Paying for SKY but 5 years without service.

[Its WAR]

My uncle has gone into care and I am tidying up his affairs.

He has had Sky for decades on a £37 monthly subscription.

The contract is so old I am sure they have introduced many new packages at far better rates, but my uncle has remained on this old contract. 

 

He tells me he has been unable to receive Sky for years and does not realise he has a recurring automatically renewing contract which continued to take the £37 month by direct debit. 

 

I thought maybe is was a fault with the set top box (eventhough he can receive Freeview), I really don't know. I have been able to cancel the contract.

 

I have complained to Sky and asked them to let me know when the last time my uncle tuned into Sky.

They say they don't have that information.

I don't believe them.

 

I would expect they know exactly how many of their customers are tuning into which programs.

I assume the set top box gives them such reports.

 

I expect to find my uncle has paid out around £2500 in subscriptions without being able to receive their service.

I don't know if I can do anything more than argue with them for not applying a better contract and they will argue they did not know the equipment was faulty. 

Any advise gratefully received.

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

During the time Sky wasn't working, has anyone let Sky know that there's a problem?

 

HB

[Its WAR]

I don't know if any faults were reported, but I expect he would have complained when it first broke and then forgot about it. 

 

[dx100uk]

is the sky box connected to the phone line or to the internet?

 

dx

 

[Its WAR]

I don't know how its connected. But on a similar issue, he had been paying for BT super fast fibre broadband. When I spoke to BT they confirmed that he hadn't used the internet for years despite it costing £44 a month. 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Its WAR

[BankFodder]

send them an Sar

[Its WAR]

Yes..........BF, we got good at that some years ago with the bank charges debacle. Haven't sent one since.

[dx100uk]

so go do a DD guarantee again BT thren.

 

and as for Sky if it wasnt on a phoneline

then they have no records of use or NOT.

so go do a DD guarantee against that one too.

all to the banks you don't need to involve either Bt nor sky.

 

dx

 

[Its WAR]

I have received a DD indemnity reclaim (from his bank) against Sky from the date I cancelled the service in Feb.

 

I am minded to make another claim going back further depending on the reply to my SAR which I issued 11 Sept.

 

The SAR is getting interesting.

A week after issuing it, Sky send me a letter asking for a copy of the Power of Attorney (which I had already sent them a month earlier). I send them another straight away.

 

3 weeks after issuing the SAR, Sky send me a letter confirming they have received it and and the Power of Attorney and are forwarding the request (I guess to their data controller).

 

3 days later the data controller sends a form to my uncle to complete (not to me).

The form asks for confirmation of his details (which  they already hold) plus an item of ID.

 

The covering letter is interesting.

The opening sentence

"Thank you for requesting access to the personal data held about you by Sky. To submit a formal request please complete the enclosed form............."

 

I would have thought the formal request was the actual SAR, not the form they asked to be completed?

 

The letter goes on to say

"The use of the enclosed form is optional. However to process the request we require all the information requested within the document."

 

The form only asks for basic info, which they already hold, so seems rather pointless. It does ask for ID though (of my uncle and myself).

 

The letter ends,

"Please note that the statutory timeframe for responding to your request will not begin until we receive the additional information requested from you."

 

I don't believe that is correct.

I would expect the SAR would trigger the 30 days, not their wishes to delay things by issuing a form. 

 

My view as to whether to submit another DD indemnity claim (possibly going back 6 years or longer?) was dependant on whether the SAR showed up any useful information to support a larger reclaim.

 

I thought that if the SAR did not arrive within time, I would be justified in making a full reclaim.............even though I have no evidence as to the date the SKY equipment failed or whether the failure had been reported years ago (maybe the SAR would indicate such).

 

The account commenced in 2007, so the question remains as to how far back should I claim?

 

I have had a TV engineer visit and he confirmed the satellite dish LNB was full of water and the hand set was also faulty. He replaced them on site.

 

The issue with making a DD indemnity claim relies on telling the bank the reason why you are making the claim.

 

It seems there are '8 secret reasons'.

One is that the amount debited is wrong (fairly straightforward to say the amount is wrong because it should be zero as the contract had been cancelled but the DDs still taken.

 

Or as was the reason I gave when I reclaimed 6 years of TV licence fees for my 82 year old uncle.

 

However,  the indemnity should probably not be used to settle a matter such as a contract dispute.

So, not all reasons will satisfy the bank to give the refund. 

 

Does anyone know what the DD indemnity reasons are which allow the banks to make the refunds?

and any advise regarding what date to work to regarding a late SAR reply?

And how far back should I make the DD indemnity reclaim? 

 

Any advise  would be gratefully received.

 

[AndyOrch]

Valid Indemnity Claims

There are eight valid reasons where a payer can request a Direct Debit refund.  All of the reasons are linked to the payer’s direct debit collection but can refer to an existing or previously ‘active’ direct debit on their account.

The reasons follow a strict criteria, based around failings in the collection or administration of a Direct Debit by the Service User or payers bank.  The payer, when approaching their bank, makes a ‘refund’ request, as covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee.  If the payer’s reason is deemed as valid, they are then provided with a full and immediate refund of the total value of the disputed collection/s by the payer’s bank.

An indemnity claim must be raised for the full amount of the original Direct Debit collected.  It cannot be raised for partial amounts.  In most cases, the claim is raised by the payers bank but Services Users are also allowed to raise indemnity claims on the payer’s behalf. In addition, it is possible for a payer to claim for ‘consequential loss’, however this will not be refunded to the payer until the paying bank has been refunded for such by the Service User.

As this is information is sensitive we have not published a full list of valid reasons here but we can be contacted for further information.

 

https://cleardirectdebit.co.uk/indemnity-claims/

[dx100uk]

a skybox of that era would have a telephone socket on the rear

and an ethernet internet cable connection.

if neither of these were connected, then sky will not hold any data upon what the box was or was not used for as it has no means of relaying that data to sky.

a skybox is not a satellite 'transmitter ' so can't 'talk' via the satellite to sky. it is simply a receiver.

from installation the skybox must have been able to talk to sky for the card under the flap at the front to be activated, loaded with the subscriptions and allow the reception of his paid for packages. and periodically for those those packages to remain active on the box.

sky will hold some form of data whilst a phone/internet connection remains active, but that would be minimal and of little use other than to prove it was/was not, in communication with sky.

unless he phoned and complained XXX channels were not working there will be no data when the box lost it's satellite signal as there will be no manual intervention test results trying to communicate with the box.

TBH:  the fact that he didn't or couldn't watch paid for content is not sky's problem.

as far as they are concerned, he had the availability too, did not report faults, so the contract rolled.

i think you'll find the bank will hold the same view.

 

 

 

[Its WAR]

I agree DX.

The 'fault' appears to be that of an old man with limited understanding, not realising the equipment was faulty.

Being unable to watch Sky and so simply stopped watching Sky because he couldn't receive it.

 

The fact he continued paying for it for many years highlights the problem of recurring annual renewals.

The other issue (apart from faulty equipment) is one of being foisted to pay such a high contracted monthly amount £37, when Sky has reduced the fee (or given free extras), but allowed this account to continue paying a high rate.

 

I am sure I will not find any notes in the SAR regarding a reported fault, but remain hopeful for a breakthrough.

 

[AndyOrch]

Topic opened

[Its WAR]

I need to either press this to a claim or knock the whole thing on it's head.

Sky are not  engaging with me.

The bank has refused to refund under the DD guarantee indemnity earlier than the date I cancelled the contract. 

I wonder whether I bother to take it further, sue for 5 years at £37 a month (quite a large issue fee right there).

Or choose a shorter time frame, or go for the simple difference between my uncle being charged £37 a month despite Sky bringing out lower priced bundles and my uncle not knowing to take advantage of them (Sky is now only £25 a month).

I would be pleased to read some final options how to proceed.

[dx100uk]

there has been a lot of movement just recently on rolling contract refunds... particularly to do with anti-virus programs and things like apple pay TV and their subscription services. the relevant authorities ordered them to refund back to when the customer last actually used them.

not sure where i read it but worthy news.

 

dx