Sky refusing to install dish as theres communal connections

giraffe69

If I have it right no matter if Sky are wrong or being unreasonable or calling something a law when it isn't if you send the letter off you will then get connected. i think I would have done this 40 or so posts ago. If you don't want to do it then as others have said the only person suffering will be you. Sky are men enough to take your lack of custom!

peachyprice

ryouga wrote: »

Sky are the ones saying its a legal requirement, I am saying its not a legal requirement so they shouldn't have to see it and Sky refuse to tell me what "law" this is and change the subject when I ask them.

And its a email I have from landlord NOT a letter.

And Sky want me to POST the letter to them as proof,

And one of the responses is "whats the problem"

So they let a order through that I would never of made if they asked for that evidence and charged me for the install.

The only person being unreasonable here is you.

Sky want written permission from the landlord confirming that they agree to having a dish erected on THEIR property. What do you think will happen if they erect the dish then the landlord wants it removed? Who do you think will end up in court? Sky will, and they would lose because they didn't seek permission from the owner.

Would you be happy for someone to come along and alter your property without your permission? How about if your neighbour stuck their wireless doorbell on your front door because it gave better reception without asking, would you be happy with that?

The block is fitted with a communal dish for a reason, probably because the landlord doesn't was two dozen dishes stuck all over the side of HIS property. Frankly I don't believe you even have permission, that would be the only explanation for your pig headedness.

unholyangel

ryouga wrote: »

Sky are the ones saying its a legal requirement, I am saying its not a legal requirement so they shouldn't have to see it and Sky refuse to tell me what "law" this is and change the subject when I ask them.

And its a email I have from landlord NOT a letter.

And Sky want me to POST the letter to them as proof,

And one of the responses is "whats the problem"

So they let a order through that I would never of made if they asked for that evidence and charged me for the install.

While I'm unsure whether there may be a specific law covering this (or perhaps its a regulators code of conduct that demands it), its still covered by common law in principle. They need to ensure that they have the owners permission so they don't face legal claims for damages should it transpire that you didn't have/faked permission.

Having looked through their various T&C's, they do seem to include a clause saying that consent is required & that you (the customer) are responsible for ensuring you have it before the installation begins. Perhaps these were emailed to you?

As for paying £40 for 2m of cable - that cable didn't install itself. Nor did you contract with them to pay only for materials used. You agreed a flat fee. Sorry but it is what it is.

Under sky agreements I believe the dish & box upkeep come down to the customer. Meaning that even had the engineer tested to ensure all channels were working, given the issue seems to be the dish.....it still wouldn't have been their liability to fix.

You might have a valid complaint depending on exact circumstances - but probably not for the things you are focusing on. Perhaps if you stop being so defensive and arguing with posters that are trying to help, we might get somewhere.

What I will add is that I'm not sure a judge would empathise with your position on landlords consent. Even if its unlikely to go the legal route, its always worthwhile keeping in mind that you're expected to be reasonable in your behaviour and not get hung up on technicalities when they're trivial in nature. I would suggest that even if you had no chance to be aware of that requirement in their T&C's, their request is wholly reasonable and can be done with minimal effort on your part and therefore would not be something worth arguing.

shaun_from_Africa

unholyangel wrote: »

While I'm unsure whether there may be a specific law covering this (or perhaps its a regulators code of conduct that demands it), its still covered by common law in principle.

It may well be covered by the Criminal damage act 1971.
This legislation makes it an offence to damage property belonging to another person without their express permission and by drilling into the property to fix a dish to and making access holes for the cable could well qualify.

ryouga

peachyprice wrote: »

The only person being unreasonable here is you.

Sky want written permission from the landlord confirming that they agree to having a dish erected on THEIR property. What do you think will happen if they erect the dish then the landlord wants it removed? Who do you think will end up in court? Sky will, and they would lose because they didn't seek permission from the owner.

Would you be happy for someone to come along and alter your property without your permission? How about if your neighbour stuck their wireless doorbell on your front door because it gave better reception without asking, would you be happy with that?

The block is fitted with a communal dish for a reason, probably because the landlord doesn't was two dozen dishes stuck all over the side of HIS property. Frankly I don't believe you even have permission, that would be the only explanation for your pig headedness.

I am being unreasonable? Again they only asked for this AFTER the install, and not sure if it was in one of the deleted post but it was put up BACK WHEN IT WAS A COUNCIL BLOCK, and did you ignore when I said the landlord said it was OK to put up a dish, he only owns ONE of these flats.

Pig headedness, sure go ahead and think that, somehow I am the one with a problem when you make an accusation like that.

And thats supposed to be "advice"

I mean you decide I am lying about something and make multiple accusations as well and ask silly questions about altering property on top of that when I have stated I have permission,

giraffe69 wrote: »

If I have it right no matter if Sky are wrong or being unreasonable or calling something a law when it isn't if you send the letter off you will then get connected. i think I would have done this 40 or so posts ago. If you don't want to do it then as others have said the only person suffering will be you. Sky are men enough to take your lack of custom!

I have said multiple times, I have an EMAIL, they want a LETTER and it POSTED.

But that isn't the main point, they went ahead with the order without informing me and in fact told me specifically I would get a new dish.

Now afterwards they claim thats not the case, and I need proof.

I don't want Sky anymore anyway, but I can't get the money back and they say I am in contract.

DoaM wrote: »

Post #12, paragraph 2.

I already said that they wanted to charge again though I notice some of the responses have vanished so it may of been been on one of those.

wealdroam wrote: »

I would've expected you to know about those things - with all your electronics and IT experience.

Remember, you told us:

I am surprised it took so long for someone to use that thinking they can use it and be a bit clever.

But as I say, multiple people told me it was for cable/alarm including the landlord, the connections are DIFFERENT from a Sky connector.

And I hope you realise even if it was the same then other things use coax cable, its a standard cable, it could of also been something for CCTV or anything.

DoaM

peachyprice wrote: »

The block is fitted with a communal dish for a reason, probably because the landlord doesn't was two dozen dishes stuck all over the side of HIS property.

This is in Scotland ... this is NO single landlord at the property. Each flat has it's own demised owner (landlord), and most likely a share of the freehold. (That doesn't rule out a single landlord owning all the properties, but it is unlikely).

unforeseen

DoaM wrote: »

This is in Scotland ... this is NO single landlord at the property. Each flat has it's own demised owner (landlord), and most likely a share of the freehold. (That doesn't rule out a single landlord owning all the properties, but it is unlikely).

In which case the agreement (in writing) of all the freeholders will be needed to allow the attachment to building.

If the freeholders have devolved the management of the building to a factor of management company then they can possibly give the permission subject to the terms of the contract they operate under.

ryouga

unholyangel wrote: »

While I'm unsure whether there may be a specific law covering this (or perhaps its a regulators code of conduct that demands it), its still covered by common law in principle. They need to ensure that they have the owners permission so they don't face legal claims for damages should it transpire that you didn't have/faked permission.

Having looked through their various T&C's, they do seem to include a clause saying that consent is required & that you (the customer) are responsible for ensuring you have it before the installation begins. Perhaps these were emailed to you?

As for paying £40 for 2m of cable - that cable didn't install itself. Nor did you contract with them to pay only for materials used. You agreed a flat fee. Sorry but it is what it is.

Under sky agreements I believe the dish & box upkeep come down to the customer. Meaning that even had the engineer tested to ensure all channels were working, given the issue seems to be the dish.....it still wouldn't have been their liability to fix.

You might have a valid complaint depending on exact circumstances - but probably not for the things you are focusing on. Perhaps if you stop being so defensive and arguing with posters that are trying to help, we might get somewhere.

What I will add is that I'm not sure a judge would empathise with your position on landlords consent. Even if its unlikely to go the legal route, its always worthwhile keeping in mind that you're expected to be reasonable in your behaviour and not get hung up on technicalities when they're trivial in nature. I would suggest that even if you had no chance to be aware of that requirement in their T&C's, their request is wholly reasonable and can be done with minimal effort on your part and therefore would not be something worth arguing.

So the T+C's say I need consent, I did but does it say THEY need consent and it must be written.

At least your post is well written and not as agressive as the other posts, so I thank you for that.

I have my own cable here and could of spend a minute or two cutting it, even the cable they used was thin and cheap and flimsy.

And I haven't ruled out a box fault either, but I need to get my freesat box out of storage to test it.

But people are focusing more on what happened now rather than before, Its likely the system knew it was communal and staff were not trained to notice or made a mistake,

I am only arguing as people are acting like I shouldn't have a problem and do as Sky say, when if Sky acted right in the first place none of this would of happened and creating terms after install isn't a good sign.

Though this is not first time Sky have given me problems, they screwed up a few years ago on a order, and funnily enough on this account they had it down I owed them money when I didn't, had to get executive team to clear it and credit me for the troubles, I also had problems with the cabling kept on messing up which is why I bought my own just in case.

powerful_Rogue

ryouga wrote: »

So the T+C's say I need consent, I did but does it say THEY need consent and it must be written.

You're really picking hairs now.

Yes, you need the consent but Sky will need to see that consent.

Of course it will need to be written, so they can keep a copy on file incase there is any comeback.

Have you asked Sky if they will accept a posted copy of an email from the landlord giving consent to the sky dish being put up?

NeilCr

I can tell you for an absolute certainty that Sky don't always know what is a communal system

I live on an estate of 69 properties - a mixture of flats and houses. I was the person who took on responsibility for getting the system upgraded for SkyQ. The postcode checker for communal estates came up blank and when I contacted Sky they had no idea that it was communal.

Many communal systems are installed by non Sky contractors who will, in all probability, see no need to tell Sky what they have done.

And a SkyQ marker - or not - is no guide.