Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

SKY - Beware hidden charge for unplugging phone line!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6105 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I wonder if anyone else has come across this?

 

I ahve just found out that SKy have been charging me DOUBLE for my Sky Subscription for the past 5 months!!!!

 

Their reason - because their boxes are not connected to my phone line and it is aprt of their contract (first I'd heard of it) so that they can check your PPV usage (we don't - and you can't unless you plug the phone in!!) and to make sure that your multiroom box is in the correct property.

 

They have assured me that they don't have access to anythign else connected to my phone line but to me it is a glaring security issue.

 

Anyway, the reasons I unplugged the phone lines are two fold - firstly because it causes terrible intereference on my phone line - even with the correct filter and secondly because the second box is in an awkward position and would mean trailing a cable through a doorway (which is dangerous) AND their installation engineer told me not to worry about it, to leave it unplugged once it was all set up (he even unplugged the line himself!)!!! I told them all this, they basically said they would send out an engineer to check the line but other than that its tough and they wont be reducing their charges.

 

So I've followed this up with a letter demanding that they refudn the additional charges, when they refuse (if they reply at all) then I'll go down the 'prove it or pay' route as they have no written contract with me and I was never told about this.

 

All in though, I'm actually not sure how I feel about giving them unlimited access to my phone line, sky box, etc, so they can dial in whenever they want.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you remind me to check my mums, as when the engineer came round to install he said never remove that cable its to do with the controling the box and my mum may just take it out not knowing.

 

So??? what happens if you dont have a land line?

 

this is going to be a big question in the future as so many people are now only using mobiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to this.

In the FIRST 12 months of a Sky contract your box must be connected to the phoneline, after this it's up to you.

Mine has been unplugged for the last 2 years with NO ill effects.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a google search

it brings up some other experiences with this, here is one of interest but its like any web site or newspaper, is it true.

 

We have a special telephone system in our house so the box wasn't able to pick up a line as it normally would. We didn't realise this at the time so as far as the engineer was concerned, the box was plugged in. When it came to inserting the viewing card it wouldn't activate the account or whatever it does via telephone so the engineer had to phone through instead.

 

It all worked fine after the telephone call

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this a while back and refused to pay as the contract with Sky is only for 12 months after install (after that you don't have to have it plugged it). If you're within the 12 months I'm not sure what to suggest but I'd be inclined to look down the "unfair charges" route...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this with them - when the box was installed the dial-out feature of the box was faulty and the engineer couldn't get it to work.

 

Four years later I was chased for a debit of £75 which might or might not (the DCA could not say) be because the box was not plugged into the phone line for the 12 months we had it for.

 

I invited the DCA to sue me as I knew I modified the contract before returning it, to strike out the clause about it being connected, so I knew that if the contract came up in Court the clause under which the case would have been based, did not apply to me, as the contract was modified.

 

Eventually the problem went away and they gave up with it. If you have to have Sky the answer seems to be not to pay by Direct Debit since you're simply giving sanction for them to bill you what they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was plugged in for around the first ooohhh.. month of my contract. Unplugged it when I moved it and never plugged it back in. They either never cottoned on, or never realised because they never charged me a penny. I'm out of the 12 months now, so it doesn't really affect me, but it seems to depend whether you "get caught" so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I have just looked at my contract with SKY and the sky multi room section of the contract is a running contract and phone lines have to stay connected to all sky boxes while you have a contract with sky please note this is only for sky multi room. Reading between the lines I think this is to stop people from having multi room and letting someone in another property use their second sky box or taking their second box with them in a caravan etc when on holiday.

 

all the best dpick:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're right, when I called they admitted that at the start of multi-room provision they had problems with people doing exactly that so added these terms, but why should that become my problem, there msut be technical ways round this? My issue with it is that the clause was never brought to my attention - if it was I would have considered more carefully if I wanted the service, or made more of a fuss over getting the phone line issues sorted out - but having an engineer tell me not to worry and 'just unplug it' gave the distinct impression that it didn't matter.

 

I just find it a little worrying that they can hold you to added terms within a contract that you've never signed, that you've never been made aware of and that can affect you financially

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunatley these multiroom charges are Not hidden. When you received you viewing card for your second box if was highlighted in bold regarding the telephone line connections and these are also read out over the phone when the viewing card is ordered. When you activate the 2ns viewing card your are agreeing to the terms and conditions set out on the letter.

 

If you have only 1 box sky do not police these and have only done so once in the last 7 years.

 

Sky are taking a stance on these mutliroom fees and they are not refunding for these charges.

 

It's probarbly what you don't want to hear. You cand send a letter of request of refund to their correspondence department as they have the final say on sky's behalf but I do not hold out much hope i'm afraid.

 

 

idax

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Multiroom arrangements is that you get a discount for having it connected to the phone line, and is promoted as such. If you don't (and the reason is immaterial) they charge for two full subscriptions. What is not also explained - but is in the T&Cs) is that both boxes mustbe connected to the same line (ie phone number). It doesn't matter if you have number blocking set permanently, they get the information anyway. It really is a case of you play the game their way or not at all - however the charge could never said to have been 'hidden', it has always been disclosed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had this with Sky. We upgraded to Sky+ and kept the old Sky box as multi-room. Both were plugged into phone line. We have a permanently withheld number.

 

First thing that I noticed was that the subscription had rocketed after a couple of months. Called them and they said that since there was no CLI presentation when our box dialled out, they couldn't call back. It was pointed out to them that at no time had they said that CLI was a prerequisite. Eventually, they talked me through the 'hidden' set-up to add the code to present CLI. They then asked be to test it and it failed. It came up with line busy. They said they couldn't understand that - erm, perhaps because I am talking to you on the same line.

 

Anyway, the Sky+ box never dialled out and they kept the subscription high. They agreed to send an engineer when I said that I would cancel. Engineer arrived and swapped the Sky+ box - thus taking all out recordings away. Still didn't work, but he wouldn't swap back as his jobsheet said swap box. I proved that it was the extension cable that their engineer had installed. He wouldn't have it.

 

Called Sky again and said either reduce the subscription to the offer price; sort out the faulty cable that their engineer had installed or cancel.

 

Cancellation department gave me 3 months free. Arranged for NTL cable to be installed in that time and wrote to Sky to cancel giving the last free 30 days as the notice period.

 

Very happy with NTL - now Virginmedia. Recently upgraded to V+ which includes HD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, how recent was this? Since 1998 Sky have always received the CLI on the line calling into their reporting centre, and indeed their Call Centre staff see the number also. This was due to the way Sky receive their telephone calls using digital PRA (Primary Rate Access) circuits from the telco -originally BT. On PRA's the C7 signalling provides the inbound calling number, complete with a flag indicating whether the number was available, withheld, a presentation number or the underlying telco number. Unless they have been forced by the regulator not to abuse this (and I've heard nothing about it) Sky and others ride roughshod on the CLI issue. For them to say they need the number 'released' before a box can show its number is NOT one of their T&C, it simply has to be a working PSTN phone line (but not ISDN, which is specifically excluded).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, how recent was this?

 

Within the last 2 years. Standard BT line, that was extended by the Sky engineer to reach the Sky+ box.

 

Both boxes had to be programmed to present CLI after the first round of calls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Despite what SKY tell you over the phone it is not neccessary to have a BT line or infact anyline at all. I have NTL line and when they came out to fit my dish the instillation man told me sky just say you must be connected to a phone line so you will be tempted to buy pay per view movies, sure enough when i unplugged the phone connection it still works fine. The £25 fee sky charged as I wasnt connected to a BT line on instillation however is proving to be difficult to get refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky NEVER specify the requirement of a 'BT' phone line - just a standard PSTN (analogue) phone line. This is because it is a requirement not just for Box Office, but their attempt at offering interactivity, which Virgin Media provide automatically down the cable. If you also have multiroom, they require the phone line to confirm both boxes are contained within the same household. If you do not have it connected and check call-ins don;t show up, the charge is automatically billed to your account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was clearly told that if i did not have a bt line to connect to i would have to pay a fee to have sky installed. £25 extra i think. Was also told that sky would not work through NTL phone socket I dont have a BT and all my interactive services including pay per view movies work fine through a NTL socket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were incorrectly told 'BT' in much the same way people refer to Hoovers, Biro's and other trade names as a substitute for the actual reference. By the same token, YOU don't have an NTL line, it is Virgin Media.

 

In reality, your actual obligations are based on the Sky Subscriber contract, which does not specify BT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were incorrectly told 'BT' in much the same way people refer to Hoovers, Biro's and other trade names as a substitute for the actual reference. By the same token, YOU don't have an NTL line, it is Virgin Media.

 

In reality, your actual obligations are based on the Sky Subscriber contract, which does not specify BT.

 

 

Yeah buzby is right. they charge you £25 if you refuse to have it connected to a land line or cannot connect. You can have any provider you wish.

 

Idax

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...