Sky Subscriber Services

[buzby]

I love this 'the preferred method of payment' - they should be damn glad folk want to pay at all for their services, instead of being uppity about the method of payment. From the reponse you got - ignoring the fact that they really only send out statements, then expect you to be happy to pay an 'Invoice Charge' needs to be stamped out quickly, however the problem is we need enough people to challenge this in a 'class action' type movement, not individually by negotiation. I cannot believe there are so many people out there allowing Sky (and others) complete and unfettered access to their bank accounts.

[lucyec]

Okonski - any news as yet?

I've been having nightmares with Sky. Having e-mailed 2 chasers to my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), I finally got my statements to find that there are absolutely no late payment charges at all (funny, maybe it was just my imagination that I had some on there). There are quite a few 'invoice' fees though...

Anyway, amidst all this I've been on the phone to them non-stop it seems. I've spoken to at least 4 or 5 different people who have told me that since by balance is paid that £120 crawl back or claw back (not sure which) is not going to be charged, so my account is paid up, cleared and closed. I've been waiting for written confirmation of this which is why I keep calling them. However, I've just got off the phone with someone who has said the charge still stands as my account was cancelled before the 1 Year term was up. This is where it gets messy. As far as I was concerned, I owed £80 and I have paid that. Only on 7.9.06 was I told by Wescot about this extra £120 being added on. Sky have told me on numerous occasions that my account cannot be closed/cancelled until the balance is paid, which it was on 7.9.06. Now, according to these statements I've received, the £120 was added on 9.6.06. Thing is, the 1 year would have been up on 31.05.06. Although as far as I was concerned my account has only just been cancelld/closed last month (Sept 06). Either way, I cant see how they can justify charging me this. If I still had the letters from Wescot I would be able to prove when the £120 was added on, as the first 2 letters I had from them stated I owed £80 and the last one at a later date had the £120 added on. However, I don't have them any more. I wonder if Wescot would have a record of this maybe? Would it even make any difference? I'm so confused about this I don't know where to go from here. It seems like the last few people I've spoken to have been lying to me obviously. I said this to the woman on the phone today and she said 'they're not lying to you, they're just giving you the wrong information' .... isn't that lying????????? She said I'd have to write to Sky disputing this amount, but I really don't know how to word the letter its all so complicated!

If anyone even understands any of what I've just written, I'd be grateful for any help. Sorry for jumping on your thread again Okonski.

[adawson]

allyxia, i am with ntl, and because i wont set up a direct debit for my monthly payments, i am also charged 4 pounds a month, this is also classed as an "invoice", but i shall be looking into that and the ssl, which i also have and pay by monthly "invoice"

[crusty git]

What a refreshing thread. I have been wondering about taking on NTL and this has clarified my thinking
By the way has anyone found an NTL number which actually gets answerwed?

J

[buzby]

Originally Posted by lucyec

Okonski - any news as yet? Sorry for jumping on your thread again Okonski.

It's my pleasure, as until I started this thread, I thought it was only me that felt their (Sky's) communication skills were suspect!

The current state of play having now received by S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and gone throught it, is that of the 28 months of being a non-DDM subscriber, I have 'only' been billed 14 'Invoice' charges, of which all but 6 have been credited to the account after various complaints. The fact that 14 were never charged - because the account was in credit when the payment was taken - shows how the CRM software has been set up. It is not the fact they send you a Statement, but the fact there's no money avaiable for them to take without asking you first. My point about Invoice Vs Statement charges is just another vexation for them, as they say they Invoice monthly, however as they just send a statement - it gives another route of complaint.

As I explained earlier, I used two methods to contact Sky, 1) Writing to their Kirkton Campus HQ in Livingston and 2) Emailing them to skydigital@bskyb.com. After making my point as forcibly as I could by letter, the 'senior' customer relations executive decided to cease corresponding with me without notice, resulting in my sending an LBA advising I required the return of the cost of my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), the £28 charged in 'Invoice' fees and £32 to cover 15 letters and enquiries to all 3 CRA's for a copy of my credit files. The email contact route was the most laughable, as every reply came from someone else, contradicting what had been said earlier and being selective in the questions they'd answer. Here's the latest;

Thank you for your email regarding your subscription account.
I'm sorry to learn of the circumstances that has caused you to contact us at this time. I can confirm that of my colleagues note from below that the appropriate action has been taken to the collection agency.
I have to advise that however we will not honour your request for the refund of the monies requested. Charges have been applied to your account correctly, therefore previous billings remain. Sky cannot be held responsible for invoices not received.
I trust that I have clarified our position regarding this matter. If I can offer any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact the above email address.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Customer Relations Department

As you can see - they've not made the connection that how can you be billed for not receiving an Invoice if you're only sent a Statement? As the argument is (no doubt going round in circles on purpose) not being addressed, my LBA stated they had until 14th October to make restitution or I would raise an action. Whether seperately or in relation to this, I received a telephone call from Sky asking for more information (!) and that the person I wrote to who did not reply would be advised of my 'concerns'. They have until this Saturday to respond, and if nothing turns up, I'll be at the Sheriff Court on Monday as I already have the court forms completed. I'll keep you posted!

Now, as to your problem, the fact you're receiving conflicting information is nothing new, however be guided not by what you are told on the phone, but what the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) says. As to your contract, your commitment expires exactly 12 months after the initial activation of your viewing card, and you are expected to have paid any bills for subscription viewing and box-office events. After this time, if you or they cancel a month's notice must be given. If Sky remove service however, your liability to pay for this service ends immediately providing you've paid for the initial 12 months. Under this time they can impose the 'clawback' (not crawl back!) you The fees that Westscot chase you for are advised by Sky so the letters would be generated automatically - and there is every possibility that they were actually sent out by Sky anyway.

You can be assured that Sky/Westscot/Experian are currently wrecking your credit record at the moment, and even if they see sense and credit the disputed amounts, your historical data will still show up as a problem, even though there shouldn't have been one. Your next move is to work out exactly how much Sky is really due from you, less any payments made and removing any bogus claims for clawback or invoice charges to arrive at a final figure. If they owe you, ask for it back. If you owe them - don't pay it yet, as this will be your final act of settlement requiring them to restore your credit record or you'll take them to court.

Once you've quantified this, the rest is plain sailing!

[buzby]

Originally Posted by crusty git

What a refreshing thread. I have been wondering about taking on NTL and this has clarified my thinking
By the way has anyone found an NTL number which actually gets answerwed?

J

150 works for me, but not to complain about getting a refund on your £4. It's the Retentions Department that do that!

[buzby]

Sky have just 2 days to meet my requests before I take them to court, and I received the following email from a 'Senior Customer Relations Consultant' today;

Firstly I must apologise for the delay in my response, however, I trust my response will now help fully resolve matters. On checking your account history, I have found that the 20.00 (GBP) to which you refer was passed to a collection agency named Lowell Group. As this is an independent company Sky cannot advise if the debt would affect your credit scoring. Nonetheless, I can advise that whilst the debt remains with us, this would not have a direct affect on your credit rating. Further investigations indicate that on numerous occasions we did request that Lowell Group cease any action in reclaiming the said amount. This was agreed with you previously as a gesture of goodwill and to help resolve matters. To inquire if Lowell have notified credit agencies such as Experian, I could not comment on this, however, if you wish to contact them directly, they could certainly clarify this for you. I am also aware, that to amend your credit record, if required, you could request a letter from Lowell group stating that the debt was removed and no further action was taken. This letter could then be passed on to any credit agency if necessary. Whilst I can appreciate how upsetting this experience has been for you, any arrangements we have made with you have been processed. I must therefore, advise you, that we cannot provide you with a refund for any legal fees incurred. Should you require any further assistance with any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact me on the email address shown above.

Yours sincerely
Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx


My considered response to this follows. Interestingly, they feel that if they dispose of the debt they have no further interest in it and should I wish to pursue the matter, I have to do this myself even though there was no debt to acknowledge and I have no connection with the DCA. Talk about neing pushed from the organ grinder to negotiate with the monkey!


I am in receipt of your response to my emails, and I am sure it will
come as no surprise that I find your reply wholly inadequate.

1) The supposed debt should NEVER have been passed to a recovery
bureau, and despite what you claim my files show the original amount
referred to was £40.00 subsequently reduced to £20.00 with regard to
services that were withdrawn and therefore not supplied.

2) It was Sky who sold the debt to Lowell - irrespective of your view,
if Lowell - a company I have no contractual relationship with - does
something to affect my reputation unjustly, my first action is against
SSS Ltd, although depending on the information received, I also
reserve the right to pursue Lowell Group, who have been unwilling to
correspond with me or confirm they have acted on your instructions to
clear the supposed debt. The cost of compiling this information is a
direct result of your lack of action in resolving this matter in good
faith, therefore these costs will be passed on to you for
reimbursement.

3) As no debt existed between us (as Sky Subscriber Services Ltd have
never and do not issue 'Invoices') you have been given many
opportunities to correct this error, but have chosen not to do so,
therefore the options to restore my good name can only be achieved by
resorting to the Courts. There is also the issue of penalising
customers that chose not to pay by your 'preferred' payment method. A
formal complaint will also be lodged with the OFT regarding this
matter.

Further to my 'Notice Before Action' which was sent to your Livingston
offices, SSSL have until 14th October 2006 to comply with my requested
resolution. Should this not be forthcoming, my legal response will be
raised in the Glasgow Sheriff Court without further notice.


It looks as though I'll be having my day in court - yippee!

[buzby]

With Sky's emails going round in circles and two letters to Livingston now ignored, my proposed action against Sky Subscriber Services Ltd is now active.

I'll post the relevant details of the Statement of Claim and Hearing date in due course.

[buzby]

Whilst preparing the Small Claims action, I noticed that providing the claims was for a monetary action LESS than £50 (ie £49.99) the Scottish Courts offer a 'cheap' small claims track at £7.00. When handing over the forms, I claimed £49 as financial restitution, along with assurances that 1) There is no debt outstanding to Sky, and 2) That any and all adverse credit data supplied by Sky has been/will be removed from my credit record.

Speaking with the Sheriff Clerk (the action is in Scotland) I was advised the cost of this action would be £39 - NOT the £7 originally suggested. On querying this I was told that if your action involved ANY element of forcing the defender to perform some for of action (as I had), the financial discount(s) do NOT apply - as the full fee is due. This does seem unreasonable in a way, as the documetation only refers to the costs in general terms without noting this difference as an exclusion. (All my other actions were always at the full price, so the issue never came up).

The solution was to simply draw a line through the section of the Statement of Claim effectively removing the 'actions required' segment, and leaving the money claim untouched. I did this as I felt it better not to cloud the action if/when a Sheriff rules that Sky should not charge penalties of £4pm to customers they send 'Invoices' to (which aren't Invoices at all).

One I get a ruling on this, I can then go back to court and chase Sky for the required actions of credit repair etc etc. Return & Hearing dates on this will be advised to this thread shortly.

Finally, the day AFTER I lodged court papers, a letter from Sky was received - which I assumed (with possible dread that they had reconsidered the matter and they had agreed to settle). But I was delighted to find their letter simply re-stated their position, that the Invoice fees were correctly applied, and were sorry 'that their reply could not be more favourable'.

Excellent! (In a Mr Burns-type of voice!)

[mdecker]

Originally Posted by okonski

Taking money from a credit or debit card is not the same and should not be confused with a DD. Card operate a different scheme, and is called a 'continuous authority'. With a DDM you can cancel by revoking it at your bank, a recurring card debit can ONLY be cancelled if the company agrees to your request. If there is a dispute, there is nothing to stop them taking the funds until your card is replaced with a new one bearing a different number, issue number or expiry date. It is not often realised that even if you give a card number for a one-off payment, a supplier may keep the number and use it at a subsequent date, if challenged they can say they were given the number willingly by the customer and you raised no objection(s) to your card being used in this way.

The rules were changes several years ago so that you no longer had to give wirtten permission for a recurring or continuous payment mandate.

I had the same problem - the solution for me came when I lost my debit card and was issued a new one. Which of course has a different number and expiry date. So no more unauthorised debits.

Regards, Michael

[buzby]

It does make for a strange scenario that the ONLY way you can regain control of your account is to have the card reissued in some way. How on earth did this dreadful situation ever make it as 'commercial practice' disadvantaging the account holder to such a degree? I'm glad you've now got your security back, but for many others happily giving out their details to Sky (and others) over the phone, there should be a heath warning on these cards by default!

[Alasdair]

Hi

Thanks for the heads up Okonski. Pity I didn't see this thread earlier.

Rather than re-posting here is a link to my issue with Sky

Alasdair vs Sky

As this is my first stage letter to Sky I did tone it down a bit. But I personally think they are one of many companies whose system is set-up so that they regularly overcollect funds from customers bank accounts. I think this probably amounts to quite a fair bit of additional profit via interest. I also think to some extent the banks and the DD originators are complicit in this happening as there is a simple stated redress in the DD guarantee scheme.
Direct Debit - Your rights

An error has been made therefore you should be able to simply request an immediate refund from the bank. However my experience from previously claiming when Scottish(British) Gas overcollect & caused bank charges is that the banks do not recognise this as an error. All I got out of the clydesdale at that time was to hold the charges in a separate account which I then reclaimed from Scottish Gas. There explanation was that as the originator holds a variable amount DD mandate, the originator was offering a credit to future bills therefore strictly speaking no error occurred so the charges were valid etc..

I would ask the more knowledgeable member than myself. Since this is spread across many companies, instead of pursuing each company for its solution would it not be better to actually try and enforce the DD guarantee scheme across the board. SO that if any company debits an amount over the agreement instead of writing Sky for instance go straight to the bank & try to exercise your rights under the DD guarantee scheme.

Perhaps if enough complaints that the banks were not honouring this guarantee were received direct to
BACS Corporate - Corporate query

And the banks who control these DD on behalf these companies felt they were at risk then it might make them think a bit more.

[johnc007]

when you got back to them was it over 6 years if so and you had no contact with them the debt is unclaimable.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by Alasdair

And the banks who control these DD on behalf these companies felt they were at risk then it might make them think a bit more.

They don't really control - they just provide a gateway. What most people don't realise, is that we're on the Third Generation of Direct Debit Mandates. When launched, they provided an agreement that they could apply to your bank for funds, and they provided a signed mandate, showing the amount to be taken and the frequency. A later option added 'unspecified amounts on unspecified dates' to cope with those firms that had a varying requirement. Again, the customer had to sign a mandate proving agreement, and this was sent to the customer's bank.

What we have now is ALL DDMs are variable, I've not seen ONE in the last 4 years that did not request 'unspecified amounts on unspecified dates' a veritible 'Open Sesame' for any firm holding the mandate. Then the banks decide, 'Hey, we don't need the paperwork anymore'. If the collecting company says they received the authority - that's OK with us.

And if anyone seems doubtfyl, the point to the DD 'Guarantee' which doesn't cover consequential loss. Some guarantee!

But back on track - BECAUSE the customer agreed to the unspecified amounts/dates, he has willingly given the utility to take those amounts, and therefore any imagined legal action would fail, because of the tacit agreement. A judge could say if you didn't trust them, why did you permit access to operate oyr account? Sheepish grins don't work in court!