Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • 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 6109 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...