Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • 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 6108 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...