Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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 6106 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...