Unwarranted Cat 6 Cifas Marker from Sky

Candyapple

ozzy49 wrote: »

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

Did you call Hughes in March 2017 to cancel the service? Otherwise it sounds like you signed up for a continuous payment authority (CPA) just by using your card which is very common with Sky.

It’s also odd that Sky took payment in September 2018 - a whole 18 months after the original 12 month period was up.

Do you still have any paperwork from Hughes which will back up your case?

We can’t recommend any solicitors to you, you will have to do your own research.

Kentish_Dave

It does sound as though the installation contract may have included the ongoing subscription and the need to cancel, what exactly does it say?

If that was the case, and you incorrectly claimed that the payment was fraudulent then I can see where the problem is coming from.

Can you post the exact wording?

ozzy49

scholesfan88 wrote: »

Where is your agreement with Hughes Direct that at the end of the 12 month term that you had to ring up to continue the services?

There is no agreement with Hughes Direct or Sky. All you had to do at the time was call Hughes, pay them a one-off £15 and then Sky came for the install. There was never any paperwork involved and I didn't sign anything. So similarly, there is no agreement stating that I must cancel after 12 months - this is why they agreed that I was not liable for the amount.

scholesfan88 wrote: »

This sounds to me that after the 12 month initial term you had to call them to cancel. You reported to your bank that it was a fraudulent transaction because you forgot to cancel and didn't want to pay SKY and it's gone belly up.

Thanks for sharing your insightful opinion but no, I didn't forget to cancel. I always cancel any agreements as I leave reminders for them on my phone. Had I forgotten, I had 18 months to still cancel if I thought I needed to.

Candyapple wrote: »

Did you call Hughes in March 2017 to cancel the service? Otherwise it sounds like you signed up for a continuous payment authority (CPA) just by using your card which is very common with Sky.

It’s also odd that Sky took payment in September 2018 - a whole 18 months after the original 12 month period was up.

Do you still have any paperwork from Hughes which will back up your case?

We can’t recommend any solicitors to you, you will have to do your own research.

I didn't call Hughes or Sky to cancel as I didn't believe there was any need to and I'd been explicitly told that the services would cease after 12 months. I agree it seems a CPA was set up on the card but I was completely unaware of this and had never agreed to this being done.

The reason Sky gave for taking payment 18 months later was that they continued to apply discounts to my account after the 12 months which meant the services were still free. They didn't send me any correspondence at all at any point and I wasn't using the services anyway so would never have known.

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.

Besides, whether or not I needed to notify Sky/Hughes to cancel is irrelevant. The marker they have loaded on my account is reasoned with "compromised card used" which is untrue, they have told me on the phone that the card registered with them is someone elses, which is also untrue. I had admitted to them last year when speaking to them that I had received a refund through my bank through a chargeback, I have never disputed that it was my own card.

None of the above amounts to fraud which is what I have been accused of on the CIFAS report.

ozzy49

Hi Kentish Dave, 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.

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.

BrownTrout

You dont need a solicitor for small claims
Issue a letter before claim and get Cracking

scholesfan88

Sorry but this just does not make sense.

A Google search shows that Hughes have offered SKY packages in the past where it was a £15 install charge and the 'Original' bundle from SKY was technically 'Free' for 18 months (£22pm then a £22pm discount applied for 18 months).

Your original order from Hughes or opening letter from SKY will show the T&C's, but it'd be very abnormal for the 18 months to finish and then services cease. It's usually a rolling contract after the initial contract period.

Good luck getting the marker removed.

[Deleted User]

Ozzy, I hope you get this resolved asap, and good luck. One further thing you might consider when all is done and dusted - contact your MP about this issue. It's clear from your post and many similar ones on here, that in some respects both Cifas and the CRAs are dysfunctional organisations. They can, and often do, operate against the interests of the consumer. Perhaps your MP would be interested in taking up the matter with the regulator.

muhandis

Absolutely.

Time and again on the forum we see that banks simply don’t follow the high standard of proof written down in the CIFAS guidance. A look at the FOS database of upheld cases confirms the same. CIFAS professes innocence by putting the ball back in the lender’s court.

The OP clearly knows his rights and had the time and knowledge to get to the bottom of this and identify the issue. God knows how many people get caught up and take years to resolve this while living with the potentially devastating consequences of having your banking facilities closed down one by one.

Good luck Ozzy, please do keep this thread alive!

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

that in some respects both Cifas and the CRAs are dysfunctional organisations. They can, and often do, operate against the interests of the consumer.

ozzy49

BrownTrout wrote: »

You dont need a solicitor for small claims
Issue a letter before claim and get Cracking

I was under the impression that something like this can't be brought to Small Claims as I don't exactly have a monetary value for the damage I have suffered. I might be wrong but would appreciate it if someone could confirm/clarify.

scholesfan88 wrote: »

Sorry but this just does not make sense.

A Google search shows that Hughes have offered SKY packages in the past where it was a £15 install charge and the 'Original' bundle from SKY was technically 'Free' for 18 months (£22pm then a £22pm discount applied for 18 months).

Your original order from Hughes or opening letter from SKY will show the T&C's, but it'd be very abnormal for the 18 months to finish and then services cease. It's usually a rolling contract after the initial contract period.

Good luck getting the marker removed.

Thanks for the advice and the vote of confidence but I'm not sure how many times you need me to explain that there was no agreement. This evidenced by the fact that Sky could not produce one when I asked them to. Regardless of of whether I had to cancel or not, the CIFAS would still be unwarranted, I did not use a compromised card, I admitted to them that I placed a chargeback as I didn't recognise the transaction. That is NOT fraud and certainly not enough proof of fraud that I would be found guilty in court.

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Ozzy, I hope you get this resolved asap, and good luck. One further thing you might consider when all is done and dusted - contact your MP about this issue. It's clear from your post and many similar ones on here, that in some respects both Cifas and the CRAs are dysfunctional organisations. They can, and often do, operate against the interests of the consumer. Perhaps your MP would be interested in taking up the matter with the regulator.

Thanks JohnSmith, I will do. I did find online that the Shadow Minister for Work and Pensions managed to get this discussed in Westminster in 2011 but there didn't appear to be any outcome.

Discussion can be found here: htt ps://www.theyworkforyou.co m/whall/?id=2011-11-15a.241.0

muhandis wrote: »

Absolutely.

Time and again on the forum we see that banks simply don’t follow the high standard of proof written down in the CIFAS guidance. A look at the FOS database of upheld cases confirms the same. CIFAS professes innocence by putting the ball back in the lender’s court.

The OP clearly knows his rights and had the time and knowledge to get to the bottom of this and identify the issue. God knows how many people get caught up and take years to resolve this while living with the potentially devastating consequences of having your banking facilities closed down one by one.

Good luck Ozzy, please do keep this thread alive!

Thanks muhandis, I was discussing this with a friend last night, god knows how many people never realise they have CIFAS marker - warranted or not and have to go on in life with devastating consequences, disgusting really.

sourcrates

To check if Cifas is holding any information with your name on it, you should make a Subject Access Request, using the Cifas SAR form and enclose your proof of identity. They have to reply to you within a month but aim to reply within a week. There is now no charge for this.

If you disagree with some of the information held by Cifas, you should first try to get the lender to correct it.

If this fails, as in your case, you can ask Cifas to look at the problem.

You can also take your complaint about what the lender has done to the Financial Ombudsman – the February 2017 FO Newsletter includes some case studies about Cifas markers.