Sky verbal agreement?

terriburns

Hello I need some advice on my sky agreement.

I left Sky a few weeks ago due to bad customer service, I then recieved an offer through the post offering 75% off so I phoned up and was offered the full package for £13 a month, I continued to set this up and the advisor talked me through my next bills and the Sky was turned on.

After an hour the Sky was turned off, I had to phone Sky and ask why, I was told that the offer should have included HD Tv, which was an extra £10 a month. As this was not disscussed in the first phonecall does Sky have to honur the first agreement?I have asked them to listen to the call and give me the first offer that was agreed, they have told me they will get back to me but it has been a week, Is a verbal agreement on the phone legally binding?
Can Sky do this?

bod1467

I believe they can cancel the agreement as long as they put you back in the position you were prior to the agreement starting. In your case it is turning off the package and not charging you anything.

tomwakefield

bod1467 wrote: »

I believe they can cancel the agreement as long as they put you back in the position you were prior to the agreement starting. In your case it is turning off the package and not charging you anything.

I don't think they can. I think a contract for a minimum period is exactly that and, in the event of a breach of contract, they must remedy the consumer so they are in the position they would have been if the contract had been performed correctly.

Of course, the gym membership ruling may have had an impact on this.

arcon5

bod1467 wrote: »

I believe they can cancel the agreement as long as they put you back in the position you were prior to the agreement starting. In your case it is turning off the package and not charging you anything.

Why can sky rescind on the contract without penalty yet a consumer is tied in for a minimum period? Doesn't exactly seem fair to me, or correct.

Op, read the contract to see if they have any provisions for cancellation within x period in case of a material error made. If not, I cannot see them having a valid case to cancel the package. The only problem is actually getting them to honor it - that may be the challenge, but remain firm & polite and you may just win this.

You may also get better results by writing to them.

brettcta

arcon5 wrote: »

Why can sky rescind on the contract without penalty yet a consumer is tied in for a minimum period? Doesn't exactly seem fair to me, or correct.

Op, read the contract to see if they have any provisions for cancellation within x period in case of a material error made. If not, I cannot see them having a valid case to cancel the package. The only problem is actually getting them to honor it - that may be the challenge, but remain firm & polite and you may just win this.

You may also get better results by writing to them.

i believe both parties have 28 day cooling period to cancel the contract.

arcon5

brettcta wrote: »

i believe both parties have 28 day cooling period to cancel the contract.

Under what law?

A credit agreement only has 14 days so cant imagine a telehpone service having 4 weeks, unless the company provide for this.

Not all contracts require a cooling off period, and cooling off periods are aimed at the consumers not retailers, the retailer is after all the one who writes the detail in the contract.

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

Under what law?

A credit agreement only has 14 days so cant imagine a telehpone service having 4 weeks, unless the company provide for this.

Not all contracts require a cooling off period, and cooling off periods are aimed at the consumers not retailers, the retailer is after all the one who writes the detail in the contract.

Yes but contracts must remain balanced. You cannot give extensive cancellation rights to one party but not the other although if a term may have more than one meaning, the meaning that is most beneficial to the consumer would be taken as being true.

What the OP needs to do is read their agreement. Although it may be of no help as ultimately, even if a term in a contract is unfair and cannot be enforced, it does not necessarily affect any other terms of the contract.

A term saying they are not liable for any losses no matter the circumstances will no doubt be found to be unfair. Whether they are liable in these circumstances would depend on the details.

arcon5

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes but contracts must remain balanced. You cannot give extensive cancellation rights to one party but not the other although if a term may have more than one meaning, the meaning that is most beneficial to the consumer would be taken as being true.

What the OP needs to do is read their agreement. Although it may be of no help as ultimately, even if a term in a contract is unfair and cannot be enforced, it does not necessarily affect any other terms of the contract.

A term saying they are not liable for any losses no matter the circumstances will no doubt be found to be unfair. Whether they are liable in these circumstances would depend on the details.

I never implied they don't, but a contract that doesnt provide a cooling off period isn't unfair and a contract making provisions for material errors is not necessarily unfair either.

As I said here, I don't see what grounds they have to terminate the agreement. But it's worth checking to see if there is any clause to justify it or any clause to do with the point of acceptance or anything really.

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

I never implied they don't, but a contract that doesnt provide a cooling off period isn't unfair and a contract making provisions for material errors is not necessarily unfair either.

As I said here, I don't see what grounds they have to terminate the agreement. But it's worth checking to see if there is any clause to justify it or any clause to do with the point of acceptance or anything really.

Ah no, i was more referring to a cancel that allows a supplier to cancel without penalty vs a term in the same contract which does not allow the consumer to do the same.

Of course OP could meet them halfway and suggest they take the HD tv @ half price (£5 a month unless i'm getting threads mixed up ).

dacouch

It should be easy for a Rupert Murdoch company to listen to a call

tomwakefield

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes but contracts must remain balanced. You cannot give extensive cancellation rights to one party but not the other...

Doesn't DSR do that, arguably.

Someone buys something online and gets it delivered. They can return the goods and insist on a full refund, but the shop can't refund and insist the goods get returned.

Just musing, really.