Sky continuing to charge after death of subscriber.

Aylesbury_Duck

bluphoto said:

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.

Presumably because the contract was tied to a joint account (initially) for which your mother subsequently became solely responsible, and was tied to an address which was demonstrably in receipt of the service.

I see what you're getting at - that the contract was formed with your father only, and that after his death, the contract might be considered void.  You need to check the contract.  It will almost certainly explain who is responsible and what happens in the unfortunate circumstances of a contract-holder's death.

user1977

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?

It's the executor who would have been responsible for terminating the contract, not the beneficiaries.

bluphoto

emmajones1976 said:

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. 

Indeed. In fact, she's honestly not fussed about it. Its only me that is questioning it. I just wasn't sure where the contractual liability lay.

mattyprice4004

Think less about contracts, and more about that she's been using (and has been happy paying for) a service. 
You've spotted it, you can cancel now and it's really not worth getting pent up about if it was cancelled or not when Sky will do the square root of nothing with no proof of cancellation. 

With regards to recording evidence of cancellation, you either ask for proof to emailed / sent in a letter, or you ask to cancel in written format to begin with. 

SiliconChip

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?

When I (as executor) was dealing with all the services that my mum had contracts with after her death I kept a record in a spreadsheet of all phone calls I made, the date it was made, any reference number given, and the result of the call. I think in all cases there was a follow up from the organisation by letter or email, although a few of them took a long time to do it.

sheramber

The person who has the system installed pays for it.

As you have paid for it your visitors can watch it free or you could ask them for a contribution to the coast.

How did your mum think she was watching it if she had cancelled it?

cx6

Sky's psychic powers have unfortunately diminished because of the pandemic and they are (irrationally in my opinion) demanding that you actually tell them when you want to cancel.

sheramber

Did mum think she had cancelled SKY when she cancelled insurance?

MalMonroe

mattyprice4004 has the most sensible comment of all, I think. And I agree with that comment. 

Ergates

bluphoto said:

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.?

She's not just *a* beneficiary of the estate.  She was the spouse of the deceased, shared a joint account with the deceased and resides at (and presumably now solely owns) the address where the services was provided.

The implications of what you seem to be suggesting aren't particularly good - If you were to reclaim the subscription fees from Sky, then they might choose to pursue the executor of your father's estate for the money instead.  Someone dying isn't a route to free Sky TV (or broadband, phone, anything else) - they've been providing the service, the service has been used, and they're going to expect payment from *someone* for it.  If the amount was small, they might drop it - but they also might not due to the implications of other people finding out and "forgetting" to inform them of such things.

As for a goodwill payment - given she/you/others have been using the service I can't see how they'd consider that.  If it had been sat there untouched since your father died, then maybe, but that isn't the case.