Key points:
- The carrier disputed €96,382.84 from fuel invoices totalling €137,277.39.
- The court found that the contract placed the risk of unauthorised card use on the transport company until the problem was reported.
- The company did not keep a complete record of who held each card, and some cards were left inside vehicles.
- The carrier could monitor transactions through an online portal and block suspicious cards, but the court found that it had not done so regularly enough.
The case involved a Dutch transport company using fuel cards issued by card operators. The parties were anonymised in the published ruling.
In 2022, the carrier discovered that unauthorised people had been using cards issued to the company. Both sides accepted that unauthorised transactions had taken place. The dispute concerned who should bear the resulting financial loss.
The company could not track who held each card
The court documents revealed serious weaknesses in the company’s card-management practices. The carrier did not know exactly who held a particular card or where it was being kept. Some cards went missing without being reported as lost, some drivers held several cards, and others left them in their vehicles.
That mattered because the card terms required the customer to store the cards securely. They were not to be left in vehicles or given to third parties. Users were also responsible for protecting and properly handling their PINs.
The carrier received weekly invoices and had access to an online portal for reviewing transactions.
In the court’s view, the company should at least have kept an accurate record of card users, established clear storage rules and reviewed transactions regularly.
Fuel invoices totalled more than €137,000
The fuel card operator billed the company a total of €137,277.39. The carrier argued that it should not have to pay €96,382.84 of that amount because, it said, its employees had not purchased the fuel in question.
The company also argued that the fuel operator had failed to act with due care by not warning it about unusual transactions. It further suggested that people connected with the operator might have been involved in the misuse.
The court found that the allegations about the operator’s involvement had not been sufficiently substantiated. It also noted inconsistencies in the reported extent of the misuse. During the proceedings, the carrier referred to ten cards and losses exceeding €96,000. Its police report, however, mentioned three cards and a much lower estimated loss.
Contract terms determined who bore the loss
The general terms and conditions were central to the decision.
Under those terms, the user was responsible for obligations arising from the use of the card and PIN. Transactions resulting from a card being lost, stolen or misused remained the customer’s responsibility until the issue was reported to the operator.
The court emphasised that the agreement had been concluded between professional parties and was clearly worded. It found no basis for shifting the financial consequences of the misuse to the card provider.
The judges also found no evidence that the operator had acted negligently in carrying out its contractual duties. Instead, the shortcomings identified in the case were on the transport company’s side.
The appeal was dismissed and the earlier judgment upheld. The carrier must pay all the invoices, along with €4,755 in appeal costs.
Fuel cards are a risk-management issue, not just a payment tool
The ruling does not mean that a carrier will automatically have to cover every loss caused by fuel card fraud. Liability depends on the contract, how each party acted and the circumstances surrounding the misuse.
The case highlights the importance of proper fuel card controls for transport companies.
Simply showing that a company employee did not buy the fuel may not be enough to challenge an invoice. If the contract places the risk of unauthorised card use on the customer, the company’s own controls will also matter. That includes protecting cards and PINs, knowing who uses them, monitoring transactions and responding quickly to irregularities.
In practice, carriers should manage fuel cards in much the same way as company payment cards. A user register, a ban on leaving cards in vehicles, transaction limits, alerts, regular checks of refuelling activity and the immediate blocking of suspicious cards may affect not only the scale of potential fraud, but also who ultimately bears the cost.
