Sneaky Sky has two prices for Sky Original

fagun

I've not seen anything posted on this yet! I noticed that I am paying £47 for Sky Original and Sports, but on-line price is £45.50. This is after Sky increased the package cost mid-contract.

Their explanation is: "... the Original package was for £21.50. Now Sky has changed to £20 for new customers and for the existing customers who agree for a 12 months contract."

Is this legally fair? To increase prices for customers locked into a contract, while reducing them for new customers?

fagun

Continuation of the Sky chat:

Sky: In your contract it is mentioned, after 60 days from the starting in the contract if there is any price increase to the Sky packages, it will be applicable for you as well.

Me: Yes but as you have just mentioned. You have two prices. Where is the official Sky price list. Either Original is £21.50 or it is £20. Since you have reduced prices, why haven't you reduced it for me as well?

Sky: I have mentioned, even our existing customer's can get this with another 12 months contract.

stockton_2

Dealing with Sky is like bartering at the local market. They offer different prices depending on the customer. There is a price below which they will not go.

I think things have changed for sky. They no longer have the appeal that they once had. Few people can justify paying sky an amount equivalent to what they pay for their energy bills..

teddysmum

Sky Original went down to £20 around the time of last year's summer price increases, I believe. There is only one price, but you can pay less if you negotiate a discount. (I pay £10, but it's £20 with 50% off.)


OP have you never cancelled and so negotiated deal ? Most posting on this forum have.


Do you not receive promotional emails from Sky, as they widely advertised the £1.50 cut in price ?


If there is a price rise, they have to tell you, giving you the option to leave, but do not seem to have to offer you a lower price.


This is not just a 'Sky thing' as a number of people have commented on family members, who have been BT customers for many years and are still paying older higher rates (eg over handset rental).

[Deleted User]

teddysmum wrote: »

This is not just a 'Sky thing' as a number of people have commented on family members, who have been BT customers for many years and are still paying older higher rates (eg over handset rental).

I agree. The OP is simply on a legacy package and the only way to change things is to either agree a new 12 month minimum term contract or threaten to cancel and see what Sky offer in reply.

There is nothing illegal or "unfair" about this.

[Deleted User]

stockton wrote: »

Dealing with Sky is like bartering at the local market. They offer different prices depending on the customer. There is a price below which they will not go.

I was on half price, sky basic with sports, for £27.50 a month, then they upped it to £55 a month, full price. I rang up to cancel my subscription and was offered two new lower prices both of which I refused.

I liked sky because of the documentaries but if you take the trouble to look as what is on the free to air channels there are plenty of good documentaries at no charge. Also with regard to the sports channels, I get BT sports free with my BT broadband. I can no longer justify paying sky prices for the sports channels when all I ever watch is the football. You can get the soccer highlights on the free to air channels. I also bitterly resent contributing to the vastly over-paid soccer players most of whom are mediocre.

I think things have changed for sky. They no longer have the appeal that they once had. Few people can justify paying sky an amount equivalent to what they pay for their energy bills..

I like this post and agree 100%. I've cancelled sky and bought a freesat PVR. The amount of stuff available on free to air these days is sufficient for anyone really.

teddysmum

Deleted_User wrote: »

I like this post and agree 100%. I've cancelled sky and bought a freesat PVR. The amount of stuff available on free to air these days is sufficient for anyone really.

Choosing not to have pay to view tv is your prerogative, but the OP did not need to pay the prices they quote.


There are hundreds of posts on here, illustrating deals people have made.

VisionMan

stockton wrote: »

I think things have changed for sky. They no longer have the appeal that they once had. Few people can justify paying sky an amount equivalent to what they pay for their energy bills..

Deleted_User wrote: »

I like this post and agree 100%. I've cancelled sky and bought a freesat PVR. The amount of stuff available on free to air these days is sufficient for anyone really.

teddysmum wrote: »

Choosing not to have pay to view tv is your prerogative, but the OP did not need to pay the prices they quote.

There are hundreds of posts on here, illustrating deals people have made.

No one needs to pay anyone extra just to watch TV.

[Deleted User]

VisionMan wrote: »

No one needs to pay anyone extra just to watch TV.

Pretty sure the vast majority have to pay the BBC license fee!

VisionMan

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Pretty sure the vast majority have to pay the BBC license fee!

Which is an awful lot cheaper than Sky.

[Deleted User]

VisionMan wrote: »

Which is an awful lot cheaper than Sky.

Sky customers pay the license fee as well as their Sky subscription!