Ok who is up for a chalenge?

**milnholm** · 29th December 2008 16:36

On December the 7th this year abill was generated by sky for the next months subscription. However, I was already one month behind due to financial hicup. So on december 9th the viewing was suspended.

I called to day to pay the outstanding £77 and few pence. And in the course of the discussion I asked if I would get a credit applied to the accout for the 20 days i Had no viewing. My argument was that I did not leagaly think I could be charged for the viewing as it had not been provided.

I was told that since the bill had already been generated I an leagaly bound to pay the full amount.

Now i worked for Sky for a while as a customer relations consultant, based upstairs in Sky 4 in livingston. So I was aware that we did infact apply credit for the lost viewing. We could not actualy alter the bill as the account was in suspension and the bill had been generated. but what we did do was apply credit to be offset againd future billing to the value of the lost viewing.

What i am looking for is some leagal advice. Can Sky legaly pursue for the subscription charged while viewing had been suspended. Or to put it another way can they charge me for services which have not been provided?

A new year chalange;-)

Enjoy your new year

John

**Conniff** · 29th December 2008 17:07

I would say 'no'. How can anyone charge for something not received.

If the answer should be yes, then I will need your address milnholm so I can send you a bill for the petrol you haven't had from me.

**borisbeaver** · 29th December 2008 17:16

IIRC in the T's & C's it states that you must continue to pay your monthly subscription even when the service has been suspended for non-payment.

**flyingdoc** · 29th December 2008 17:17

I would telephone sky and tell them that now you have paid your subscription up to date you would like a refund for the time that your account was suspended and you received no service.

Just because they send you a bill doesnt meant that you are legally obliged to pay it.

I would argue that the T&C would be in breach of the RUTCC as they impose an obligation to pay for a service that has not been rendered.

**IdaInFife** · 3rd January 2009 20:34

Sky will no longer apply credit for the loss of viewing if blocked due to non payment.

as boris says this is covered in the t and c's.

Ida x

**flyingdoc** · 3rd January 2009 21:22

and of course as it is in the T&C it must be legal.

forcing someone to pay for a service that has not been redered in my opinion is an unfair term and would be challengable under the RUTTC 2008.

**IdaInFife** · 3rd January 2009 21:59

Originally Posted by flyingdoc

and of course as it is in the T&C it must be legal.

forcing someone to pay for a service that has not been redered in my opinion is an unfair term and would be challengable under the RUTTC 2008.

I never said it was legal but the OP would need to take this to court to challange it under RUTTC

Ida x

**flyingdoc** · 3rd January 2009 23:02

perhaps not - The first bank charges were paid out without going to court - only when the number of people reclaiming them got to such that it was worth the banks defending did it end up in court.

If you were to write to sky telling that that you have been advised that this condition may be in breach of RUTCC and that should they not refund then you will issue they might "as a goodwill gesture icon

" refund you that money,

its worth a go..

**jazzwhiterabbit** · 17th January 2009 11:23

Sorry can you tell me what RUTTC is as this may help me with a problem i've got

Thread: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?

Re: Ok who is up for a chalenge?