodial sentence – most drive-offs are non-violent. But to describe them as victimless is a mistake. The operator – usually an independent retailer rather than a large oil company – is very much a victim, paying for the crime in depleted revenue and profits. Indirectly, so too is the consumer, to whom those losses will inevitably be passed in the form of higher prices.
But there is a wider malaise at play. The inability or unwillingness of police forces to pursue most drive-offs goes beyond forecourt crime, depressingly. Successive governments have for decades underfunded the police and justice system. And when those inclined to commit casual theft or vandalism perceive that they are unlikely to be caught, prosecuted, and punished – or even reported – there is little in the way of deterrence.
We can look across the Atlantic for an amplification of how top-down attitudes to ‘crime creep’ can have a dramatic effect on society. In the 1990s, zero-tolerance policies by former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani – who saw graffiti and murder as part of the “same continuum” – were credited with having a dramatic effect on reducing the amount of ‘minor’ crime. Meanwhile, in cities such as San Francisco and Oakland in recent years, a hands-off approach has been blamed for soaring incidents of shop theft.
While we can all as an industry shrug our shoulders and blame ineffectual policing and a lacklustre justice system for the rise in forecourt crime, including drive-offs, that is the wrong approach. Retailers can play their part by lobbying their local representatives and writing to chief constables, police and crime commissioners, and their MP to stress the impact such incidents have on their businesses, and demanding tougher responses.
However, operators can also continue to report every single drive-off. Even if their faith in a successful outcome is low, they should ensure it goes on the record. Forecourt Trader will continue to monitor police responses, naming and shaming constabularies who do least to tackle crime in our sector. To do that effectively, though, we need to make sure authorities are aware of the scale of the problem.
So, go on, ensure the police know about it every time someone drives off without paying. After all, it’s your livelihood. And it’s their job.
