Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Meat smugglers using English vehicles to evade border checks - Farmers Weekly WWW.FWI.CO.UK Criminal gangs are buying English-registered coaches and vans to smuggle large amounts of illegal meat into the country, Farmers Weekly has learned.  
    • I've used payslip, passport, driving licence, still can't identify me, everything is upto date address etc, 1 attempt left then it blocks me H
    • Thanks for the replies and sorry, as it seems I haven't communicated my question clearly. I'm not after advice about how to deal with the situation I'm in. I'm on top of that and sent a SAR to Scottish Widows the day before I sent one to the FOS. My query was around the FOS interpretation of personal data and the extent of their obligations under GDPR, hence the original title They have said that "personal data is defined as any information relating to an [...] identifiable natural person (‘data subject’)" They then define an identifiable natural person as "one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as [...] an identification number. My view is that I have a complaint reference number, which identifies a complaint raised by me about the administration of my pension so it therefore indirectly identifies me If I'm right, then I believe that all the data related to my complaint is personal data about me, including the screen shot that purportedly establishes that I received my statements. I was hoping there might be someone with better knowledge of GDPR that can clarify whether I'm right or wrong before I react to the FOS's failure to disclose  
    • Please bear with me here i shall try and make this short but with all the detail, but i need help ASAP as there is limited time allowed for this process. I have been with my company 4 years and have advanced through the technical ranks to my current position,  we have an annual report which goes from 0-4 and for three years i have never scored lower than a 3. I was promoted to the role i am in now as an area quality assurance lead and the location was for the NE ( i live in the NW) eventually a similar role became available for another role in the NW. I asked my line manager if he minded me applying for it and he had no issues, i applied sat the multi stage interview and was given the role. My role is now classed as "at risk" of redundancy as we are moving from 4 regions to two which means they are also moving from 4 roles to two roles in my position. Two people are considered safe and myself and another at risk, my question is what is the criteria to separate safe from at risk . In the documentation received from my company it is below, i have zero issues and i know cv against cv mine wins, i was even selected by the company as a company mentor because of my experience in engineering and leadership. This is a closed group of maybe ten people and i am the only non senior executive included.    ·         Performance and Behaviour : I have zero behaviour issues, no issues with performance from my current line manager.  ·         Performance Improvement/ Disciplinary Records   : Zero disciplinary's and no performance issues, in fact my line manager on record has said I'm forthcoming ·         End Of Year Rating : Issues explained below Now my line manager was leaving the company and he did tell me "there was some politics involved with you getting that role, the city build manager and head of area build had promised it to their lead engineer (something they had no right to promise as it has to go though the process ) anyway from day 1 it became very clear that i would not be accepted for this reason within their community although i did just try to help them achieve quality and specification as that was my role. After a few weeks it became very apparent as to why the role had been promised to their man, i found issues where properties had been signed off as ready to accept subscribers when they were not ready (for bonus and stat reasons) and several quality issues i discovered which we could remedy and improve our productivity (unfortunately this would highlight that these issues had been there and not dealt with) My new head of area build (part of this trilogy of him, city build manager and lead engineer)  clearly did not want me there (for the reasons stated) but paid lip service, i had highlighted that i needed to walk off some structured with our canter of excellence counterparts ( as this was part of my role to link in with them for national issues) and he responded by saying i am not to walk them off, and that we have sufficient engineers to do that task (by saying this he could make sure that the engineers would take them round to structures that are A not the ones i have highlighted, and B would have very minor issues) This battle went back and forth over the months where i tried my best to build up the relationship with  them, my attitude was ok you have made some mistakes here, but we are all a team and even though you have hidden issues i can help you remedy them and hopefully we can do so and keep them off the radar,  but they just never did, So moving forward to October last year (2023) this is getting near to annual review time, now i had helped the company out massively by working a substantial amount of weekends and nights to fix issues, and i said i would take most of the time as TOIL ( as agreed with by my previous head of area build) this was 30 days. My current head of area build said i needed to put my leave in as it had been flagged as having a large amount. When i did input the leave (it would result in me taking all of December off) he was unhappy with me and was extremely curt in his responses as he could find nothing on the system for my TOIL , i explained the situation, my line manager would ask if i could work the hours, i would, and when i wanted leave he would authorise (we had an good working relationship, he was an excellent manager) he ended up going to HR to ask their advice and a teams call was set up with myself, head of area build and HR, it was confirmed by HR that it was a company error, when you want to input TOIL there should be a dropdown option in the leave menu and one of the options would be TOIL, this had not been setup on mine. So the company authorised the leave explaining that this should have been done and hadn't, i did say that this is the way it had always been and pretty much everyone on my team then operated this way, TOIL had never been discussed and none of had this option available. So i entered my leave from 4th December - 2nd January,  My line manager was an outside contractor and was leaving the company on the 15th December. On my return i found that we had a new head of area build, it would be a temporary position as they were not going to fill the position permanently and he would be covering his role (Scotland) and this role (NW). I contacted him to say that i had not received my end of year report yet and when would this happen as i had not sat with my line manager tor mine. A little over a week later my HoAB and i had a teams call, it was a introduction meeting and end of year report, he said that he had received feedback from the outgoing manager and he had given me a 2 (i have as explained before never scored lower than a 3) he asked hoe long i had been in the current role (just over a year) as this grade can mean you are new to the role and need a little supervision, haven't built up relationships with stakeholders etc. So he explained what my grade and bonus would be and if i had any feedback, i explained that this was unfair, i had proof that i had not met my targets (i say targets as there were never really any set, but going from emails and conversation we have had, and the job description) i had even created Powerpoint presentations which were very complex into how our network works from beginning to end  as there was distinct lack of knowledge here and i am a lead trainer / assessor (this btw he was extremely impressed with) He did say he had spoken to people in the centre of excellence which o believe was the head of operations, and he did look confused as to the disparity in feedback from them and the original manager that wrote my report. I contacted HR to raising my concerns that i had not sat with my line manager to go through my report,  had i had the chance to do so, i could have rebutted anything said as i had proof of my achievements even though he had set no defined targets, i could prove that i had been extremely active in identifying and remedying issues, HR did come back to me and these are their comments  1) "Your rating was submitted by your manager at the time xxx xxxxxx and he should have carried out an EOY review with you. The rating would not have been provided in this review but feedback should have been shared" [this never happened] 2)  Initial ratings where then discussed and reviewed during a calibration process (for your team) this will have included HOABs and RDs. During this session ratings can be challenged and changed. I can confirm that your rating was not changed as a result of this session and it remained at the rating that xxx submitted. 3) xxx did provide thorough feedback to xxx xxx in a handover so if not already done so it may be worth speaking with him to understand that feedback further.   4) In terms of reputation and the concern you share – ratings are not made public and are private to each individual. 5) And this first line obviously is incorrect " As far as i can see this would be the only separator they could have measured me on to separate safe from not safe, and if so the company did not follow its own procedure. My current line manager said " an error had occurred as you had not received the option to  sir with your manager for your review, and the company needs to make sure this error does not happen again) Well then they are admitting there was an issue and it needs remedying not sweeping under the carpet. All of this is documented. To remind the rating of a 2 is not a concerning grade. Please see descriptor below Generally, needs little supervision but does on occasion require direction/supervision. Does not always anticipate changes to the work environment and could adapt more quickly. May be seen as a strong performer in certain situations or by some audiences but may not perform at that level in all situations. May need some development or guidance to carry out some elements of role. May not consistently demonstrate the right behaviours. May have been on Performance Improvement during the year but has since shown strong improvement        
    • Also, what is the value of the dress and have you refunded the purchaser?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 Multiroom Charges - Fair?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6195 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,

 

First post on this site, but have just got off the phone to Sky.

 

Heres the deal, we have the top package with them, along with the top broadband package. I want to get an additional 3 multiroom cards - one each for two bedrooms and one for a second box in the lounge (Explained later). The kit is already all in place, so I dont need any dishes, sky boxes etc. The additional boxes currently have freesat cards in them.

 

Sky want to charge an additional £10 per room monthly subscription, along with a £10 per card connection fee. This puts the monthly subscription up to in excess of £70!!

 

Reasons for the addition cards are simple - 2 x bedrooms (I actually have 4, but only need / want sky in 2). Second box in the lounge is as we use media center for TV. In order to record 1 channel and watch another, you need 2 inputs. ergo - 2 boxes.

 

My points are:

 

1) Sky advertise "Multiroom". This surely gives the impression of a single additional service to watch in multiple rooms, not an additional service per room. (Which surely would be called "Sky additional room")

 

2) The functionalilty I want for the lounge (record one channel, watch another) is already available in the form of sky plus, which, as of the end of June will be free. The functionality offered by the media center is far superior (in my opinion) to that of sky plus, but sky will not allow people to build their services into it.

 

3) No other TV service that I am aware of charges you for the privilage of watching TV in more than one room.

 

Point 1 and 3 I think are fairly self explainatory but do seem wrong to me. However, point 2 has got me going a little. Surely the failure to allow other equipment to be used is anti-competitive? It reminds me of the recent itunes case where apple were nearly instructed to open itunes so that downloaded music will play on any MP3 player, not just the ipod. They only got away with it on a DRM technicallty as far as I am aware. In terms of Sky, they cannot argue this as they control any DRM (in terms of available channels) via their card.

Also, in requiring a second box and hence an additional multiroom subscription for my lounge, surely they could be considered to be penalising me by attempting to charge me for a service which would be free were I to use their inferior kit?

 

Bit of a rant I know, but would be interested to know if anyone else agrees with me (Or thinks I should just shut up!!!).........

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think that Sky are offering a service, as they are entitled to do so. For this service they are charging a certain amount. You are free to have this service or not. If you want it, you have to pay for it.

 

I think there is a difference here as to whether something is unfair or simply expensive. You mention that the service referred to in point 2 will be free by the end of June. Can you not simply accept this service at that time and not pay for it?

 

It's incidental that I received a mailshot from Sky today. The document advised quite clearly of all the services they provide and the charges for them. I cannot say that they are good value, nor can I say that they are unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Or thinks I should just shut up!!!).........

 

Oh the temptation !!!!:D

 

Just kidding.

I don't have TV at all, so I don't really care, but points 1 & 2...

 

Imagine small block of 6 flats, one account and 5 extra free access cards.

In theory you could even run a cable next door in a normal house, and while we're at it, a network cable to share the broadband.

Cheaper and cheaper it gets.

 

Point 3, Ntl, or Virgin as they are now, charge for extra boxes. Probably partly for the same reason.

 

I guess they all want to try and keep some form of control and income. But I'm only guessing :)

I don't always believe what I say, I'm just playing Devils Advocate

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what both of you are saying. Also I appreciate it is very hard to control in terms of where the multi-room cards end up.

 

That said, in this day and age, should anyone be paying £70 plus a month for a tv?

 

TV License is expensive enough. I think twice at spending £1000 plus on a nice big flat screen, but over the year I could easily pay for one on the money I am paying sky (Maybe they should give me one free with my subsciption).

 

The other problem I have is that I am unfortunate enough to live in an area where terrestrial is not an option. The analogue transmission is weak (Doesnt work when raining) and no digital signal at all, (until 2012ish according to the website). This means we are tied to sky and effectively means they can charge what they want.

 

I should also point out that the multi-room services (I believe at least) are only activated if all of the boxes are plugged into the same phone line. I guess this is a way that Sky prevent people from using the same subscription in different places.

 

Running phone lines all round the house to accomodate this is going to be a pain, one that I am prepared to accept, but not when I have to pay £70 per month for the privilage....

Link to post
Share on other sites

should anyone be paying £70 plus a month for a tv

No, most certainly not! Because there is rarely anything on TV really worth watching at all. Hence I don't!

 

Having said that,

Sky are a business, and like most suppliers they provide a service for a price, yes that service might be crap, yes the price might be high, but thats what they offer for the price they ask.

You as a consumer have a choice, pick the services that suppliers are offering you and pay the rate that they want, or decide that the service is not worth the price and don't deal with the supplier.

 

Easy really!

 

Or are you suggesting that you have a 'right' to the services being offered? You'd expect to pay for a new lotus, why not for entertainment?

 

Sorry if I sound 'off', but too many people want everything for nothing, and/or seem to believe that they have a right to receive everything for little or nothing.

 

p.s. Even though I do not need one ( no TV) I do believe that the TV licence should be abolished.

I don't always believe what I say, I'm just playing Devils Advocate

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also point out that the multi-room services (I believe at least) are only activated if all of the boxes are plugged into the same phone line. I guess this is a way that Sky prevent people from using the same subscription in different places.

 

This is not so. Each box must be connected to a phone line for the first 12 months at least - it does not have to be the same phone line.

 

When we had Sky, we had two boxes connected to separate phone lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not so. Each box must be connected to a phone line for the first 12 months at least - it does not have to be the same phone line.

 

When we had Sky, we had two boxes connected to separate phone lines.

 

i am afraid it does have to be the same line/number as it shows up. There is no connection fee but for every card after your main subs will cost £10 per month as long as all boxes are connected to the SAME line or you will be charged £43.50 (assuming top package) for each box that shows that sky are not getting satifactory callbacks from)

 

It's a case of these are the charge and if you don't want to pay them then don;t aske for them . Also bear in mind it's another 12 month minimum subscription for all boxes.

 

You can have sky in other rooms without multiroom charge but you can only watch what is being showm on the box tv.

 

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

Guest ArthurP

 

That said, in this day and age, should anyone be paying £70 plus a month for a tv?

 

TV License is expensive enough. I think twice at spending £1000 plus on a nice big flat screen, but over the year I could easily pay for one on the money I am paying sky (Maybe they should give me one free with my subsciption).

 

Sorry mate but it just sounds like the problem I encountered when I thought of having Sky.

 

Sky is just an expensive luxury so I didn't get it. Why not try that train of thought?

 

:-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what the problem is.

 

Skyplus (full package) plus multi-room costs me around £53 per month. We have the multi-room box wired to a tv in another room so Sky can be viewed in there too, but obviously the same channel as the other room.

 

Using this system we can record & watch different channels whenever we want.

 

Skyplus allows programmes to be saved and then copied to DVDR or Video and so we can still have plenty of space on the skyplus to accomodate everyone in the house. It's very convenient. That's why we are happy to pay the money every month.

 

It costs £53 because that's what Sky charge and what we agreed to pay for this service. They didn't force us to take this. Any more than they are forcing you.

 

Echoing other posters I don't really understand what you want Sky to do? Why should they reduce YOUR subscription if not everyone elses?

 

I've had my problems with Skyplus and Sky themselves (see my sig) but I can't complain about the cost, as it's my choice to pay it. Just the same as it's yours.

 

If you don't want to pay £70 odd per month, find another supplier who will give you the same channels and service as Sky for less. (Although I doubt you will find one)

 

:confused:

2007 Issues ALL RESOLVED

2008 Issues ALL RESOLVED

£4,200 in charges claimed back succesfully from a total of 5 Creditors

2009 Issues ALL RESOLVED

NEXT Directory - No Agreement, No Further Action **WON**

2010 Issues

Court Claim from Black Horse - AOS 22.11.10, CPR 23.11.10

Assisting Daughter with Employment Tribunal for Wrongful Dismissal/Discrimination

 

:) My Head is officially out of the Sand :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the temptation !!!!:D

 

Just kidding.

I don't have TV at all, so I don't really care, but points 1 & 2...

 

Imagine small block of 6 flats, one account and 5 extra free access cards.

In theory you could even run a cable next door in a normal house, and while we're at it, a network cable to share the broadband.

Cheaper and cheaper it gets.

 

Point 3, Ntl, or Virgin as they are now, charge for extra boxes. Probably partly for the same reason.

 

I guess they all want to try and keep some form of control and income. But I'm only guessing :)

 

Thats why you HAVE to keep the boxes plugged into the phone line if the box calls home and the number doesnt match it locks you out and if its not plugged in at all then you are in breach of their terms and they warn you then cut you off, unlike the media subsidy for install and supply they DO warn and they DO cut you off :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sky TV is excellent value for money. I pay about 50.00 a month for Sky+ and multiroom.

 

you could of course for the same price ----

 

watch half a chelsea match

 

Sit on your own at a west end show

 

A meal for two at a very ordinary restaurant

 

unlimited multiroom is not yet available but perhaps in the future !!

7 actions in progress

 

amount refunded so far £6500

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a SkyHD box downstairs, wired to an amp in the loft. The amp distributes back down to my study, kitchen and master bedroom. This is my own "multiroom" system, meaning I can watch the same output in 4 different places.

 

In addition, I have a multiroom box in the attic (put there when I upgraded to SkyHD) which costs an extra £10 a month. This is wired into a different amp, and into bedroom 2 and the garden (don't ask) - plus it is also wired into a Slingbox (which then plugs into my broadband router).

 

The result is, I can watch (using laptop or PC) the output of the multiroom box from anywhere in the house (as well as any internet connection outside of the house) and can watch the output of the HD box in 4 seperate rooms.

 

Covers all of my bases, and means I don't end up with an inordinate number of multiroom boxes / cards.

 

Sky do get shirty of the multiroom box isn't plugged into the same phone line - whereas in the first 12 months you have to have your box connected, the multiroom connection (to phone) needs to be FOR THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT, as it is the only way they can ensure it is being used in your house...

 

I would consider freesat if the signal doesn't allow freeview, unless there's a need to watch (say) 4 different Sky channels in the same house at the same time. The Slingbox / Slingplayer is also an excellent way to watch TV. I can even install Slingplayer software on my mobile phone and watch on the move.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why you HAVE to keep the boxes plugged into the phone line if the box calls home and the number doesnt match it locks you out and if its not plugged in at all then you are in breach of their terms and they warn you then cut you off, unlike the media subsidy for install and supply they DO warn and they DO cut you off :(

 

Do to a dispute with BT we have had no telephone line in our house for approx 4 months.

Sky haven't said anything to us or warned us or cut us off.

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took Sky to court last year and lost heavily. It was all to do with charging me twice as i had two boxes in two different rooms. I ended up with a refund, but lost the case itself. I got the refund as a goodwill gesture from sky.

 

My advice - buy yourself a few "Magic Eyes" from Ebay @ £2 each, then use them in each of the rooms, you wouldn't even need the boxes then, and could probably make a small profit by selling the unwanted sky boxes on ebay.

Up The Mariners

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do to a dispute with BT we have had no telephone line in our house for approx 4 months.

Sky haven't said anything to us or warned us or cut us off.

 

Paul

 

 

they will do soon believe me - thats why i ended up in court with them, as i refused to plug the 2nd box into the phone line, and then refused to pay a full subscription for EACH box that I had.

Up The Mariners

Link to post
Share on other sites

they will do soon believe me - thats why i ended up in court with them, as i refused to plug the 2nd box into the phone line, and then refused to pay a full subscription for EACH box that I had.

 

I'd agree, they wrote to me as there was a problem with one of multi room connecting on the wrong number - turned out to be a prob with the engineer set up, but they sent a few letters before I actually tore myself away from CAG long enough to edit the settings

 

I wouldnt agree that Sky offers good value, but certainly in my area this is due to lack of competition, no cable available so its Sky or Freeview and Freeview is *cough* so easy choice (at least while I can afford it!)

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ArthurP
I think sky TV is excellent value for money. I pay about 50.00 a month for Sky+ and multiroom.

 

you could of course for the same price ----

 

watch half a chelsea match

 

Sit on your own at a west end show

 

A meal for two at a very ordinary restaurant

 

unlimited multiroom is not yet available but perhaps in the future !!

 

I can't agree for several reasons.

 

For £50 a month I pay my gas, electric and most of my water bill.

 

Or it is almost four times the cost of my car insurance per year.

 

Plus I hear Sky customers have to pay on top if they want to watch a footy match or big fight boxing. A friend said he paid £8 to watch a 1st division game on Sky when he could have gone to the game itself for £2 more!

 

I actually can think of nothing worse than watching endless TV anyway.

 

It's a rip off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do to a dispute with BT we have had no telephone line in our house for approx 4 months.

Sky haven't said anything to us or warned us or cut us off.

 

Paul

 

Well maybe youve slipped thru the crack or whatever but as a general rule they do cut people off etc for no phone line I dont know why they havent in your case but they could do at anytime as several people on this thread have pointed out.

 

On a seperate note we pay for 2 mixes and £10 per month for Sky+ making £25 we got a letter the other day saying they are dropping the £10 per month Sky+ fee from the end of this month so thats our sub almost halved in one go without changing packages :D

 

TBH I may just skip it entirely get 2 freesat cards and use a media center PC to watch different channels black gold have a quad tuner DVB-S card out soon so that would solve the problem record 3 channels and watch one lovely all for free

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree for several reasons.

 

For £50 a month I pay my gas, electric and most of my water bill.

 

Or it is almost four times the cost of my car insurance per year.

 

Plus I hear Sky customers have to pay on top if they want to watch a footy match or big fight boxing. A friend said he paid £8 to watch a 1st division game on Sky when he could have gone to the game itself for £2 more!

 

I actually can think of nothing worse than watching endless TV anyway.

 

It's a rip off.

 

I think youve probably got to be a bit of a football addict like myself to appreciate it

7 actions in progress

 

amount refunded so far £6500

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with things like sky is that it's up to you if want to pay those prices or not or if you feel it's good value or not.

 

It's really a case of if you want it you have to pay their charges and agree to their t&c's

 

 

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

As said, it comes down to what something is worth and whether something is fair. The two are different. Personally, I begrudge paying Virgin the £20 (I got a discount) for my TV, broadband and basic TV package. I never use the phone (my choice), the TV channels offerd are basically what you get with freeview, but the broadband is well worth it (I can't get more than 1 meg anyway) - I would have to pay £11 BT line plus the service charge for any other provider, which would be moer than £20. Cheap? Yes. Value? well.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took Sky to court last year and lost heavily. It was all to do with charging me twice as i had two boxes in two different rooms. I ended up with a refund, but lost the case itself. I got the refund as a goodwill gesture from sky.

 

My advice - buy yourself a few "Magic Eyes" from Ebay @ £2 each, then use them in each of the rooms, you wouldn't even need the boxes then, and could probably make a small profit by selling the unwanted sky boxes on ebay.

 

ordered my magic eye today. a few small drill holes and I will be watching sky all over the house by the weekend

 

thanks for the advice

7 actions in progress

 

amount refunded so far £6500

Link to post
Share on other sites

erm, forgive my nieveness (and I say this jokingly), but are you drilling holes in your walls to watch your neighbours' TV when it is on Sky?

 

Seriously, what are these magic eye thingies? And are they only for Sky or can they be used for Virgin / NTL whoever the hel they are?

 

And are they legal?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are legal. And cheap on auction sites..;)

 

We have them in a few rooms. But you should get the better wire. Co-ax cable i think its called. (im sure some one will correct me on that!!) For a better quality picture.

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...