Sky refuse services

SCO

Hi

I have been in contact with Sky most of the week and have to say i am not impressed with them as a company, however wanted to get their services.

Their is a previous account at my address, my mums, must be about 10 years ago she got rid of Sky.

Sky are saying there is a outstanding balance on her account and have refused to provide me with their services.

Is this legal?

While i know they are a private company and its their choice to provide a service, i thought it was the person that got blacklisted not the address.

macman

Perfectly legal, they are not obliged to provide services at any address if they do not wish to, nor so they have to give a reason.
Have you informed them that she no longer lives at the address and that there is no association (the obvious one presumably being your surname)?

Kurtis_Blue

Why not pay the debt?

macman

But it's not the OP's debt to pay.

Kurtis_Blue

Its his family's debt at the same property, of course they wont provide service, I wouldn't, would you?

Pay the debt and show moral integrity and I would guess they would provide service.

macman

The OP is not responsible for his parent's debts (or any family debts), whether she used to live at the property or not.

Kurtis_Blue

He isn't legally obligated to pay, Sky aren't legal obliged to provide.

But I said moral integrity not legal obligation.

McKneff

Are you sure its 10 years ago.
Debts are usually statute barred after 6.

brewerdave

McKneff wrote: »

Are you sure its 10 years ago.
Debts are usually statute barred after 6.

STATUTE BARRED - Just means that the debt cannot be pursued thru court - the debt still exists and Sky, in this case, are at perfect liberty to refuse to supply the service.

Gratis

macman wrote: »

Have you informed them that she no longer lives at the address and that there is no association (the obvious one presumably being your surname)?

The OP has given no indication, here, that his/her mother no longer resides at the address.

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Its his family's debt at the same property, of course they wont provide service, I wouldn't, would you?

Pay the debt and show moral integrity and I would guess they would provide service.

What’s not clear is why Sky did not pursue the debt to resolution.

The key statistic so far divulged is that the alleged debt dates back ten years.

If the original account holder, the OP’s mother, is now deceased and there were insufficient funds in her Estate to meet Sky’s claim, that was (and remains) the end of it.

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

He isn't legally obligated to pay, Sky aren't legal obliged to provide.

But I said moral integrity not legal obligation.

Death, if that is what has occurred, is not customarily regarded as indicative of a lack of moral integrity.


It’s worth taking up with Sky’s management team: Sky is not renowned for refusing to allow people to pay it money. The company will lose out if it refuses to let the OP open an account and pay it money.

It would have been helpful if the OP had given some clue as to the amount of money over which Sky is aggrieved, whether the OP's mother is extant and, if so, whether she still resides at the address.

(Sky, incidentally is not “a private company”, as described by the OP; British Sky Broadcasting Group plc is a public limited company.)

Kurtis_Blue

Wow Gratis way to over think things, did you not know F1 was on? not sure I stated that death was a sign of low moral integrity....

As a small business owner there is no way I would take a new family member at the same property where debt was outstanding, simple as that.