Take Sky elsewhere or pay for broken contract after losing house

BertNErnie

I am due to move house next week, and have just lost the rental house I was due to move to therefore I am having to stay between friends and family for a few weeks while I find another rental property. I wanted to keep my contract with Sky which I have TV, phone and broadband, and continue to pay whilst I am finding a new property, but I have been informed that unless I move the services to my temporary home which I can't do I have to pay as if I have broken the contract!!! Therefore on top of the stress of being homeless, I will have to pay for breaking a Sky contract that I didn't want to break !!! What do I do now??

macman

You can't do anything but pay the ETC. It's nothing to do with Sky that you lost the rental house.
'Wanting not to break the contract' isn't a get-out clause unfortunately.

Buzby

Tell them you are going away for X months and want to put a block on calls for your phone line. You than then move, safe in the knowledge that no additional bills can be run up, and you can use your Sat R&D river and viewing card as before if a dish is available.

If it looks you cannot get your own property in reasonable time, it may be better to bite the bullet and just cancel.

Nodding_Donkey

Buzby wrote: »

Tell them you are going away for X months and want to put a block on calls for your phone line. You than then move, safe in the knowledge that no additional bills can be run up, and you can use your Sat R&D river and viewing card as before if a dish is available.

If it looks you cannot get your own property in reasonable time, it may be better to bite the bullet and just cancel.

And what about the people that move into the old house and can't get a landline/broadband because the line is already on contract?

Sorry but that is rubbish advice.

JohnDinton

Why is having a phone line and/or broadband in a house a barrier to having another phone line and/or broadband installed? Of course the landlord may be entitled to object.

I don't know the answer to the question asked by BertNErnie, but it cannot be the first time this situation has ever arisen. Why is Sky unable to park the service for a few weeks or months if the rental is going to continue to be paid? Contrary to what macman says, it seems to me not wanting to break the contract ought to be a get out.

Perhaps time for a call to OFCOM for some guidance? (020 7981 3040 option 1)

macman

And how exactly do you prove in civil law that you 'didn't want' to break the contract?
You either break it or you don't: Sky are not concerned with the underlying reasons.

JohnDinton

What is the consideration for the contract?
1. The customer pays money.
2. Sky provides a service.

I am having difficulty understanding, if the customer continues to pay and temporarily waives Sky's obligation to provide a service, how that is a breach of contract.

I can understand a contract's only applying to one address. A tenant with a 6 month AST may prefer a one month rolling contract. I am not a Sky customer and I have not seen Sky's contract. From comments made in this forum it appears that Sky has a contract term allowing its contract to be taken to a new address, and that such a term may have induced customers to enter longer term contracts. If that is so, does a term which says the term allowing a move will only be honoured if the transfer is immediate satisfy the test of reasonableness?

There are threads in this forum about delays by Openreach in provision of service to new buildings. What is to happen if a Sky customer wants to take the service to such an address?

macman

If Sky (or rather their sub-contractor OR) cannot provide a line to the new address then the contract is voided without penalty.
The contract for service is at the original address, if you move then the minimum term recommences.
That's not the situation here-the OP does not have an address to transfer to.

JohnDinton

If you're right that makes the treatment of BertNErnie even more harsh. It would be reasonable to treat him in the same way as someone who had moved to an address where Openreach cannot provide service.

Where a contract is or becomes incapable of performance the legal term is frustration. That may be the reason Sky will terminate a contract without penalty if a customer moves to an address where there can be no service. Frustration applies just as much in this case, although Sky has been given the option of waiting until there is an address where service can be provided, and continued payment in the meantime.

It is difficult to comment without seeing Sky's contract. What is the term which has been breached? The original post does not say Sky is alleging a breach. It says he is being treated as if there were a breach. Either there is a breach of contract or there is not. It is not possible to have a hypothetical breach. If Sky is treating him as if there were a breach when there is not, Sky may itself be in breach of contract.

You ask in post 6 how to prove he did not want to break the contract. The evidence is the willingness to continue payment during the service interruption.

The amount involved makes it uneconomic to take to court, but I would be inclined to go through the complaints procedure.

macman

The OP can by all means use the complaints procedure, but will be wasting their time, as this issue comes up regularly, and the answer is always the same. it would be no different if the OP were moving abroad and could not transfer the contract.

Herbalus

JohnDinton wrote: »

If you're right that makes the treatment of BertNErnie even more harsh. It would be reasonable to treat him in the same way as someone who had moved to an address where Openreach cannot provide service.

I agree with you entirely. I have also been in a position where my broadband was within minimum term contract but I was moving to temporary accommodation, and wanted to continue paying for the service, but simply not use the service. Then, when I found more permanent accommodation, I could resume the contract from there.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work like that. Apparently you can't have a broadband contract suspended in mid air with no address. It either continues at the same address, or is cancelled when a new contract is set up by the incoming tenants.

I think it's stupid, but that seems to be the way it is.