Mortgage refusal without clear reason

ozzy49

Hi Mike - "They" as in Sky

I've created a separate thread with all the details here: htt ps://forums.moneysavingexpert.co m/showthread.php?p=76031065 but here it is in brief:

So, back in March 2016, I took up an offer through Hughes Direct for Sky Installation at £15. I was told that I'd get TV services free for 12 months and to call them at the end of the 12 months if I wanted to continue. I never did want the services (just the installation as I was having the house refurbished) so had no reason to call especially as I hadn't signed up to any agreement or contract and I hadn't provided any direct debit details. I just had to pay the £15 with a debit card.

I never heard anything until September 2018 when a payment went out from my bank account to "Sky Subscription" for £39.50. As far as I knew I didn't have any subscriptions so genuinely believed someone had used my details. I called the bank who refunded the payment and sent me a new card. All was fine.

I then started getting letters from Sky saying I owed them money, I called them up and explained the situation and they agreed to credit the amount back to the account and close it. I even told them that I'd realised the payment that went out of my bank account must have been relating to this but I'd got my money back from the bank anyway.

As far as I can tell, I have not committed any sort of fraud in the slightest and I cannot understand how they have stated to Cifas "Compromised card used to make payment" when it was my own card that was used.

Kentish_Dave

As per my reply n that one, if you had agreed to the need to cancel when you got your subsidised installation then claiming that the first payment was fraudulent is probably where your problems started.

You need to look at what exactly the installation contract stated, if you agreed that you needed to cancel and instead incorrectly reported the payment as fraudulent then I can see why a CIFAS marker would have been applied.

The exact details matter here, are you absolutely certain that the original contract said that you would have to call to continue, not call to cancel?

I’d be very surprised if that was the case, and if it was not then the marker is probably correct.

ozzy49

There was never an installation contract or any other agreement whatsoever. Literally nothing to sign and no paperwork - everything was done was a quick phone call to Hughes paying a one-off £15 - At no point did I agree I needed to cancel

I asked Sky to provide me with the agreement if they believed I had signed one or even been given one but they were unable to do so and therefore came to the conclusion that I should not have been charged, credited the amount back to the account and closed it on my request.

I've just SAR'd them too anyway.

Worth noting that for them to load the marker, there needs to be enough proof of fraud, not just suspicion. Without my agreement to calling them to cancel, they do not have this proof. Even if they did have, there is no proof that I had used a compromised card as they have noted - the card was mine regardless of anything else.

Kentish_Dave

I suspect that you are misremembering. Hughes would need to get paid, for which they’d need to prove the work had been done.

We there genuinely no email, no online form? You called them, told them where you live, they did the work and at no point asked you to write down who you are, or your address?

I can’t see anyone believing this.

muhandis

Quite clearly, Sky could not produce the agreement that you are referring to, and so credited the account, closed it and stopped pursuing the OP.

ozzy49 wrote: »

Everything was done over the phone so I have no paperwork whatsoever. Sky agreed to credit the amount back into the account and close it when I called them up back then as the representative agreed that the payment was wrongly taken if I had been advised that I don't need to cancel. I challenged them to show me an agreement they have sent to me or that I had signed stating I must cancel after 12 months to avoid charge and they were unable to do so.

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

I suspect that you are misremembering. Hughes would need to get paid, for which they’d need to prove the work had been done.

We there genuinely no email, no online form? You called them, told them where you live, they did the work and at no point asked you to write down who you are, or your address?

I can’t see anyone believing this.

ozzy49

Thank you muhandis. Exactly right, everything was done over the phone and there had never been any agreement whatsoever as I'd mentioned in the previous posts.

Regardless of whether I was supposed to cancel or not, the CIFAS marker is totally unwarranted. I admitted to placing a chargeback to Sky and explained that it was due to not recognising the transaction. That does not amount to fraud and Sky definitely do not have enough evidence of fraud that would prove me as guilty in the court of law.

alphabravocharli

As i have said before, lenders do strange things. In my point of view, CIFAS should accept more responsibility, when any lender put someone's name on CIFAS register, it should be the responsibility of CIFAS to verify if it is correctly applied. Lenders are abusing the system, based on circumstantial evidence, they are slapping CIFAS on people face.

ozzy49

I agree alphabravocharli. I've found that let alone the fact they do not verify markers placed by lenders, they do not appear to be any help at all for the individual. When I have spoken to them over the past few days explaining that Sky is agreeing that the marker is unwarranted but they don't know how to remove it, CIFAS is saying they can't do anything and I'd have to take it up with Sky or FOS :mad:

ozzy49

So a mini update, I just spoke with FOS as directed to by CIFAS. They've advised that they can't deal with the matter as Sky is not a financial institution and told me to get in touch with the Communications Ombudsman who will help.

Spoke to the Communications Ombudsman who advised they can't deal with the matter as Sky is not a member and I should contact CISAS. CISAS close at 5pm so will be trying them tomorrow.

Just feel like I'm being palmed off by everyone I speak to!

What was interesting though was that the FOS seemed to think that it may not have been Sky that loaded the marker, they seemed to think it would have been a third party such a CRA that woul have registered it on behalf of Sky. No idea how true that it though

muhandis

ozzy49 wrote: »

So a mini update, I just spoke with FOS as directed to by CIFAS. They've advised that they can't deal with the matter as Sky is not a financial institution

That doesn’t make sense when the online database of FOS decisions has a Sky UK case on it from Feb 2018.

[IMG][/img] image upload