Sky continuing to charge after death of subscriber.

Ditzy_Mitzy

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.

If she had inherited a car, rather than a Sky box, who should be paying for the petrol?  The death isn't particularly relevant; all that's happened here is a continuation of the service.