I just got a call from Andy at Sky (who told me the call may be recorded, I told him "I hope it is!").

They've told me my order is a "Sim provide and that makes things complicated because the system has to deal with two orders at once" and they've called Openreach and told them that I told them that my line is working (good grief are they all so clueless?) and now they are waiting a reply within 24 hours for an installation date... they have to check their diaries, which is indeed very hard to do!

They said "we are going to do our best to give you the closest possible installation date, but you know the engineers don't work on bank holidays".

I have decided, that I will order PlusNet for a relative of mine, where I currently pay a Virgin Media bill, based on your recommendations it sounds worthwhile and I will also be glad to rid myself of any affiliation to Virgin Media in due course. I will probably make another post to update on the order for that line.

Edited by Saltank (Mon 17-Dec-12 11:20:27)

In reply to a post by Saltank:

In reply to a post by izools:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

No problem with any of that. To me the initial version that I didn't like implied to me that the poster should ignore intimidating letters. That was all .

Yeah, I can understand that. Obviously the difference between ignoring intimidating letters and not getting intimidated by intimidating letters is too subtle for my brash mind

Personally I hate intimidating letters, I've had an ordeal with Virgin Active years ago where I called the club to cancel, they confirmed it over the phone then I checked and it was still going a month later (i was careless) so I cancelled the DD immediately and called them again to let them know - they had no record of my ever calling the first time. Claim letters and legal threat letters ensued and to avoid the hassle I just settled the £100 something.

That case aside and back on topic, my hands are tied behind my back and my head is gloomy, I really am afraid of losing yet another month or two if I cancel this thing with Sky now. Don't think anyone has suggested to me that I can get a guarantee from another ISP to do it any better

A guarantee, no. Testimonials however, yes.

From personal experience BT Retail (Yeah, I know...) were actually top notch installing a new line and FTTC in my old property in January.

I had the line installed exactly 14 days from placing the order. I was able to choose the appointment slot whilst placing the initial order online.

There was no need for a PSTN engineer to come out as it was just a "Stopped" line and the FTTC engineer had me connected that day, same day the voice side of the line went live.

It seems some companies (BT, TalkTalk) link in with Openreach's systems in such a way that the customer books the engineer slot at point of order, whereas some other providers like Primus Telecom and Sky don't have this functionality and orders sit in a queue on their system to be manually keyed on to the Openreach portal.

I suppose in the mean time you could use a 3G Dongle.

If you're with Three you can get unlimited tethering on some phone tariffs, too.

Edited by deleted (Mon 17-Dec-12 11:31:32)

In reply to a post by izools:

A guarantee, no. Testimonials however, yes.

From personal experience BT Retail (Yeah, I know...) were actually top notch installing a new line and FTTC in my old property in January.

I had the line installed exactly 14 days from placing the order. I was able to choose the appointment slot whilst placing the initial order online.

There was no need for a PSTN engineer to come out as it was just a "Stopped" line and the FTTC engineer had me connected that day, same day the voice side of the line went live.

It seems some companies (BT, TalkTalk) link in with Openreach's systems in such a way that the customer books the engineer slot at point of order, whereas some other providers like Primus Telecom and Sky don't have this functionality and orders sit in a queue on their system to be manually keyed on to the Openreach portal.

I suppose in the mean time you could use a 3G Dongle.

If you're with Three you can get unlimited tethering on some phone tariffs, too.

It should be a huge embarrassment for a telecommunications company, I'm getting stuck in an infinite loop saying that over and over again for the past month

I was with three in the last year, I had a Galaxy Nexus, but when I moved to my new apartment, the entire area has a blanketed signal outage which has been going on for more than a year now, so I can't use data let alone make or receive voice calls inside, outside or on the street. I recently agreed with Three to cancel my contract a a year early..

I just received an email from Sky, which is 18 days late:

Welcome to Sky Talk. We're happy to tell you that your services are now active - so your Sky experience really can begin.

Facepalm.


Edit: Received a mocking SMS reminding me that Sky Talk is now active and that I should ENJOY it.

Edited by Saltank (Mon 17-Dec-12 12:35:57)

on BT retail I couldnt pick the date on order and instead was told to wait for a call back.

When the call back didnt happen within 1 working day I rang BT and then got the install date which was nearly 2 months from my order.

When I did my complaint it was made apparent that sim installs are indeed pushed back as I assume they need a bigger time slot and those are rarer in the system, they got me pushed forward by seperating the voice and broadband install's. So when sky do say a sim install is the issue I believe there is merit in that.

This is in reply to izools sorry.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 17-Dec-12 13:49:54)

In reply to a post by izools:

I mean don't fold and pay the DCA - as that is tacit admission that the fees are legit and correct

All you need do is write "Paid under protest" and/or "Without prejudice" on the back of the payment cheque.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Mon 17-Dec-12 17:56:40)

I've a feeling that "Without prejudice" ceased to be a legally recognised term several years ago.

Funny, I still use it at the head of letters I send Orange .

Seriously tho' it is still a legal term:

In reference to www.ico.gov.uk/foikb/PolicyLines/FOIPolicyAredocumentsmarkedwithout...:

A without prejudice offer cannot be put before the court unless the offer is accepted and it is shown as evidence as to the agreement reached between the parties. This enables a claimant to, for example, suggest a figure of compensation that it would be prepared to accept in order to settle a claim without going to a court hearing, or a defendant to suggest a figure it would be prepared to pay. However, should those offers be refused, the parties have respectively reserved the right to argue for more compensation or that no compensation is payable.

However, I agree it is not appropriate for the back of a cheque, but is for putting on letters for negotiating a deal.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I've a feeling that "Without prejudice" ceased to be a legally recognised term several years ago.

I haven't made any detailed searches of case law (which in any case would lead to predominantly closed access sources - the main legal databases, LexisLibrary and Westlaw, are subscription services that charge huge fees and don't offer casual access).

However, I did dig up this commentary by Linklaters (click) (a major firm of solicitors) on Best Buy v Worldwide Sales [2011] EWCA Civ 618, a 2011 Court of Appeal case relating to "without prejudice". In that case, the Master of the Rolls observed obiter (a passing comment, which is persuasive in future proceedings but not binding authority) in paragraphs 35 to 45 of his judgment that a 'without prejudice' letter making groundless threats of legal action may be admissible in court notwithstanding the 'without prejudice' marking.

It is clear from Best Buy that the underlying principle of "without prejudice", based on the public interest in matters being settled without coming to court, remains undisturbed. I would be very surprised if "without prejudice" was totally discarded from the law of England and Wales, as it would break a fundamental principle of the Civil Procedure Rules that parties should make every effort to avoid the dispute coming to court, including the use of letters before action. Accordingly, I'd feel comfortable marking any disputed payment (and the correspondence relating to it) "without prejudice".


I should point out that this advice is worth precisely what you paid for it, and note that I'm a law undergraduate who has yet to study contract and tort in detail.

Thanks David. It could well be that I picked up some distorted, (oops, sorry), reporting of that, or misread a formal law report about it. (Occasionally one catches my eye).

Then, looking at the date and that it was in the Appeal Court, it is possible in fact that I read such a law report of the original case, as I am fairly sure it was before 2011. Or even more likely something to do with one of the cited cases that are discussed within that judgement.

Anyway - the conclusion is clearly that there is "nowt wrong" with the term when used appropriately.