Sky Overcharging & Free Month Trail BEWARE

Miss B

Signed up to Sky in January - installed and working 28th Feb. Received first bill for €64.95, had paid installation up front. Phoned them to see why it was so high - I have the basic variety package & music, Sky Plus and "normal" sky multi in the bedroom, since I was a new customer I got Sky Plus Box & Multi room at half price my total monthly bill should be €29.87.
I have phoned & emailed numerous times now, the only reason I got out of them for the over charge is that I had been billed since the start of Feb - but that still doesn't seem right. They are "looking" into it but have taken the €64.95 out of my acc.. Since I'm new to sky is this what its going to be like with them, overcharge city!!

Also watch out for their misleading marketing emails - got one saying since I was a new customer blah blah they are giving me a months free trial on the Sports & Movies (thats great isn't it!!) not until you get a letter saying they are taking €119 out of my acc because I ordered Movies & Sports.. obviously I was on the phone to them straight away, where they explained that they take the money out of my acc and after one month I've to call them back and cancel and then they will refund it back to me!! BUT - if I forget to call them back on the 20th April I will be in a years contract with them for Movies & Sports - the most misleading and unethical marketing campaign I've seen recently.. Obviously I didn't go ahead with the "free" trial
Sky aren't leaving a good taste in my mouth so far...

TheDriver

Welcome to $ky, lots of threads here about them! Just remember you can get most of their package stuff free anyways

Miss B

Thanks TheDriver, found a few of the threads after I posted this one. At least I'm not the only one.

Kensington

You should only be charged from the date your viewing card is activated (ie. installation date). Your first bill will always be odd, since sky charge you from your bill date to one of their billing dates.

Secondly, you're not tied into a contract for Sports & Movies for 12 months. 30 days is the minimum period you must subscribe to Sports & Movies so you can ring them up and get them to drop it after 30 days. They will often tell you to ring back on such-and-such a date so they "won't charge you", however if you insist, they will cancel the Sports & Movies there and then, and you will receive a credit back the following month to your bill, for the days you didn't have the Sports & Movies (but were charged for this month).

jor el

Query the direct debit amount with your bank. Tell them you did not authorise this payment, and ask them to reverse it. If they say they can't (which they probably will) take it to the manager, and point out the direct debit rules that explicitly states; If it is established that an unauthorised Direct Debit was charged to a Payer’s account the Payer is guaranteed a prompt refund by their Bank, and Ensure that Direct Debits are collected only in accordance with your customer’s instruction.

Then ask Sky to issue a correct bill, which you will pay.

Sleipnir

jor el wrote: »

Query the direct debit amount with your bank. Tell them you did not authorise this payment, and ask them to reverse it. If they say they can't (which they probably will) take it to the manager, and point out the direct debit rules that explicitly states; If it is established that an unauthorised Direct Debit was charged to a Payer’s account the Payer is guaranteed a prompt refund by their Bank, and Ensure that Direct Debits are collected only in accordance with your customer’s instruction.

Then ask Sky to issue a correct bill, which you will pay.

The bank won't do it because it's not an "un-authorized" payment. The whole point of a DD is that you allow them to take varying amounts of money but just because they took more than you thought they should, doesn't make it an "un-authorised payment" The payments is authorised because you've signed a mandate allowing them to take money out.

An un-authorised payment in the DD rules refers to where a payment is for example, taken out where there is no DD mandate in place or the DD has been cancelled previously.

jor el

Sleipnir wrote: »

The bank won't do it because it's not an "un-authorized" payment. The whole point of a DD is that you allow them to take varying amounts of money but just because they took more than you thought they should, doesn't make it an "un-authorised payment" The payments is authorised because you've signed a mandate allowing them to take money out.

Yes it does. They pre-bill you with the amount they're going to take. If this is wrong, you tell them, as the OP did, and they should correct it. Sky didn't correct it, and they took the wrong, unauthorised, amount. The other rule I quoted, states they must at all times comply with the customers wishes. No one wishes to be overcharged, especially when they notify the biller.

Kensington

Unauthorised direct debit? How exactly? I'm open to correction by the OP, but from what I gather, the OP has just received their bill recently.

If so, then the bill received will include TWO months payment - their payment for march (from the install/activation date) AND advance payment for the month of April. Sky bill in advance, this is in your Sky T&C (which you sign) and is no different than UPC, or companies like Smart, Eircom etc. €64.95 sounds about right for two months of subscription at 29.87 per month (since sky will bring your bill into line with one of their "billing days").

If the free trial service of Sports & Movies was taken out, then unless you inform sky otherwise, you continue on with the Sports & Movies subscription, and hence your April subscription payment will include the additional subscription cost for this. Nothing illegal here!

jor el

Kensington wrote: »

Unauthorised direct debit? How exactly? I'm open to correction by the OP, but from what I gather, the OP has just received their bill recently.

OP said the bill was the wrong amount, and that Sky have already debited the account. If the bill amount turns out to be correct, then there's no issue. I think her issue with the bill was that it was supposed to be half price, and that Sky claim that they have billed from the start of Feb, when it only got installed at the end of Feb. Seems Sky don't quite understand the bill either.

billyhead

Lads,

Lay off Sky. I think they are a pleasure to deal with. Its Chorus and NTL that leave a lot to be disired and I don't work for Sky in case your wondering.

dub45

jor el wrote: »

OP said the bill was the wrong amount, and that Sky have already debited the account. If the bill amount turns out to be correct, then there's no issue. I think her issue with the bill was that it was supposed to be half price, and that Sky claim that they have billed from the start of Feb, when it only got installed at the end of Feb. Seems Sky don't quite understand the bill either.

The direct debit scheme also states that a disputed amount should not be debited.

If you have any queries or complaints about the direct debit scheme please get on to ipso who are 'responsible' for the scheme and are always stating how perfect it is! (www.ispo.ie)

It is quite shocking that given the chance a bill payer takes in giving their account numbers to companies that there is no basic guide to the direct debit system in print. That bank staff are not properly informed on how the direct debit system works and that there is such a lousy complaints sytem in place. The complaint system is that if you feel that a company has 'done you wrong' you are supposed to complain to your own bank first and they are supposed to complain to the company's bank! There is no sanction in the dd systerm for a company who misbehaves so there is no incentive for a company to behave properly.

dub45

Sleipnir wrote: »

The bank won't do it because it's not an "un-authorized" payment. The whole point of a DD is that you allow them to take varying amounts of money but just because they took more than you thought they should, doesn't make it an "un-authorised payment" The payments is authorised because you've signed a mandate allowing them to take money out.

An un-authorised payment in the DD rules refers to where a payment is for example, taken out where there is no DD mandate in place or the DD has been cancelled previously.

With all due respect to you this is nonsense. Your interpretation if taken to the extreme would mean that once you signed a direct debit mandate a company could charge you any amount that they liked and it could be considered authorised. Another example of an unauthorised payment would be where you are not provided with notice of the debit. And if you read the bb forums on here for a period you will see that one of the bb companies was very fond of doing this.

Under the scheme a company is supposed to provide you with 14 days notice of the amount to be debited to you (often breached by the companies of course) so that you can check that the amount is correct and have the money in place for the dd. If you dispute that amount then by definition you are not authorising that particular amount. The company should investigate and reissue you with a new invoice. Under the rules of the scheme disputed amounts should not be debited.

The scheme is lacking definitions and examples. For example in relaton to the direct debit guarantee it states 'If it is established'' but gives no guidance as to who exactly is the authority for the 'establishing'

It is a lousy scheme biased big time towards the companies and banks with the bill payer coming a very poor third!

If a payment is taken where there is no dd mandate in place or the dd has been cancelled then that is theft plain and simple. Sadly companies who do this are not prosecuted or expelled from the scheme which is supposed to be based on integrity!!

dub45

billyhead wrote: »

Lads,

Lay off Sky. I think they are a pleasure to deal with. Its Chorus and NTL that leave a lot to be disired and I don't work for Sky in case your wondering.

But the job application is obviously in!:)

jor el

billyhead wrote: »

Lads,

Lay off Sky. I think they are a pleasure to deal with. Its Chorus and NTL that leave a lot to be disired and I don't work for Sky in case your wondering.

When I was a Sky customer, I never had a billing issue either, but that doesn't mean the OP here isn't having one. It also doesn't negate the advice given. Problems with Chorus/NTL, although widespread and varied, are inconsequential in the context of this thread.