Sky TV Price Rises Covered by the Contract - How does this align with OfCom Fairness for Customers?

Anon

Sky and other providers have commited to the OfCom Fairnesss for Customers initiative, which includes pay TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/broadband-and-phone-firms-put-fairness-first

How does the latest Sky TV price rise, and the Sky TV contract, sit with this commitment?  Yes, they indicate in their T&Cs that contract prices may rise up to 10% within a 12 month period, yet that would appear at odds with a fairness approach, as customers are at a significant disadvantage and cannot cancel.  There are reports of people getting the price rise notification within days of agreeing a new deal - or indeed as new customers having only just joined and now wondering whether to cancel the lot wihtin their 30 day cooling off period. 

MSE and other news outlets simply report the Sky spiel, that they have included a term about price rises in their contract (and in their adverts), so there is no option to leave.  Yet MSE and no one seem to have challenged whether that is an unfair contract term?  You see reports on this forum and elsewhere that some people are going to be paying more than a 10%  rise - as the rise is on the base rrp price (where it is less than 10%), yet the amount added in full on their discounted deal.

I am not even on Sky at the moment, just highlighting this seems unfair to customers?  No doubt some will defend this approach and say if you sign the contract, you accept this term, but contract terms are there to be challenged - it would have to be an organisation/OfCom rather than lone customers though. 

This is a money saving site, and my post is in that spirit!

Neil_Jones

Digital TV has always been the odd one out from "protection".  Phone and Broadband everybody sort of has to have one or the other, but they don't have to have Sky or Virgin.

[Deleted User]

Neil_Jones said:

Digital TV has always been the odd one out from "protection".  

Luxury item is what it is and will remain. No one has to have Sky Sports or Movies...

Anon

Neil_Jones said:

Digital TV has always been the odd one out from "protection".  Phone and Broadband everybody sort of has to have one or the other, but they don't have to have Sky or Virgin.

True, but my point really is the unfair contract term where they can vary the contract price, as this creates an imbalance in the contract (in their favour). The service itself is secondary to that principle - pay tv is covered by the same Fairness guidance.

[Deleted User]

Anon said:

my point really is the unfair contract term where they can vary the contract price, as this creates an imbalance in the contract (in their favour). The service itself is secondary to that principle - pay tv is covered by the same Fairness guidance.

Luxury item is what it is and will remain. No one has to have Sky Sports or Movies...

Anon

Moneyineptitude said:

Anon said:

my point really is the unfair contract term where they can vary the contract price, as this creates an imbalance in the contract (in their favour). The service itself is secondary to that principle - pay tv is covered by the same Fairness guidance.

Luxury item is what it is and will remain. No one has to have Sky Sports or Movies...

By the same logic, no one needs a mobile, mobile internet or broadband access, but all three are covered by the same OfCom guidance/code with Pay tv, which the main providers including Sky have signed up to.

[Deleted User]

Anon said:

By the same logic, no one needs a mobile, mobile internet or broadband access, but all three are covered by the same OfCom guidance/code with Pay tv, which the main providers including Sky have signed up to.

Only those three are "protected", so no point debating about Pay TV which will remain a luxury item. No one has to have Sky Sports or Movies...

Neil_Jones

Anon said:

Moneyineptitude said:

Anon said:

my point really is the unfair contract term where they can vary the contract price, as this creates an imbalance in the contract (in their favour). The service itself is secondary to that principle - pay tv is covered by the same Fairness guidance.

Luxury item is what it is and will remain. No one has to have Sky Sports or Movies...

By the same logic, no one needs a mobile, mobile internet or broadband access, but all three are covered by the same OfCom guidance/code with Pay tv, which the main providers including Sky have signed up to.

Phone in any guise to landline to mobile is a long standing service that's always been protected to a certain extent and broadband is effectively the fourth utility in a modern world.
You can live without Sky TV,  it just provides you with hundreds of channels of content most of which you've probably seen before anyway.

Boohoo

Here is a link to the Sky forum about the price rises.
https://helpforum.sky.com/t5/What-s-On/Sky-price-increase-from-1st-April-2020/td-p/3149113

macman

This is a complete red herring. TV, broadband, and mobile contracts have always been non-fixed price. It's only recently that some providers, notablyTalkTalk, have offered fixed price deals.

Anon

Moneyineptitude said:

Anon said:

By the same logic, no one needs a mobile, mobile internet or broadband access, but all three are covered by the same OfCom guidance/code with Pay tv, which the main providers including Sky have signed up to.

Only those three are "protected", so no point debating about Pay TV which will remain a luxury item. No one has to have Sky Sports or Movies...

The point I was making relates to unfair contract terms, where there is an imbalance in the contractual relationship - those rules apply to all contracts. OfCom has included paytv within their fairness policy with phone and broadband, it is not me making a random link. They have also brought in new rules on 15th February 2020 that broadband, mobile and PAYTV companies have to notify you when you are at the end of your contract and they must notify you of their best deals. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/in-or-out. So OfCom obviously believe there is an issue with mistreatment of PAYTV customers, otherwise they wouldn't have included it.