Not Having Sky TV Supplement £2.50

[Deleted User]

bumblebeebuzz wrote: »

I will fight them tooth and nail on it, going via both Offcom & BBC Watchdog.

So despite reading the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the Op's two year old thread, you still decide to bump up the thread with basically a reiteration of what was completely debunked in 2011?

Neither OFCOM nor Watchdog will have any interest in a complaint which so obviously has no foundation.

duchy

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

And Scot75 never logged back on again after posting their 3 message.

He's still waiting for the police to call him back :rotfl:

Scirocco212

Just for your interest, I've had the same issue with Sky today.

They were unable to find the £2.50 charge in their terms and conditions for my Sky Fibre Unlimited contract, and have credited my account £30 for the years charge in advance.

:j

pen1

Hi Scirocco212,

The £2.50 supplement for not having Sky TV does not apply to Sky fibre products.

This has been raised before and the Sky Billing Manager for Talk & Broadband advised that such examples of it being charged were in error.

See http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Billing-Payments/The-supplement-charges-for-not-having-sky-TV/m-p/1087924#M19170

Scirocco212

It would be nice if they would educate their staff! I spoke to their billings advisor today, she assured me it was correct and even discussed the case with her manager.

They offered me a 3 month "discount" as goodwill as they didn't inform me of the costs at the time of purchase. It wasn't until I insisted that I couldn't see anything in the terms and conditions that they organised a full refund.

It appears there are numerous "errors" on this issue floating around various forums, so the fact their billings manager openly admits it's a problem baffles me as to why it took so much hard work to get it corrected.

Thank you for the additional information, it's good to know there are people out there keeping their ears to the ground on this stuff.

Peace, out.

jasonwatkins

bit of a bump but i got the "supplement for not having sky tv" letter this morning. rather bizarrely, my bill has been reduced by nearly £26 for next month ..

about to ring them to discuss ..

anotheruser

And it was worth bumping for this?

This is why MSE should auto lock threads after 12 months of no posts.

lindsaygalaxy

i have recently gone to phone and bb only (no tv) and they said on the phone there would be a £2.50 charge. BUT they offered me the bb free so in realy terms i'm paying £2.50 for it, but I still think thats a pretty good deal

Bikershane

well that can't be right cuz I have never ever had sky tv only broadband, and yet it states on my bill for my broadband and I quote (supplement for not having sky tv, £2.50p)how can they possibly charge me for not having a service, its like me receiving a £200 bill every month saying, this is for the car you never bought off us, its ridiculous and its illegal

[Deleted User]

Bikershane wrote: »

how can they possibly charge me for not having a service, its like me receiving a £200 bill every month saying, this is for the car you never bought off us, its ridiculous and its illegal

It's clearly not illegal for them to subsidise (in the form of "packages") a combination of services. You have chosen not to take advantage of the money saving offered through such a package and therefore have to pay a supplement. It's nothing like charging you for a car which you haven't bought and your logic is totally flawed I'm afraid.

Read the rest of this now almost five year-old thread.