Mr. Dermott Jewell:

I thank the committee for its invitation. We are pleased to be present and appreciate the opportunity to contribute on what is a significant, serious and detrimental issue for many consumers and citizens. I am joined by our chairperson, Mr. O'Rourke. While we have not received a large number of complaints, we have received a significant number of inquiries from consumers frustrated over whom they should approach to find recompense for or resolution to problems that they subsequently found owed to petrol stretching. The difficulty is that while there is a good degree of anecdotal evidence relating to numbers and areas, predominantly along the Border and in Mayo and Galway, we are receiving inquiries from other pockets around the country, which is confusing. We have been relying too much on anecdotal evidence. I understand doing this to some degree, but Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Garda are also involved. As of December 2014, the Garda still had 308 official complaints open in respect of this issue. In view of this, it is possible to see how ascertaining greater detail will probably happen in time.

The average cost to a consumer is in the region of €3,500 to €4,000, but more in some cases of which we have heard, and a small number of cases are outside the insurance coverage that has been suggested at this meeting. This amounts to a consumer loss of more than €1.5 million, which is significant.

In terms of consumer protection, consumers generally find themselves supported by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. Unfortunately, the Act is not being applied in this instance because the consumers cannot find a degree of appreciation of the proof they are able to provide regarding where and from whom they purchased the product because the seller often refuses to discuss the issue with them. As consumers, this immediately puts them on the back foot. Their consumer rights are denied, so they must predominantly take civil actions to find recompense via the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the Garda or the Revenue Commissioners. That is a problem.

While a number of claims have been supported by the insurance industry, an increasing number of providers seem to be exiting that level of cover. It is important to note that when consumers purchase second-hand vehicles, they are sold a warranty form of insurance. Such warranties now put fuel contamination outside their range of cover. This is a significant move.

Motorists contribute significantly to the Exchequer, including the job creation measures for which its funds are used. For example, they pay VAT on servicing.

Somewhat frustratingly, they contribute a significant amount of tax in the level and amount of fuel they purchase. Despite all of that, and all of the protections we provide positively for consumers, many of them have nothing to rely on in this situation. That is why we need to hear significantly from the Garda Síochána and Revenue about what is being achieved. More importantly, we need to learn lessons from the fall-out from this episode. We have made a number of suggestions to that end. Perhaps a test case or a number of test cases might be put through the small claims procedure. The problem there is the €2,000 limit. It might be worth a test. In addition, we think the burden of proof could be reversed to require the providers of the fuel to prove their fuel is not contaminated on day one. Initiatives could be put in place to measure that on a regular basis, perhaps monthly. On the basis of the detriment to many consumers, the industry could be asked to consider putting in place a fund. This could be done directly from the distribution sector of the industry with no burden on the consumer. This fund could be set up to try to mitigate in some way these costs and losses to consumers.