Sky children's games charges legal??

Vicsmcd

Hi, I have had over £100 of premium rate calls from Sky on this months bill which apparently is due to my 5 year old son trying to access Spongebob interactive games unsuccessfully. He constantly had an error code 106 and never actually accessed the games so kept trying. I assumed that this error code was a safe guard to stop a child being able to access these chargeable services. How wrong I was. Each time he tried to connect it charged me £1.50. I have complained to a manager, who wasn't interested and said it is my fault for not configuring my parental lock correctly. I told him that when the engineer installed my services he went through everything with me, but didn't once mention changing the default settings on my parental lock or my son could access premium rate numbers. I have logged a complaint with Ofcom and I have contacted Watchdog. I want Sky's installation procedure changing to automatically set these locks, to prevent this happening to other families. I also want a refund and an apology. How can it be legal to entice children to play games with extortionate charges when their parents have not been given the option or knowledge to stop it? I want to stop Sky being able to scam any other families in this way. Any help? Is it legal?

Buzby

Sorry, but this will not fly. YOU remain fully responsiuble for any usage of your phone line made by Sky's equipment. They provide parental control to restrict access which you did not use - what more could they have done?

Did your son ask your permission to access these services? The issue is he accessed a premioum service without your permission, did you tell him not to? The service is no different to a wide variety of games and services aimed at public of ALL ages, from Games to to role-playing - if you have the service capability, it remains your responsibility to control access.

Why should they apologise because you failed to protect yourself, or control family access to services that cost? A 5yo is too young to appreciate that money will need to be paid by someone for the services he uses, hence the need for parental supervision.

Moshi Monsters, is another big money spinner that may also be appealing to him (via mobile), so this might be a good time to check that all useage is restricted and PIN protected. The charge was for dialling the call (and levied by the phone carrier for connecting it) the fact the game did not connect is irrelevant, but at least the error prevented even longer connections, as you'd be looking at a really big bill.

This also might be a good time to get Premium Rate Call Barring placed on your line to prevent this too. But in answer to your query, yes the charges are legal.

spike7451

I agree with Buzby on this,in order for your son to have tried to access the games,Sky error code 106 is an interecative connection problem normally caused by the router or microfilter.
When your son goes to use the service,the box will ask him if he wants to continue &,if so,enter the pin number,which is the last for digits of the viewing card.What he has purchased is a 24hr pass for the games which is £1.53 a day,so he's been doing this for longer than a month if he's ran up £100.
When the box connects,it then charges to your phoneline & connects the purchased game.Your son may not have been able to access the games but you have still paid for them as something in your physical set up,maybe a missing microfilter,has blocked the box's connection to the game server.
This is set by the engineer by DEFAULT & is well explained in the Sky booklet that comes with the box & it's not the engineers job to suggest you change the PIN as it's the CUSTOMERS responsibility for safeguarding the pin number nor are the engineers allowed to suggest that it be changed as quite often,the customer complains to Sky that they can't use box office or interactive because the engineer suggested they change the pin & they cant remember it.

Vicsmcd

Hi, thaks for the replies. The bill is only for one month Spike, the £100 is because he kept trying to connect and it charged £1.50 each time. The calls lasted for between 2 and 30 seconds apparently, with numerous attemts in the same day.(I have asked for details from Sky). Had he accessed the games he wouldn't have kept trying, as he would have had a 24 hour pass at which point I would have realised I was being charged and a bill of £100 would not have occured. Error 106 says failed to connect, hence my annoyance at being charged for connection. You are correct, a parental lock is set by the engineer however it did not ask for the 4 pin code when he tried to connect. Your have to configure the parental lock settings to stop the premium rates being accessed. I have messaged the Sky forum, and a member of Sky has acknowledged that the installation procedure should include advice to parents to include configuring parental lock settings to prevent such charges. To do this you have to go into parental lock settings and change default settings. In my opinion the system is installed to scam unsuspecting parents, its unethical and immoral to entice children to plag chargable games when their parents have not been informed of the necessity to configure parental lock settings. If engineers are to spend time going through the system with customers, surely this is crucial! They have a moral obligation to warn parents as part of installation to configure parental lock settings. In the engineers words "thats everything you need to know" .......... obviously not.
We are a very money conscious family, every penny counts and no I do not let my children access any chargeable moshi monster games or anything else that unecessarily costs money.
I will be taking this further with the ombudsman once I have recieved a dead lock letter or a period of 8 weeks has passed. ~As I said, its immoral and unethical.

Vicsmcd

Also I gather by your response spike that you, a sky engineer, are unaware of the need to alter default parental lock settings to prevent access to premium services. If even you don't know this, how on earth are the general public supposed to know?

tlh858

Vicsmcd wrote: »

I have complained to a manager, who wasn't interested and said it is my fault for not configuring my parental lock correctly.

They are correct. It's your responsibility to control what your children can access.
This applies to Sky, other TV services, telephone calls, websites, emails, books, magazines and everything else.

All of the information about how to configure the parental controls is described in the manual for the Sky box.

Pay the bill and be thankful it was only some silly game that your child was trying to access.

prowla

This is why Sky insist you connect the phone line...

spike7451

Vicsmcd wrote: »

Also I gather by your response spike that you, a sky engineer, are unaware of the need to alter default parental lock settings to prevent access to premium services. If even you don't know this, how on earth are the general public supposed to know?

The pin number that is set is the STANDARD pin number & is set in accordance with Sky's Installation practices.
It is NOT the engineers job nor is it his responsibility to advise or do anything that is NOT in his job description which is LAID DOWN BY SKY.
And do NOT presume to lecture me or assume that you know what my job description is/was.

Anyway,looks like Sky gave you an answer that you didn't want to hear earlier on today.

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Broadband-Talk-Orders/Extortionate-charges-children-s-games/td-p/734890?search_omni=search-forum-sslc

Your son bought the games,the fact you are aware of the error code suggests you had knowledge of this at some point.Your son was the one at fault here for not being honest with you,not Sky.

Vicsmcd

Thanks spike for posting a link to the sky forum page. I appreciate it, the more publicity I can bring the better. It is none of my concern to become involved in tittle tattle regarding your job description, it is you who describes yourself as a sky engineer, I merely picked up on an incorrect comment in your initial post, having a parental lock is not sufficient to stop premium rate access, the settings need to be configured. Once I receive a reply to my official complaint, I can then inform Ofcom who appear quite interested. And then onto the ombudsman. And thanks prowla, I realise that now, just a month too late!! Oh I'm off now, to pursue my son through the small claims court, apparently it's his fault. Oh...... Hang on, he's five.

lucy03

Vicsmcd wrote: »

Oh I'm off now, to pursue my son through the small claims court, apparently it's his fault. Oh...... Hang on, he's five.

It would really be the fault of whoever was responsible for the child at the time, because as you suggest, a five year old can't be held responsible.

However, personally and just as my view, I'd be inclined to try a different route as although these charges may be technically correct, the service the customer was expecting hasn't been received. Now that might not be the fault of Sky, but I'd personally suggest writing and asking if maybe they could look at some kind of goodwill gesture.

You might find for example that they will write off the bill if you renew your contract for 12 months, or they might write off half as a goodwill gesture. I'd personally suggest that'd be a better route than pursuing legal action, and probably much less hassle.

But good luck, Sky can be quite good at customer retention when they want to.

cr1mson

And this is why my box is disconnected from the phone line aswell as having the parental lock on it!