SKY rip off

Inactive

sco0ter wrote: »

Your box only has to be connected for the first year and even then they are extremely relaxed about it... They are not relaxed about Multiroom as people could use the extra box from someone elses house so it MUST be connected to the account phone line

Spot on scoOter, it is the Multiroom part that they really enforce firmly.

meester

hmm, send them a letter tell them it's illegal as an unfair penalty contract term. might be worth a try.

Inactive

meester wrote: »

hmm, send them a letter tell them it's illegal as an unfair penalty contract term. might be worth a try.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You must believe in Santa Claus if you honestly think that would hold water with Sky.

akane_2

i finally got rid of sky this month after 11 year's and opted for virgin+ the only difference is no sky 1,2,3 or sky sports news ,the lag from changing from one channel to another but i get a sharper picture with virgin and i don't loose the signal when it rain's anymore .

VIRGIN+ broadband and phone VIRGIN box in 2 other rooms £69
SKY+ multiroom ,AOL, POST OFFICE home phone ..............£85
setanta sports package free (cost £10 from sky)................£10

mean's i save £26 a month plus DD got cable in her room

trixie73

i am sick to death of sky.i recommended a friend n got a letter last wk saying instead of having free sky plus i can have sky hd for £99.when i rang em 2 take the hd offer they sed its £199 if im not having broadband.i told em the letter mentions nothing about having broadband n that i want to speak to a manager.they put me on hold for ages then put the phone down on me.im fuming.they are not honouring the offer they have sent me.im thinkink of cancelling the whole bloody package

meester

Inactive wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You must believe in Santa Claus if you honestly think that would hold water with Sky.

So sue them.

They are not above the law and are unlikely to find it worth their time to defend the case.

Inactive

meester wrote: »

So sue them.

They are not above the law and are unlikely to find it worth their time to defend the case.

Get real, what exactly are you going to " sue " them for, enforcing their own contract that a customer has willingly agreed to.
:rotfl:

annscullamus

I had Sky+ fitted on Jan 9th. I already had Sky, and did not have it connected to my phone line as it seemed to interfere with my broadband. I asked the fitter why it needed to be plugged in and he told me that Sky are partially sponsored by the Interactive Games provider, on the Interactive Pages, and the sponsor wanted viewers to use (and pay for) their services. My original Sky was unplugged for about 3 years and nobody bothered. I don't know if that is of interest to anyone - I was certainly surprised, thinking the phone line was integral to the service or something! But no, it is just money and selling yet again.

ystalyfera

i just up graded for a month FREE (had the letter this morning) but had to pay the full package then they give me the cash back the following mth (upgraded amount) never said that in the letter:mad: but the thing is they have a 14 day billing policy so its a pain to lower your sky if you forget....

meester

Inactive wrote: »

Get real, what exactly are you going to " sue " them for, enforcing their own contract that a customer has willingly agreed to.
:rotfl:

Er, read the thread.

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations are the ones.... Unfair contract terms are UNENFORCEABLE

The point is consumers HAVE not and CANNOT 'willingly agree' to terms like this, because they are not negotiated and the consumer has no choice about them and is a tiny ant next to a multibillion pound business.