Tesco has issued a statement on the future of fuel filling after it emerged that motorists will soon be charged a £99 deposit at petrol stations across the UK.
The retail giant has announced plans to replace its £1 pre-authorisation deposit charge at its Pay at Pump facilities to a £99 charge instead.
According to TeesideLive, the changes – which are currently being piloted at several stores across the UK – have been made because the rules have been changed by card companies including Mastercard, Visa, and American Express.
If the trial is successful, it is understood the changes will be rolled out across the UK later this year – not just at Tesco.
The announcement of the plans has seen the supermarket chain inundated with angry messages from customers who had discovered the new deposit system when refuelling their vehicles, and social media has been full of users alerting others to the changes over the past couple of days.
The £1 pre-authorisation deposit charge at Pay at Pump facilities will increase to £99 / Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Now, Tesco has had its say.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Under these changes, the customer’s bank will pre-authorise £99, with the unused amount released back to their account within the hour,” a Tesco spokesperson confirmed.
“All supermarkets are making these changes following amendments to the rules by Visa and Mastercard [and] we’re definitely not taking a deposit.
“An amount up to £99 is ringfenced in the customers’ account, with the unused sum released immediately.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Here’s everything you need to know.
___
What are the changes and why are they being made?
A Tesco spokesperson confirmed: “Under new rules implemented by Mastercard, Visa and American Express, we must now request authorisation from your card issuer for up to £99.
“Once you’ve finished filling up, the final transaction amount is sent to your card issuer, and the remainder of any unused funds up to the maximum filling amount will be released back to your available balance [so] we’ll only ever charge you for the value of the fuel you’ve actually purchased.”
Tesco also confirmed that the rules have been changed to help cardholders keep control of their budgets in real time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Will my statement show a £99 transaction? But what if I don’t have £99 in my account?
Tesco says it will only ever charge drivers for the value of the fuel they have purchased.
The supermarket added that if your account balance is under £99, your card issuer should respond with the lower amount they’ll allow and the fuel pump screen will show the value you can fill up to. However, some card issuers might not allow partial authorisations below £99 and the advice then is to try another card.
You are also advised to talk to your bank if they have concerns over the changes.
The changes will affect motorists with Mastercard, Visa and American Express cards / Credit: Tesco (Twitter – @neskatxa)
What about other supermarkets and Pay at the Pump facilities?
The changes will be brought in to cover all pay at the pump petrol stations as they are being driven by card companies.
According to the Mastercard website: “The way you pay for your fuel at an automated fuel pump in the UK is changing.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Your card issuer/bank will temporarily reserve up to £99 of your available balance while you fill up [and] then when you have completed fuelling, you’ll be charged for the correct amount of fuel you have used and the remainder of any reserved funds will be released back to your available balance.”
Featured Image – Freepik
UK News
An old clip of Tyson Fury talking about Oleksandr Usyk has come back to haunt him – twice
Danny Jones
This weekend saw Oleksandr Usyk emerge victorious over Tyson Fury for a second time in less than a year as the Ukrainian won the highly-anticipated rematch on points, and now an old clip of the Manc fighter dismissing his opponent has resurfaced online. Again.
Oh, the irony…
After losing following a split decision for what was his first career defeat back in May, Fury lost following a unanimous decision this time around and while some have questioned the scorecards (as tends to happen with these things), there can be no question over Usyk’s dominance now.
However, rewind to a few years ago before the 37-year-old had even won his first fight against Anthony Joshua and Fury’s naive not to mention controversial comments regarding the possibility of ‘giving’ him a fight look pretty silly now:
Tyson Fury a few years ago refusing to fight Usyk
“I want the big fights and that ain’t one of them. He’s a foreigner in a westernised world. The heavyweight champion should be from Britain or America and nowhere else.”
As you can see in the interview from 2020, the now 36-year-old Wythenshawe-born boxer was pretty dismissive about the prospect of fighting Usyk, who ultimately went on to become the first undisputed heavyweight champion since Lennox Lewis in 2000 following the first win over Fury.
Despite already having an Olympic gold, multiple cruiserweight titles and an undefeated record to his name, Usyk had only fought and won two heavyweight bouts at this point, which is perhaps why ‘The Gypsy King’ felt comfortable downplaying his potential back then.
However, although Usyk had a comfortable division debut against Chazz Witherspoon in 2019, he also went on to best Fury’s familiar foe Derek Chisora – a man he’s beaten on three different times but maintains he admires both in terms of personality and ability – so there were signs of what was to come.
Moreover, not only was Tyson clearly foolish enough to underestimate him back then but the divisive and inflammatory nature of his remarks in this clip has been labelled ‘offensive’ and ‘xenophobic’ by many online, both at the time and after reappearing on social media once again.
Regardless, it seems that Usyk was just as unphased by his posturing then as he is now, coming out in the post-fight press conference to shrug off his trash-talking to reiterate his “respect” for someone who ultimately believes is “a good man”.
Nevertheless, Fury has now lost two him twice and still maintains he didn’t get the right decision on both occasions, dubbing this latest defeat “an early Christmas gift” for his opponent.
In the previous clash, the Greater Manchester athlete even claimed that fans and judges unfairly favoured him because of the war in Ukraine – a response which also received plenty of backlash.
You can hear how he believes he was ‘robbed’ along with his full reaction following the fight down below:
Featured Images — iFL TV/Sky Sports (screenshots via YouTube)
UK News
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has increased his stake in Manchester United
Danny Jones
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has increased his investment in Manchester United Football Club, taking his current stake from 27.7% to 28.94%.
The Failsworth-born billionaire officially became a minority shareholder in Man United earlier this year, bringing in the Sports arm of his INEOS petrochemical company and plenty of new personnel with him following an initial £1.25 billion acquisition which saw him buy over a quarter of the club.
While his tenure at Old Trafford has been a somewhat turbulent affair so far – having pleased most fans by taking at least some control away from the family but making a number of less-than-popular decisions of late – he is, at the very least, putting lots of money where his mouth is.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has injected a further $100m into Manchester United and now owns 28.94% of the club. This completes a planned $300m investment pledged at the time of purchase. $200m was paid back then out of Ratcliffe’s personal funds.
As per multiple outlets, the 72-year-old has pumped a further of approximately £79.3m into Man United to increase his overall stake just before the end of the year.
This latest figure payment was actually promised as part of his initial partial takeover which was completed back in February, with a filing listed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) confirming the final payment this week, with Ratcliffe receiving additional shares in return.
It also detailed that the ownership of the shares has transferred from Ratcliffe personally to the INEOS Group as a whole, who also have stakes in French football club OGC Nice, the INEOS Grenaiders cycling team (formerly Team Sky), as well as Formula 1, sailing, rugby and more.
Although supporters will be pleased to hear that Ratcliffe is committed to investing in the club, Keegan’s article details that the money itself won’t be strictly put towards any potential signings in the upcoming transfer window.
Similarly, Press Associates (PA) understand that the funds will be put towards infrastructure rather than player recruitment, as it is also expected that some squad members could be offloaded this January.
Could Man United’s homegrown number 10 really be on his way out after nearly two decades in red?
News of Ratcliffe increasing his United stake won’t do much for many of his early detractors, however, as the Greater Manchester local has been accused of ‘forgetting his roots’ and ‘betraying the working class’ with some recent internal steps.
Most recently, Sir Jim and his newly rebuilt executive board received immense backlash for increasing ticket prices for remaining games this season to a whopping £66 across the board, with no concessions made for young, old or disabled fans.
With sporting director Dan Ashworth having been dismissed after just five months – a man who spent just as much time on gardening leave at his former club as he did in his actual role at United – it’s fair to say Ratcliffe and co. could have been more economical.
Emily Sergeant -
1st July 2021 
