Sky issue

[buzby]

Hopefully you've not posted this?

 

You've made some incorrect assumptions, and will allow them to treat your request with contempt, as well as show you up as a bluff merchant.

 

The specifics:

 

(1) Your cancellation will be rounded up to the next billing date. They may be cynical, but there's a good chance if you gave notice 2 days earlier the 30 days would have been achieved.

 

(2) Bills are prepared in advance (as you know) so it is impossible for them to note your plans for termination, so although you may now have provided termination info, it was too late for the Billing run, which lags by at least 1 or 2 weeks (due to the high number of bills being prepared).

 

(3) I'm assuming you have sent your payment for £10 with your SAR request? A common 'mistake' is for them to ignore your request, and credit the fee to your account. A useful delaying tactic, but classes as incompetence and not actionable by the ICO.

 

(4)The 40 day limit is for the ICO to enforce. You have no benefit of this, and you cannot issue sanctions based on non-compliance. This is a matter between the Data Controller of the company and the Data commissioner. You cannot take them to court simply for non compliance, and if you do - there is the risk they will defend, have the issue thrown out, and make you pay Their (capped) costs. As a threat, it doesn't work.

 

(5) Their admin charge is for not paying by DD. It is in their Terms of Service, and stipulated within your contract.* As a result, the charge has been applied with prior agreement. For you to charge £10 cannot be arbitrarily applied by you. You can inform them formally that you will be making this charge and the date (giving 30 days notice) but they do not have to agree with it, and this rejection sinks your plan. Asking for the installation fee refunded is just perverse, the works was done and is a one-off fee. As you used the service provided, you cannot reasonably expect to benefit and have your money refunded.

 

(6) Sky's commercial arrangements with Openreach are none of your concern, so they will reject this - and tell you so. If you CPR 31.16 rules request relates to this, it is only relevant as part of court action, but for the most part is irrelevant.

 

To make headway with Sky, you need to have a legitimate complaint, and pursue them with issues that they cannot have any hope of winning, meaning all they can really do is settle prior to court. (Which they did in my case). Unfortunately, your complaint comes over as bluff and bluster, and they'll just pull down the shutters, stick their heels in - and probably win.

 

Since what you want will require you to be level headed and reasonable, if you lose the place you'll just lose more money, and possibly make it difficult for others to achieve as Sky will assume all their complainants have no case.

 

 

*Personally, I disagree with this - but it is deemed 'legal' and until this changes, the charge remains legitimate.

[bazaar]

Already have their termination letters, it took a while to get that, but we cancelled in the correct way according to the T&C's. also, by e-mail to the address given us by one of the phone jockeys.

It was for Sky plus to be transferred, I have sent 10 for sar. specifically requesting the transcript my dad had with them regarding the new address, plus screen dumps of computer logs.

They took the 105 for BT, I can understand why, but my dad insists they didnt tell him that, just that they would charge 30 for installation as a way of keeping him as a customer. But as there was a dish at new address, install was not required ( So they said). Thats why I requested the proof of payment.

Now, my understanding with Sky + is that the phone line should be connected to the unit, ( its in the T&C's) so that it can call in etc.

Well this was never done, by BT or Sky, so who has breached the contract?

Certainly not my Dad.

The angle Im coming from here is that theyve charged for something that is not fit for purpose, simply because the line doesnt exist.

Theres no phone point in the room where the box is sited, they would know this, if theyd bothered to turn up.

As far as the penalty fee for admin, because weve now cancelled the DD, well that will be under Unfair terms and conditions. (I'll need to brush up on that bit).

I understand the level headed aproach you advise, but sometimes they just get to you. What with all the damn phone calls hanging on, then they try to sell you something else.

Anyhow, hes up and running with another company now, so Sky must have cancelled to give access to the new provider. So IMO they are not entitled to the line rental for next month.

[buzby]

Not just with Sky +, ALL Sky receivers (since the 'Digibox' days) required a connection to a 'working phone line'. The installer is required to do this, but the responsibility remains with the subscriber to ensure this is done. This was to permit either the 'interactive discount' or 'multiroom' verification for properties with more than one box. If it wasn't connected at the time of install, then you could complain the installer did not finish the job, the ultimate responsibility remains with the customer, as the Sky contract requires this. (Even if the installer DID do it, and the plug somehow becomes undone, is is still the subscriber's responsibility).

 

You cannot make a 'fit for purpose' assertion. The purpose is to view satellite delivered programming. It did that. The lack of an adjacent phone point is of no concern to the installer, in much the same way as if there wasn't a mains socket nearby to plug it in. The expense of extension leads etc is the consumer's responsibility.

 

When no contract exists - you have room to juggle. Where there is one, there's no point losing the place, they have their terms to prove their case (in court if need be). I only had them because their own rules, they bluffed it until te court steps then they wanted confidentiality of their settlement. I took the money, and agreed to 12 months confidentiality, now long expired.

[Ayr]

Hopefully you've not posted this?

 

You've made some incorrect assumptions, and will allow them to treat your request with contempt, as well as show you up as a bluff merchant.

 

The specifics:

 

(1) Your cancellation will be rounded up to the next billing date. They may be cynical, but there's a good chance if you gave notice 2 days earlier the 30 days would have been achieved.

 

(2) Bills are prepared in advance (as you know) so it is impossible for them to note your plans for termination, so although you may now have provided termination info, it was too late for the Billing run, which lags by at least 1 or 2 weeks (due to the high number of bills being prepared).

 

(3) I'm assuming you have sent your payment for £10 with your SAR request? A common 'mistake' is for them to ignore your request, and credit the fee to your account. A useful delaying tactic, but classes as incompetence and not actionable by the ICO.

 

(4)The 40 day limit is for the ICO to enforce. You have no benefit of this, and you cannot issue sanctions based on non-compliance. This is a matter between the Data Controller of the company and the Data commissioner. You cannot take them to court simply for non compliance, and if you do - there is the risk they will defend, have the issue thrown out, and make you pay Their (capped) costs. As a threat, it doesn't work.

 

(5) Their admin charge is for not paying by DD. It is in their Terms of Service, and stipulated within your contract.* As a result, the charge has been applied with prior agreement. For you to charge £10 cannot be arbitrarily applied by you. You can inform them formally that you will be making this charge and the date (giving 30 days notice) but they do not have to agree with it, and this rejection sinks your plan. Asking for the installation fee refunded is just perverse, the works was done and is a one-off fee. As you used the service provided, you cannot reasonably expect to benefit and have your money refunded.

 

(6) Sky's commercial arrangements with Openreach are none of your concern, so they will reject this - and tell you so. If you CPR 31.16 rules request relates to this, it is only relevant as part of court action, but for the most part is irrelevant.

 

To make headway with Sky, you need to have a legitimate complaint, and pursue them with issues that they cannot have any hope of winning, meaning all they can really do is settle prior to court. (Which they did in my case). Unfortunately, your complaint comes over as bluff and bluster, and they'll just pull down the shutters, stick their heels in - and probably win.

 

Since what you want will require you to be level headed and reasonable, if you lose the place you'll just lose more money, and possibly make it difficult for others to achieve as Sky will assume all their complainants have no case.

 

 

*Personally, I disagree with this - but it is deemed 'legal' and until this changes, the charge remains legitimate.

 

 

I called asking them the procedure to cancel - they told me and issued a cancellation/leaving number.

 

So I was acting on their advice - as the number i called was also in the terms and conditions, and listed as WHO TO CALL TO CANCEL.

[Surfer01]

I have not had a telephone connected since 2000 and had no issues.

[bazaar]

Well Surfer, just a bump .

Had a result with my dads stuff, they are going to refund the 105 bt bill plus another 90 odd on top. Plus they are paying back the 10 quid for SAR

So that pays for his Humax Freesat box .

Stick to your guns, dont be fooled by their standard drivel.

[Surfer01]

Also an update. Eventually admited their error and cancelled.

[bazaar]

Also an update. Eventually admited their error and cancelled.

 

LOL, good result then, these numbskulls really are lowlife dragging this out rather than admitting they are retarded;)

[Surfer01]

On the 12/12/2011 we sent an email request via their site to Sky to downgrade our account back to the Entertainment pack removing the movie channels giving them the 31days notice.

Today I went to check my account to discover that I was going to be billed on the 1st the full price for the movie channels through to the 31st January 2012.

I contacted them again via the same medium querying this and got back the reply the same day that the package would only be downgraded on the 17th January 2012 as they had only read the request on the 17th December.

Surely if I sent the request on the 12/12/2011 and got the acknowledgement it would be dealt with on their website, that is the day from which the 31 days starts and not when they read it? Strange that when you raise a complaint they are able to respond the same day?

It is not the money, it is the principle!

[my-spirit-soars-free]

I would have said that the 31 days starts from the date they receive it, so the date that they sent acknowledgement.

 

They can't just ignore cancellation requests for a week and expect the consumer to pay.

[Surfer01]

This is the latest reply from them when I complained that it was not my fault.

 

Thankyou for your email.

I am aware that it is not your fault about the delay in emails being picked up, however we cannot backdate a request for a downgrade.

We have advisors available 24 hours a day to deal with any immediate requests.

Whilst I realise that you may be disappointed with the decision made, I hope that you can appreciate our position on this matter.

 

I have responded asking them to cancel the subscription giving 31 days as from today's date as they have broken their own Terms and Conditions. I guess in doing so they have made the contract null & void and we are not obliged to give cancellation notice of 31 days. We have had a contract for well over 18 months.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

They have not yet broken the contract, just told you that they intend to - they breach will not occur until they take money that they should not have taken.

 

Having said that, I am itching to see how they reply, I love the whole concept of "ignore cancellation requests for a week and then state you can't backdate requests".

 

Maybe we should do it with their bills.... leave them unopened, then tell them that we did not get the information in time to pay them?

 

Their reply really needs framing... or maybe someone could publish a book of the cracking communications from the customer service departments of our large companies - in which case that one deserves pride of place

[Surfer01]

Thanks for the head's up on the contract. Now a case of wait and see.

[Surfer01]

Although this is a minor issue it is very annoying. We downgraded our Sky subscription in December 2011 through the Sky web site after logging into our account giving them the mandatory 31 days notice.

When I checked our account it was taking 40 days to do the downgrade and I was being charged for the extra 9 days. On questioning it, I was told it was because it takes them several days to read an email and it is only from the time that they read it, that they can action the request.

Surely this is unfair and financially disadvantageous to the customer as the customer has complied with their T & Cs but Sky has not?

Again on the 1st February 2012 we logged into the Sky website and wrote an email requesting the they remove the HD element of the subscription. Effectively it should be removed on the 03/03/2012, but Sky in their infinite wisdom are only cancelling the HD service on the 08/03/2012. Again it seems that they only take action from when they read the email and not the date it was received and you are charged for the additional days.

I know it is only pennies, but it is the principle of it, but not sure how to challenge it without a court issue. I would like to think that it is against some clause in the UTCC regulations and to be able to give them a kick in the rear as this must be happening to thousands of other people.

[Surfer01]

Yesterday I logged into the Sky website and went to my account to downgrade. I requested that the HD subscription be removed as with our eyesights, we cannot see the difference between standard TV and the HD channels. I advised that I was aware of the 31 day cancellation period. I emphasise that I was logged in when the email was sent.

 

Today I have received an email rejecting the request as per the following;

 

We have received a request to make a change to your Sky account.

Unfortunately we don’t have all the security information we require to be able to process the request. To complete this action we need to speak to you as we don’t recommend providing security details in writing.

We need you to contact us on 08442 410 973 to confirm the security information which will allow us to complete the request.

If we do not hear from you then we will take no action on your account, meaning all details and/or services will remain unchanged and active. If you do not want us to process any request on your account then no further action is required from you

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Can they reject my request even though I can upgrade without any security checks etc and the fact that I was logged in. We do not want to phone them as the 0844 number is chargeable by the minute and you can spend up to 20 minutes on the phone.

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

 

As per usual they do not like downgrades, I'll ask a Site Team member to have a look at this thread.

[Surfer01]

Thanks

[silverfox1961]

Hang on! By logging into the website, you are using security. How many other people know your password. Did you set up a different password when you opened the account with Sky?

 

The phone call will be an attempt to make you keep the package

[NailPost]

Having the same problem trying to cancel the entire subscription package. Despite logging onto the site via a password they won't let you cancel online. After a short, brief and clear note sent by RD I got exactly the same response back - phone us, we want to try and persuade you to stay. Has anyone ever queried their stance on this with trading standards, OFT, Ofcom etc?

[Surfer01]

It it was an ordinary number, I might take the time to phone but the 0844 number is not cheap!

[IdaInFife]

It the new dpa that has been imposed that is causing this problem

 

Just repsond ensuring that you have completed your full name (if you are the account holder), address and include the password on the account sky account (not your online account as this is prob different)

[Surfer01]

It the new dpa that has been imposed that is causing this problem

 

Just repsond ensuring that you have completed your full name (if you are the account holder), address and include the password on the account sky account (not your online account as this is prob different)

Thanks but I was logged in when the message to downgrade was sent so all security protocols in place. If you upgrade there is no issue and it happens almost immediately so not sure why the difference?

[NailPost]

What new DPA?

[Surfer01]

Eventually I decided to phone Sky to check whether they were honouring my request to downgrade. They stated no as they needed to do the security checks. I asked why are we able to upgrade but cannot downgrade Online. She kept trotting out the line of "security", but could not answer the question regarding upgrading. Seems Sky have now outsourced their call centre to India making it even more difficult to downgrade.

I queried why the completed form and request for downgrade was not acceptable pointing out that it was completed while logged in as this indicated that the Sky website had security flaws. Of course no answer to this except to bleat on about security to downgrade. Really riled me.

Anyway to cut a long story short, they agreed to downgrade me immediately however as we had a number of HD recorded programs on ITV I had to declined and request the original date.

[IdaInFife]

i "think" it was ofcom that imposed that additional securty is required to confirm that it is indeed the account holder requesting to cancel via email and letter and not a password holder and made it the same as anyone setting up an account.

 

I do think sky need to add an additional option on the info tab on the contact us option to include this and i believe this is something they are working on