Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 overcharging and refusing to refund


tangotonyb
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3735 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

So my 72 year old mother orders a Sky package. She signs a contract stipulating 25.50 for the first 6 months and 35.50 thereafter.

 

The installation occurred in May 2012 - the installer doesn't connect the TV to the phone line, telling my mother to do this herself. He doesn't check the broadband works, leaving her with the box and telling her to plug it in herself. In fact it was a further 8 months before we had a working broadband connection.... and despite failing to test or connect this service, my mum was charged for it and told that it would be £75 if she wanted one that actually worked. lol

 

Anyway - that's not the real crime here.

 

The initial amount of 25.50 was collected for the first 5 months - then the charge was raised to 43.50/month instead of 35.50/month.

Furthermore, no mention at any time was made of the fact that to view her bills she'd need to use the TV (which she couldn't because it had never been connected) or use the internet, which she didn't have the technical skills to do at the time, leaving her unable to easily query the amount going out of her account.

 

Sky are now refusing to refund or even contemplate refunding the excess charged because no complaint was lodged in the first 12 months.

 

Has anybody had any success in small claims court against Sky in this kind of scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm what package your mum is on?

 

Was it installed by sky or a third party?

 

Does she still have the order sheet?

 

It does state in the t and c's regarding how to check you bills and how to request a paper statement ( the viewing card is actually glued to the letter so no-one can deny receiving it)

 

Sky tv engineers do not install broadband, customers install themselves or can pay £50 for a bb engineer to do so.

 

it has nothing do to with when a complaint is logged - i do not see how you can make a complaint 12 months ago what you are charges 6 months later

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 package was the basic TV, phone and broadband. It was installed by Sky - I have the order sheet.

 

Viewing Card?? I presume the thing that is put in the SKy Box? The engineer must have put that in for her, because I know my mum wouldn't have. As for "how to request a paper statement" - as I said at no point was it explained to my mother that she wouldn't get them (bear in mind here that she is 70 years of age).

She asked for and was told that the installation of all services was FOC. Do you think an elderly woman would order a broadband service she'd have to install herself?

Regardless, the issue with the non-installation of the broadband service is immaterial here - as is the non-connection of the Sky TV Box to the phone line which would have enabled her to access her bills through the TV.

 

The main thing is that she agreed one price, a different one has been charged and afaik there is no time period within which a complaint for this must be lodged (in law). That Sky insist that it is too late now for her to reclaim any money is frankly insulting.

 

I've emailed jeremy darroch with details of this complaint, giving them 8 weeks to deal, otherwise I'll take it to the Ombudsman - hoping no need for court here, assuming the Ombudsman Service is actually impartial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...