Sky continuing to charge after death of subscriber.

user1977

bluphoto said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

bluphoto said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

bluphoto said:

sheramber said:

Has she watched SKY in that time?

Definitely, yes, though mostly freeview channels via her sky box - which is why we are cancelling it now as she rarely (but not never) watches any paid / premium channels.

I also occasionally have visitors who watch Sky TV on my TV while visiting my house, but I don't think that makes them liable for the subscription.

I suspect that's a slam-dunk in that she's benefitted from the service in the period in question.

I think a nicely-worded appeal to them might generate some goodwill and as I said earlier, if not in cash, is there a Sky service your mum would benefit from if it were heavily reduced, for example?

I'm not sure what services Sky could offer as a goodwill gesture, now that we have cancelled the contract. She is in contract with BT for internet & phone and I'm not sure what other services Sky could offer - particularly without entering into any kind of contract.

She DOES have evidence (albeit hand written on a letter from Sky) showing that she cancelled the contract for Sky PROTECT insurance soon after my stepdads death in July 2019. We only have her word that this wasn't hand written onto the letter last week though - albeit many would testify that her word is Gospel. If Sky Protect and SkyTV are the same company, then perhaps this could be useful?

No harm in asking Sky what deal they could offer to replace BT.

As for the evidence, I think you're clutching at straws.  The fact remains that a subscription was procured, it seems it wasn't cancelled and has been used since, so your mother can't deny knowledge of it.  Sky Protect is an insurance policy for devices, and therefore totally separate to the services subscription.  If neither you nor Sky can find any evidence of a cancellation that wasn't enacted, it almost certainly wasn't cancelled.  That's why negotiation/goodwill is your only route.

Out of interest, what kind of evidence would people normally keep of a phonecall to cancel a subscription contract?

I wouldn't think it normal to keep any evidence of the phone call itself (nothing stopping you from recording it if you wanted), but I would expect the cancellation to be immediately followed by written confirmation from Sky.

bluphoto

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

I get it that they are entitled to charge until somebody cancels, but my concern was WHO are they entitled to charge?

Looking into it a bit further, it looks like liability for most contracts falls to the executor after someone dies, so she would continue to have liability for the contract for as long as it isn't cancelled. Whether "most" contracts applies in the case of a monthly subscription I can't really tell, though I guess it most probably does.

They'd be entitled to continue charging the estate, until the executor(s) cancel the contract. What would often happen in practice is that the deceased would have a bank account in their sole name, the bank freezes the account when the executors inform the bank of the death, and then Sky would be alerted by the direct debit being bounced.

Yes, I thought that might be the case. I wonder if there are any limitations to the estate. At what point does the estate of a deceased person become the indisputable property of another?

It becomes the indisputable property of the beneficiaries when it's passed to them by the executors. But that isn't really the point - the executors have a duty to first discharge any debts due by the estate (and if they fail to do that, they become personally liable for them). All a bit academic if the executor and the sole beneficiary are the same person (as I presume they are here).

There were multiple beneficiaries, and I believe the executor in this instance was my step sister. Debts that existed at the time would all have been settled - but ongoing subscriptions were perhaps not all tied off in their entirety, it seems.

One beneficiary was the charity Cats Protection League (or something like that). Do they have any liability?

Aylesbury_Duck

bluphoto said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

bluphoto said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

bluphoto said:

sheramber said:

Has she watched SKY in that time?

Definitely, yes, though mostly freeview channels via her sky box - which is why we are cancelling it now as she rarely (but not never) watches any paid / premium channels.

I also occasionally have visitors who watch Sky TV on my TV while visiting my house, but I don't think that makes them liable for the subscription.

I suspect that's a slam-dunk in that she's benefitted from the service in the period in question.

I think a nicely-worded appeal to them might generate some goodwill and as I said earlier, if not in cash, is there a Sky service your mum would benefit from if it were heavily reduced, for example?

I'm not sure what services Sky could offer as a goodwill gesture, now that we have cancelled the contract. She is in contract with BT for internet & phone and I'm not sure what other services Sky could offer - particularly without entering into any kind of contract.

She DOES have evidence (albeit hand written on a letter from Sky) showing that she cancelled the contract for Sky PROTECT insurance soon after my stepdads death in July 2019. We only have her word that this wasn't hand written onto the letter last week though - albeit many would testify that her word is Gospel. If Sky Protect and SkyTV are the same company, then perhaps this could be useful?

No harm in asking Sky what deal they could offer to replace BT.

As for the evidence, I think you're clutching at straws.  The fact remains that a subscription was procured, it seems it wasn't cancelled and has been used since, so your mother can't deny knowledge of it.  Sky Protect is an insurance policy for devices, and therefore totally separate to the services subscription.  If neither you nor Sky can find any evidence of a cancellation that wasn't enacted, it almost certainly wasn't cancelled.  That's why negotiation/goodwill is your only route.

Ok so best action is to find out what Sky could do to replace BT with whom we still have nearly 2 years of contract to run? Hopefully that won't result in unnecessary upheaval of changing email accounts etc, but if it does, then maybe Sky will take that into consideration as well as negotiating with BT on early termination etc.

Out of interest, what kind of evidence would people normally keep of a phonecall to cancel a subscription contract?

That probably scuppers that, then.  Virgin have just upped their prices which gives all their contract holders an option to exit their contract.  I don't think BT do the same?

With regard to the cancellation, whenever I have cancelled or changed something, I keep any paper correspondence in my files, expect to see and keep an email if notified electronically, and then check any payments have stopped.  I do it annually with things like insurance and utilities because I rarely stay with the same company.

kazwookie

I suggest you ring sky again, and ask for a good will payment and see what they say.

Also go again through your mother's bank statements for all her various banks / building societies and see what SO / DD she has set up / for whom / are they still needed and cancel those not required.

bluphoto

kazwookie said:

I suggest you ring sky again, and ask for a good will payment and see what they say.

Also go again through your mother's bank statements for all her various banks / building societies and see what SO / DD she has set up / for whom / are they still needed and cancel those not required.

Thats what we were doing at the weekend. This was the only one that needed significant attention.

Aylesbury_Duck

bluphoto said:

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

I get it that they are entitled to charge until somebody cancels, but my concern was WHO are they entitled to charge?

Looking into it a bit further, it looks like liability for most contracts falls to the executor after someone dies, so she would continue to have liability for the contract for as long as it isn't cancelled. Whether "most" contracts applies in the case of a monthly subscription I can't really tell, though I guess it most probably does.

They'd be entitled to continue charging the estate, until the executor(s) cancel the contract. What would often happen in practice is that the deceased would have a bank account in their sole name, the bank freezes the account when the executors inform the bank of the death, and then Sky would be alerted by the direct debit being bounced.

Yes, I thought that might be the case. I wonder if there are any limitations to the estate. At what point does the estate of a deceased person become the indisputable property of another?

It becomes the indisputable property of the beneficiaries when it's passed to them by the executors. But that isn't really the point - the executors have a duty to first discharge any debts due by the estate (and if they fail to do that, they become personally liable for them). All a bit academic if the executor and the sole beneficiary are the same person (as I presume they are here).

There were multiple beneficiaries, and I believe the executor in this instance was my step sister. Debts that existed at the time would all have been settled - but ongoing subscriptions were perhaps not all tied off in their entirety, it seems.

One beneficiary was the charity Cats Protection League (or something like that). Do they have any liability?

For a Sky subscription?  I wouldn't have thought so.  And even if they did, would you seriously chase a charity your father wished to donate to, for recompense for an unwanted TV subscription?

born_again

bluphoto said:

I have also watched SkyTV when visiting her house, as have other visitors I'm sure. I, and others, also benefited from my stepfathers estate when he passed.

Is there a difference between me watching it and her watching it, as in who is contractually responsible for paying the subscription?

TBH, it makes no difference who watches it. The service has been accessed.

Does anyone have POA for your mother?

> I believe the executor in this instance was my step sister. <
I would have a word with her to see if she did anything in relation to the Sky account.

emmajones1976

Aylesbury_Duck said:

bluphoto said:

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

I get it that they are entitled to charge until somebody cancels, but my concern was WHO are they entitled to charge?

Looking into it a bit further, it looks like liability for most contracts falls to the executor after someone dies, so she would continue to have liability for the contract for as long as it isn't cancelled. Whether "most" contracts applies in the case of a monthly subscription I can't really tell, though I guess it most probably does.

They'd be entitled to continue charging the estate, until the executor(s) cancel the contract. What would often happen in practice is that the deceased would have a bank account in their sole name, the bank freezes the account when the executors inform the bank of the death, and then Sky would be alerted by the direct debit being bounced.

Yes, I thought that might be the case. I wonder if there are any limitations to the estate. At what point does the estate of a deceased person become the indisputable property of another?

It becomes the indisputable property of the beneficiaries when it's passed to them by the executors. But that isn't really the point - the executors have a duty to first discharge any debts due by the estate (and if they fail to do that, they become personally liable for them). All a bit academic if the executor and the sole beneficiary are the same person (as I presume they are here).

There were multiple beneficiaries, and I believe the executor in this instance was my step sister. Debts that existed at the time would all have been settled - but ongoing subscriptions were perhaps not all tied off in their entirety, it seems.

One beneficiary was the charity Cats Protection League (or something like that). Do they have any liability?

For a Sky subscription?  I wouldn't have thought so.  And even if they did, would you seriously chase a charity your father wished to donate to, for recompense for an unwanted TV subscription?

Exactly. OP you need to reach the reality rather quickly that someone, somewhere, has cocked up here, and it certainly wont be one of the beneficiaries of the will who will now have to pay for it.

bluphoto

emmajones1976 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

bluphoto said:

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

user1977 said:

bluphoto said:

I get it that they are entitled to charge until somebody cancels, but my concern was WHO are they entitled to charge?

Looking into it a bit further, it looks like liability for most contracts falls to the executor after someone dies, so she would continue to have liability for the contract for as long as it isn't cancelled. Whether "most" contracts applies in the case of a monthly subscription I can't really tell, though I guess it most probably does.

They'd be entitled to continue charging the estate, until the executor(s) cancel the contract. What would often happen in practice is that the deceased would have a bank account in their sole name, the bank freezes the account when the executors inform the bank of the death, and then Sky would be alerted by the direct debit being bounced.

Yes, I thought that might be the case. I wonder if there are any limitations to the estate. At what point does the estate of a deceased person become the indisputable property of another?

It becomes the indisputable property of the beneficiaries when it's passed to them by the executors. But that isn't really the point - the executors have a duty to first discharge any debts due by the estate (and if they fail to do that, they become personally liable for them). All a bit academic if the executor and the sole beneficiary are the same person (as I presume they are here).

There were multiple beneficiaries, and I believe the executor in this instance was my step sister. Debts that existed at the time would all have been settled - but ongoing subscriptions were perhaps not all tied off in their entirety, it seems.

One beneficiary was the charity Cats Protection League (or something like that). Do they have any liability?

For a Sky subscription?  I wouldn't have thought so.  And even if they did, would you seriously chase a charity your father wished to donate to, for recompense for an unwanted TV subscription?

Exactly. OP you need to reach the reality rather quickly that someone, somewhere, has cocked up here, and it certainly wont be one of the beneficiaries of the will who will now have to pay for it.

That's precisely what I'm getting at. So if NO beneficiaries are responsible for paying for it, then why is my mum (as a beneficiary) responsible for paying for it.?

The statement about the charity was tongue in cheek - to pose the question "What makes one beneficiary more or less accountable than another?" Of course the CPL couldn't be held accountable - but as you say it certainly (and I agree) shouldn't be one of other beneficiaries who is accountable either.

emmajones1976

I would agree with you if it was 2 or 3 months.

But its been the thick end of three YEARS. Surely you see she has to take some personal responsibility here, having used the service and seen the money leaving her bank every month.