Bundled services with a hardware purchase

[Deleted User]

beeg0d wrote: »

Actually the LTD company that ran OnDigital/ITV digital DID go bankrupt (well into receivership/liqudation) just because the parent company (ITV PLC) survived dosnt mean the actual company running the service didnt.

No one actually went bankrupt though and the service eventually morphed into Freeview. ITV Digital boxes were actually able to receive the new service until relatively recently.
Regardless, since the thread's topic has nothing to do with the actual problem the OP faces, it's all moot.

Wolfsbane2k wrote: »

. There are a lot of other people complaining as well.

Yours is the only such complaint I've seen.

Wolfsbane2k

bris wrote: »

Some battles are insignificant and just not worth fighting.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It is outside their control, as was pointed out in your original thread.

I really can't see why you are pursuing this over no longer being able to see Peppa Pig!

You are wasting your time.

Because its the principle of the thing - Sky have done this to make more money off the consumer, in my view, using an unfair term. - "big corporation screwing the little guy"


The consumer is getting screwed, and I thought this site is about "protecting the consumers rights"...


So for education of myself and others, where in the Consumer Goods Act, or other act does this separation get defined?


If I'm 1 vocal, annoyed, consumer, I'd expect at least 10 less vocal, or silent consumers to be stood with me.

Wolfsbane2k

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Yours is the only such complaint I've seen.

Probably because it doesn't matter to you, and your not looking for it.


If you want, look at http://community.nowtv.com/t5/NOW-TV-Blog/The-NOW-TV-Kids-Pass-Coming-June-21/ba-p/369971#UXlQccHRk7z5Cxwv.97 for more complaints.


and
https://twitter.com/LukesMummy08/status/745569635194507264
and
https://twitter.com/CaseyLeighD/status/745658953032470528
and
https://twitter.com/MillsyBoy84/status/745681024219230208
and
https://twitter.com/Mr_Goodfellow/status/745926352440795137
and
https://twitter.com/suzestephens/status/745657951201943552
and
https://twitter.com/harras31/status/745657507880779776
and
https://twitter.com/Ryan200983/status/745590190064996352


for a few.

[Deleted User]

Why haven't you simply expressed your concerns to NowTV directly?

I doubt you'll get anywhere, but at least you'd have some closure rather than forlornly posting threads on here?

Wolfsbane2k

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Why haven't you simply expressed your concerns to NowTV directly?

I doubt you'll get anywhere, but at least you'd have some closure rather than forlornly posting threads on here?

I have, they've told me to "Sod off, no refund for removing the channels from us either".
Which is why I'm so peeved, and want to understand my consumer rights in this area.

[Deleted User]

Wolfsbane2k wrote: »

I have, they've told me to "Sod off, no refund for removing the channels from us either".
Which is why I'm so peeved, and want to understand my consumer rights in this area.

There are no relevant consumer rights in this area, otherwise NowTV wouldn't have rejected your complaint.

Wolfsbane2k

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

There are no relevant consumer rights in this area, otherwise NowTV wouldn't have rejected your complaint.

So given that, "on topic", I could buy a £2k TV that requires a service to work, and after a month the service disappears and I've have no rights to a refund because the TV no longer works? Really? If so there is a gaping hole in the Consumer Rights Act.


and over to the other thread:
"the change is enabled by terms that conflict with Section 11.7 of the
Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

" 11.7 A term which could allow the supplier to vary what is supplied at will – rather than because of bona fide external circumstances – is unlikely to be fair even if customers have a right of cancellation and refund. The consumer should never have to choose between accepting a product that is not what was agreed, or suffering the inconvenience of unexpectedly not getting, for example, goods for which he or she may have an immediate need, or a long-planned holiday, just because it suits the supplier not to supply what was promised."

Wolfsbane2k

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

There are no relevant consumer rights in this area, otherwise NowTV wouldn't have rejected your complaint.

So, complaints against businesses where complaints are initially rejected are never upheld by the Financial Ombudsman, Ofcom, OfEng, ICO, Trading standards etc then? :huh:

[Deleted User]

Wolfsbane2k wrote: »

So, complaints against businesses where complaints are initially rejected are never upheld by the Financial Ombudsman, Ofcom, OfEng, ICO, Trading standards etc then? :huh:

Good luck trying to refer a complaint about a change in the line up of TV channels to any of those bodies

unholyangel

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

There are no relevant consumer rights in this area, otherwise NowTV wouldn't have rejected your complaint.

If companies were so great at sticking to the law, we wouldnt need courts, lawyers, trading standards, citizens advice etc

Companies will often do things they're not allowed to do. And tbh, this wouldnt be the first time sky has fallen foul of unfair terms legislation and had to change their T&C's as a result.

Heres one of the half a dozen times they're mentioned in OFTs annexe A of unfair terms guidance:

Original term
… a reduction or other variation in the number or identity of the channels
included in the Sky Multi-Channels Package will not vary the Subscription
Payments payable by the Subscriber … bonus Channels will be supplied
to Subscribers at no additional cost … Sky may at any time without
notice vary the terms on which these Channels are supplied including but
… not limited to introducing or otherwise making a charge …

Action taken
New term: You may end this contract at any time … if we … withdraw
any Sky Premium Channel or reduce significantly the level of service of
the Sky Multi-Channels Package.

If they're varying what is supplied then they should be giving people the right to cancel without being affected or otherwise being worse off for having entered the contract.

They cannot unilaterally vary a contract without liability.