Tesco are trying to win back customers by offering 3p per litre of
petrol/diesel for any clubcard customer when you spend 'any' amount in a
Tesco Store, like the spend £50 & get 5p per litre off

I wonder how many will take them up on their offer or use Shell/BP?

--

A C

http://AbbeyCross.co.uk

Delete SPAM to Reply

"A C" <newsSPAM (AT) abbeycross (DOT) co.uk> wrote

Me for a start, but then again, driving an old fashioned diesel, sillystuff
in the fuel wasn't an issue...

For added comedy value see....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/6423923.stm



Tom

Strange, it cost him £3400 to get his van repaired but only won £2690 ??

I wish I could have seen the Manager/ess's face when the Bailiff's turned up
& stated that they would seize goods to a value of £60k

I wonder if they used their current lawyers for the court case?
GAB Robins (http://www.gabrobins.com) who are dealing with all these massive
repair bills

--

A C

http://AbbeyCross.co.uk

Delete REMOVE to Reply

"A C" <newsgroups (AT) REMOVEabbeycross (DOT) co.uk> wrote


Bob

"A C" <newsgroups (AT) REMOVEabbeycross (DOT) co.uk> wrote

To try to limit liability and push you into accepting, Tesco would have paid
25 percent into the court before the hearing.

Mrcheerful

"A C" <newsSPAM (AT) abbeycross (DOT) co.uk> wrote

I'm never going to use Tesco's petrol again. It's not that the fuel was
contaminated, as I'm sure it was a genuine accident, but is was the way
Tesco's denied that their fuel was contaminated. They argued that their
experts had tested the fuel and found no contaminats. But they did a quick
u-turn when it was proved by Trading Standards a few days later.

ABC wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6406801.stm

"Both Tesco and Morrisons said they had carried out tests but had been
unable to find any problems with their fuel."

"Vopak, a fuel distribution company with a depot in Essex, said it was
checking that it was not to blame."

"Verifications are continuing. At this moment we have not established
any deviation from normal procedures.""

They're honest statements to me - especially considering everything was
centred on excess ethanol at that point. They've tested their fuel and
been unable to find any problems. I'm sure every litre of petrol from
every retailer out there has some form of contaminant in it - probably
at very low quantities, so low it makes no difference. The range of
possible contaminants is pretty large. As pointed out after the fact:
"The firm which refined the fuel, Harvest Energy, has said it will now
routinely test for the presence of silicon in unleaded petrol, something
it didn't do before, because silicon would not normally be found in the
fuel." <http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=224383>

Should they now also test for chlorine? How about uranium? Maybe even
a bit of calcium?

The way I see it is that they tested it using their routine tests and
couldn't find a problem. Think about the number of litres of petrol
sold each year and that there hasn't been a case of this happening
before. You cannot routinely test every litre of fuel for every
possible contaminant. From now on though, I suspect every fuel refiner
will be testing for silicon, and possibly many other possible cross
contaminants. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

For me though, I'm going to continue using Tesco petrol. I get more mpg
out of their fuel than I do from Shell and Tesco don't clone my credit
card when I pay - unlike my local Shell garage which caught 6 people I
personally know, costing them each over £1500 (which admittedly they got
back, but in one case, not the overdraft interest!!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4980190.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/6334671.stm

David

David Hearn wrote:

That's what mass spectrometers are for surely? I wouldn't have thought that
it hard to run some though a MA and spot an unusual spike.

That seems a bit daft in retrospect when there was so much evidence builing
up that there *was* a problem with the fuel. Just testing the fuel to see
if it met the appropriate specifications using "routine tests" is no way to
look for a contaminant.

Tim

Tim Downie wrote:
But when the suggested contaminant (ethanol) was one of the things they
routinely tested for it doesn't seem so daft, especially considering the
number of cars which fuel up from them and the low proportion of cars
which had a problem.

Whilst a high number of cars were affected, I think it's probably a low
proportion of cars which visited Tesco petrol stations. I used one of
the apparently affected ones around the same time (11 days ago), drive a
Peugeot with ECU etc, yet haven't had a problem, nor noticed any change
in my fuel consumption. Yet the press were claiming that Peugeot were
one of the affected cars.

I doubt Shell or any other retailer would have done much different with
regard to admitting fault. I very much doubt that Tesco would have
continued selling petrol which they had internally *proved* to be
contaminated. Belief is one thing, proof is another.

D