Watchdog.

Sky Broadband Unlimited: £15
Discount for having Sky Talk: £5
Discount for having Sky TV: £2.50

Sky Broadband Unlimited: £7.50
Supplement for not having Sky Talk: £5
Supplement for not having Sky TV: £2.50

Both the same cost to the end user, but the second method of displaying the prices drives people nuts, because of the word "supplement".

So, a non-story about semantics, in my opinion. And it's "BE", not "B.E".

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

I never mentioned BE. which was in fact BE*

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about Watchdog who referred to them as "B.E".

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

It is a big issue for people who were not told their bill would go up when they moved to Sky. They probably assumed it would stay the same.

As far as I know the "welcome discount" should have produced a net figure at or below the previous price, inclusive of supplements. So they have not broken their promise unless the new net figure is above their previous price.

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

I never mentioned BE. which was in fact BE*

Ann Robinson did on the show. Did you watch it?

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

It is a big issue for people who were not told their bill would go up when they moved to Sky. They probably assumed it would stay the same.

At 37:26 you can see the £1 "welcome discount" on the bill. I very much suspect that discount capped that particular user's net price at or below their old price (which of course Sky were under no obligation to do, since they are allowing everyone to leave their contracts).

I watched & listened, and yes she did mention BE/O2 , only because sky obviously think the BBC watchdog report is down to one of their customers who where assiimilated onto rupee's network , and they maybe right, if some charge or supplement results in the customer not being charged more , then why include it in their billing, there is simply no need to, unless somehow they end up at a disadvantage?

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 15-May-14 21:50:09)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

if some charge or supplement results in the customer not being charged more , then why include it in their billing, there is simply no need to, unless somehow they end up at a disadvantage?

Because those are the normal charges for Sky broadband, when not taken with Sky Talk (legacy) or Sky TV. The only thing which isn't normal about their bill is the "welcome discount", which pegs their new price at or below their old O2/BE price.

It still doesn't make sense to me, i just don't see sky's billing logic on this,

Say a customer like one of those who was lucky/unlucky enough to have been migrated on to sky's network from BE/O2 before someone pulled the plug on the telefonica uk fixed bb network leaving those still awaiting migration (loyal customers) with no service only a 3g mobile dongle wit 1 or 2 gb data use on it, pitty that watchdog didn't pick up on that before it got broadcast,
So, we have Fred ex BE customer, who is SMPF bb only with sky following migration, why are sky issuing invoices that itemise products and services that those customers at least don't subscribe for , or even want to pay for,

A better clearer solution from the customers view point would be to simply omit these non applicable items /supplements if fred isn't getting charged more because he only had a broadband service than if he has their TV and talk ,, because quite rightly if sky are charging migrated bb only customers more, then BBC watchdog have a valid point, why ?
it was sky who bought BE/O2 and them who did not want to provide a separate service, like the o2 wholesale smpf products, not the customer,

So IMO they should at the most charge the going rates,( the price that they charge tv& talk customers) not charge supplements because their more lucrative services like line rental.calls and TV are not needed or wanted, they should provide a like for like service,

So ex BE/O2 customers should either continue to be charged their old fee, (except where they had annex m or upto 12mbps) so the unlimited upto 24mbps price, or whatever sky's pre arranged advertised price was , having established this, there is no need to list the other non applicable services /supplements on the bill , that are the cause of this problem

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 15-May-14 22:42:47)

Were Be and O2 customers on guaranteed no price rise during minimum contract term contracts?

Yes, BE customers certainly were, if they where still within in contract period they where told that if they sat back and did nothing that they would be migrated on to the sky platform , if they only had bb with BE then this would remain the same on sky as would the price or it may cost them less in some cases,(IE NO ANNEX M on sky)

basically all would remain the same, no increases in price, or changes to the existing min term contract ,if they where still in one, and if they where not happy once migrated they would still be free to leave without penalty ,

that's the blurb from sky reps within the closed BE user forum as i recall it I have some screen grabs that show some of these points, but the actual Q &A 's from the online forums question time with sky reps seems to be missing ,deleted by sky perhaps

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 15-May-14 23:27:35)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

So ex BE/O2 customers should either continue to be charged their old fee, (except where they had annex m or upto 12mbps) so the unlimited upto 24mbps price, or whatever sky's pre arranged advertised price was , having established this, there is no need to list the other non applicable services /supplements on the bill , that are the cause of this problem

I don't understand your obsession with how the bill looks.

Someone on O2 paying £12.50 (with the mobile discount) now pays £12.50 on Sky (or maybe slightly less). Whether there are "supplements" listed in the bill is neither here not there.

The net figure is all important. Nothing else matters.

no obsession, but it is the listing of these irrelivant products that has generated the complaints and what appears to be confusion,on the other hand there are also reports of some BE customers being offered a different prices for some reason
if they omitted them for those customers who only have bb, that would solve the issue would it not?, so why don't sky do this that is what i can't get my head around,it just seems stupidity on sky's part

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 16-May-14 03:08:12)

But by now everyone will be outside their minimum contract term and on a rolling contract.

Also anyone got the actual text that says a Be contract was a fixed price deal?
(NOTE BE contract, not the gentlemans agreement once Sky took over)

So long as Sky give people 30 days notice and option to leave they are able to do what they like with the price.

In short I doubt Sky really intended for people to be able to move to Sky and remain at the same Be price for the next 10 years.

Maybe retention offers should be made illegal?

They (sky) i believe promised Be customers at an early stage, that they would write to all customers who had not left, at least 1month prior to migrating them. this in many cases did not happen. resulting in a complete mess for some customers , that's how sky work unfortunately, they have previous for it too,
As for those customers who where outside of the min term, then they would of been on a rolling monthly contract,
Sky still should have given notice of a change in price prior to changing it, a good time for sky to have done that would of been before they got migrated, but in some cases this hasn't happened

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 16-May-14 13:05:11)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

no obsession, but it is the listing of these irrelivant products that has generated the complaints and what appears to be confusion

The confusion seems to be that people think they are being charged for services they are not receiving. That's just rubbish. If people are getting Sky Talk for £5 and Sky TV for £2.50 then I want a piece of that too.

They are actually being charged extra for not taking those extra services, which is the same as receiving a discount if extra services are taken, as I show in my example in the second post.

And I say again, their net price including the welcome discount is at or below their old O2/BE price.

Edited by Oliver341 (Fri 16-May-14 12:20:51)

In the cases I've seen that seems to be the case, i.e. its the wording that people seem to be moaning about rather than the end price.

Or were some expecting to get the Sky Broadband for £7.50 per month.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Or were some expecting to get the Sky Broadband for £7.50 per month.

I guess they were, in which case that would be hugely unfair to other existing Sky customers who are paying £15 for the same service.

Sky have already pegged former O2 customers to their old O2 price including the mobile discount, and of course they don't need to own an O2 mobile to get this price anymore. They've also waived minimum term obligations which would usually come with a new contract, even though they have had to pay Openreach for the LLU migration.

Sky bashing gone mad here.

I have!

Current bill

Supplement for not having Sky Talk 19 May - 18 Jun £5.00
Sky Broadband Unlimited 19 May - 18 Jun £7.50
Welcome Discount Offers 19 May - 18 Jun -£7.50
Supplement for not having Sky TV 19 May - 18 Jun £2.50

Sky Broadband total: £7.50

Obviously that's just for the first year.

Nice.

I guess you were on O2 Basics, or one of early older products with a capped speed?

No, I was on the middle package (Home Broadband Premium IIRC)

At the time the Sky takeover was 1st announced I was out of contract but negotiated half price broadband (£6.50 p/m) with retentions and a month later I wangled 12 months free. I was just about to start paying O2 again when Sky finally took over my broadband.

Ah right. I didn't think Sky were discounting in respect to retention deals, just to the normal non-retention prices. In that case it's a very good deal.

I'm happy with it and happy with the broadband performance (my upload has dropped a fair bit though)

More importantly though I was kept informed as to what was happening and what the charges would be which appears not to be the case for a lot of people.

The only problem I have just now is I appear to have been conned into a 12 month contract, I'm still waiting on the migrations team getting back to me on that issue.

In reply to a post by IanBB:

The only problem I have just now is I appear to have been conned into a 12 month contract, I'm still waiting on the migrations team getting back to me on that issue.

Hopefully just a mis-understanding. Auto-migrations shouldn't be in a minimum term, but if a new Sky Hub is ordered by the migrant it may trigger it.

I think the confusion is coming from the word 'supplement', which means 'addition to'. Its abit like someone dangling a carrot in front of a donkey then taking it away. "Heres what you could have had" kinda thing.

It's a badly worded bill. They shouldnt have listed those products on the bill. Though I can see why they would. As an incentive for people to take out their other services.

In reply to a post by bowdon:

I think the confusion is coming from the word 'supplement', which means 'addition to'. Its abit like someone dangling a carrot in front of a donkey then taking it away. "Heres what you could have had" kinda thing.

I guess if Sky just say "Sky Broadband Unlimited: £15" on the bill then the customer would not know their broadband cost could drop if they took additional services. They are advertising potential discounts to an extent, but I don't find it bothers me, since the net cost of it all is agreeable to me.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Sky Broadband Unlimited: £15
Discount for having Sky Talk: £5
Discount for having Sky TV: £2.50

Sky Broadband Unlimited: £7.50
Supplement for not having Sky Talk: £5
Supplement for not having Sky TV: £2.50

Both the same cost to the end user

I don't see how you can claim that.

A discount is a subtraction to an invoice while a supplement is an addition to an invoice. So the 1st bill adds up to £7.50 while the 2nd to £15. Those examples are incomplete as they show no bottom-line Total.

Also I thought that the whole costing idea for those O2/Be'ers transferred auto to Sky was that they would pay no more for the 1st year and this would be achieved by a Welcome discount which is not shown in the 2nd but should be as 'Welcome Discount -£7.50'.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

the customer would not know their broadband cost could drop if they took additional services. They are advertising potential discounts to an extent

These are invoices not advertising material. The 2 should not be confused.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

I don't see how you can claim that.

A discount is a subtraction to an invoice while a supplement is an addition to an invoice. So the 1st bill adds up to £7.50 while the 2nd to £15. Those examples are incomplete as they show no bottom-line Total.

You would have to apply your own scenarios to both examples and see what the net figure comes out as. E.g. take an example for someone who takes Sky Broadband and also has Sky TV. In both billing methods it comes out as £12.50 (excluding the cost of the actual Sky TV package, of course).

In one method you start at £7.50 and add £5, and in the other you start at £15 and deduct £2.50. End result: £12.50 in both methods.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Also I thought that the whole costing idea for those O2/Be'ers transferred auto to Sky was that they would pay no more for the 1st year and this would be achieved by a Welcome discount which is not shown in the 2nd but should be as 'Welcome Discount -£7.50'.

They do. You can apply a welcome discount to both billing methods, the net figure still comes out the same.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

the customer would not know their broadband cost could drop if they took additional services. They are advertising potential discounts to an extent

These are invoices not advertising material. The 2 should not be confused.

I'll change the word "advertising" to "advising", then. I doubt it would fall under the ASA's remit.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

take an example for someone who takes Sky Broadband and also has Sky TV. In both billing methods it comes out as £12.50

That's nonsense! We are talking about individuals' bills here as was Watchdog. You are effectively saying 'Here's your bill for the month, you work out how much you owe us from what extras you do or do not have', which is hardly a businesslike invoice.

We and Watchdog were discussing bills presented to ex-O2/BE'ers who were promised to be billed no more than before by application of a Welcome discount to their bills.

Have a look at my post in this thread here

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/sky/t/4329426-re-wa...

That is my bill for this month copied and pasted from My Sky.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

That's nonsense! We are talking about individuals' bills here as was Watchdog. You are effectively saying 'Here's your bill for the month, you work out how much you owe us from what extras you do or do not have', which is hardly a businesslike invoice.

No I'm not. I'm just saying that in the second post I gave two different pricing structures which end up and the same net cost, depending on which services are, or are not, taken.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

We and Watchdog were discussing bills presented to ex-O2/BE'ers who were promised to be billed no more than before by application of a Welcome discount to their bills.

And after the application of the Welcome discount the net cost they pay Sky is the same or less than what they paid O2/BE, which is what Sky committed to doing (but didn't have to).

Edited by Oliver341 (Fri 16-May-14 20:21:29)

That is how it is worded on the letter I received in December.

Sky Broadband Unlimited £15.00
Welcome Discount £7.50 for the first 12 months
Your New Monthly Price £7.50

In the small print it mentions the £5 & £2.50 supplements for not having Sky Talk/Sky TV.

Exactly, your actual bill spells out what you are paying for incl. the Welcome discount that exactly offsets the supplements raised for the extras you don't have.

Unlike the incomplete, unclear, guess-what-you are-paying bills tabled in this thread .

In reply to a post by IanBB:

That is how it is worded on the letter I received in December.

Sky Broadband Unlimited £15.00
Welcome Discount £7.50 for the first 12 months
Your New Monthly Price £7.50

In the small print it mentions the £5 & £2.50 supplements for not having Sky Talk/Sky TV.

Thanks, that's interesting.

Watchdog didn't mention the letters, and it appears the letters were right anyway. The £15 is just broken down more on the actual bill (£7.50 + £5 + £2.50) and as you say it's also broken down in the small print. The net price on the letter is also correct.

That's how I had expected and hoped it would be specified to you.

Some of us (and quite a few it appears) did not receive the small print - this is the main issue for me

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Unlike the incomplete, unclear, guess-what-you are-paying bills tabled in this thread .

I'll break it down more for you.

Scenario: user has Sky Broadband and Sky TV

Billing method 1:

Sky Broadband Unlimited: £15
Discount for having Sky Talk: £5
Discount for having Sky TV: £2.50

Cost to user: £15 - £2.50 = £12.50

Billing method 2:

Sky Broadband Unlimited: £7.50
Supplement for not having Sky Talk: £5
Supplement for not having Sky TV: £2.50

Cost to user: £7.50 + £5 = £12.50

I'm aware of that and did mention it elsewhere in this thread.

It does seem to be ex Be* members that are more affected by the lack of communication though rather than O2,

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

I did for a year. I had 6 months free and 12 months at £7.50 with line rental

Presumably you took up one of their offers to move early rather than being auto-migrated?

Based on evidence I've seen, BE customers were the last to be migrated

It could be the case that all BE and O2 customers on static IP's were the last to be migrated

It does seem that the closer it got to the Be / O2 service being closed, the sloppier Sky became with the migration process

The best course of action for me is voting with my feet

I also had a discount with BE, so am definitely paying more with Sky

Finding out I would not be paying £7.50pm did therefore come as a it of a shock

At this point though, I'm beyond caring

In reply to a post by nredwood:

It could be the case that all BE and O2 customers on static IP's were the last to be migrated

It does seem that the closer it got to the Be / O2 service being closed, the sloppier Sky became with the migration process

I've worked in some company acquisition projects, and at some point there is a deadline for stopping using the selling companies infrastructure - OR - to start paying (a lot!) for service. Sky may have decided to not pay Telefonica anymore, and force migrate everyone. There was at least one poster who posted they were cut off and sent a Vodafone dongle.

No Need! I understand your maths (I didn't at 1st).

My objection is that it is selective. On the 1st bill, e.g., there is no clue to take Lines 1 & 3 and ignore Line 2.

It's all in the recipient's mind but that isn't a bill as we know it. What if he is forgetful?

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

My objection is that it is selective. On the 1st bill, e.g., there is no clue to take Lines 1 & 3 and ignore Line 2.

In my "billing method" examples I was displaying all the possible options/permutations available on Sky, it wasn't a suggestion for exactly how the bill should look.

In actuality (and how it should be done), only the applicable discounts or supplements will be shown on the bill. E.g. under billing method 1, if the user takes Broadband and TV, then the Sky Talk discount will not be present on the bill at all. Equally, the same scenario under billing method 2 would result in the TV supplement being omitted entirely from the bill.

The main thrust of the argument on Watchdog appears to be that supplements for not taking multiple services are unfair. My argument is that they are no more unfair than discounts for taking multiple services, which no-one seems to have an issue with.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In my 'billing method' examples I was displaying all the possible options/permutations available on Sky, it wasn't a suggestion for exactly how the bill should look.

Well, you made that crystal clear, didn't you?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

The main thrust of the argument on Watchdog appears to be that supplements for not taking multiple services are unfair

Well they are when there is no cancelling Welcome discount as there was with IanBB.

The WD article was all too brief and did not compare the user's Sky bills with what they were paying O2 nor put it into context that that custs would not be paying any more than with O2 by judicious application of a Welcome discount for 1 year. I thought I glimpsed just a £1 Welcome discount in 1 bill.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Sat 17-May-14 01:35:45)

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Well, you made that crystal clear, didn't you?

Clearly not! But at least we are on the same page now.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Well they are when there is no cancelling Welcome discount as there was with IanBB.

I've seen no evidence that people who were auto-migrated are paying more than their previous standard pricing on O2/BE. Perhaps Sky could have made it clearer that they were matching the standard O2/BE prices as quoted on the website, and did not (in all cases) match retention discounts, which were generally about 9 or 10 months in when the migrations actually occurred. Some O2 customers were 10 months into 12 months free for instance, it would not exactly be reasonable to expect Sky to turn that into 12 months free on Sky, IMO.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

The WD article was all too brief and did not compare the user's Sky bills with what they were paying O2. I thought I glimpsed just a £1 Welcome discount in 1 bill.

I quote the time-stamp here: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/sky/t/4329238-watch...

Watchdog made no mention of the Welcome discount, or that customers are paying more than they were on O2/BE. So as I say the gripe highlighted on the program seems to be the word "supplement", which I believe is a non-issue for the reasons I've already given.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

So, we have Fred ex BE customer, who is SMPF bb only with sky following migration, why are sky issuing invoices that itemise products and services that those customers at least don't subscribe for , or even want to pay for,

They have always have done it for their Talk and broadband products for as long as I can remember.

Edited by simon194 (Sat 17-May-14 07:29:01)

In reply to a post by simon194:

They have always have done it for their Talk and broadband products for as long as I can remember.

I joined a few years ago and had both supplements for about 18 months. I then decided to take Sky Talk and save the £5 a month off Broadband. That said, I feel the service was still good value at the full price of £15.

I'm intrigued, Tommy, that there is still so much controversy concerning the Sky - BE/o2 migrations.
When I raised the issue on this forum some months back, it seemed like all the Sky apologists (perhaps) berated me for moaning about Sky's slipshod approach to all aspect of the transfers - I was told in no uncertain terms that my complaint "hadn't been experienced by others- so I must have been expecting it to go unrealistically easy". Well, with the passage of time - and ongoing problems - just perhaps I was right!
Not gloating, but it caused me a load of irritation, and I'm sure it's still causing others similar problems.
Sky really should have equipped themselves to better handle issues of THEIR making. We didn't ask them to buy out o2/BE.
Hmmm.
Cheers, Les.

I should add that I am still - and have been - a Sky customer for nearly 30 years (since early analogue days), so I have no particular axe to grind, other than the "less than clarity" - and "joined-upedness" - of this migration shambles.

Edited by lelboy (Sat 17-May-14 15:05:47)

In reply to a post by lelboy:

We didn't ask them to buy out o2/BE.

Nope, Telefonica did. Do you hate Telefonica for that?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Or were some expecting to get the Sky Broadband for £7.50 per month.

For a lot of people paying that amount for broadband seems offensive and expensive. Some of the same people who have that Sky Hub underneath a £350 TV and next to a 2TB STB they paid £149 for with a £67.25/month HD Sports/Movies/Family TV package.

What a fatuous comment. It's academic whether one company tried to sell, or the other tried to buy: the end result is the same, i.e. some customers suffered inconvenience, not of their making.
I don't hate Sky, or Telfonica (especially given that I have nowt to do with Telefonica).
My issue is that I'm critical of a well established company such as Sky, purchasing another company, and then making a pig's ear of the transition. If my memory serves me correctly, you were one of the posters who rubbished my initial comments - saying that "well, it seems only you have problems": possibly I'm wrong on that score, and I can't be ar**d to check, but your name seems familiar. Suffice it to say that there are still people unhappy - so clearly I was not "the only one".

You don't appear to understand what they're unhappy about.

Indeed I do, bat - I still have all my faculties.
The point is, that given such a large customer base, more effort should have been made to ensure that ALL aspects of the transition, and its related issues, went smoothly. I'm aware that there are "differing" problems, but the principle still applies, namely that it should have been done RIGHT. All the people that are now shown to be affected by different aspects of the transition validate my objection to the assertion that "I must have been the only one having problems".
We are talking of many months since "my problem" and loosely related problems still exist.

As I pointed out at the time, your relative is the only one to have suffered from that problem, which led me to conclude that someone other than Sky was to blame.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

We are talking of many months since "my problem" and loosely related problems still exist.

You probably should watch the Watchdog program to see what is being discussed, or watch it again because you don't seem to have grasped it. It's a total non-issue about the word "supplement" and in no way proves that Sky made a pig's ear of the transition.

Batboy indicated that I wasn't aware or had any grasp of the situation as is - I have. You have commented on it being "only my sister": perhaps you should trace the thread history.
The issue is the way that Sky has conducted/explained/facilitated what should have been a seamless transition in ALL ways, and not to have left many customers befuddled, or have I misunderstood that too, and no-one is befuddled? As I said before, I have no axe per se to grind with Sky, but the shambles that was the transition is just that - however you try to deflect/disguise the specifics. Sky messed up, but still TBB has its apologists. Bizarre.

As I recall, it was all sorted out by Sky offering you the deal you wanted, but you still complain. Bizarre.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

Bizarre.

What's bizarre is that you paint a non-issue (i.e. this one) as some kind of issue in order to support your baseless argument that Sky made a pig's ear of the transition.

Sky have used this method of billing for several years, and yet it's only now that anyone has anything to say about it.

Lat words from me on this. Both you and batboy are selective in your memory of my situation. He commented that I got what I was after - I say that I shouldn't have to be chasing Sky to address erroneous text messages, emails and nonsense from inadequate representatives, culminating with a threat to leave, before anything sensible was said. You prattle on about a billing issue, but search your memory and you will find inconsistencies in the comments from all the Sky reps involved in "my" issue - and the fact that the wanted to charge, on two occasions, £50 or £60 (whichever you believe) to facilitate an agreeable shift. My recent "bizarre" (?) comment relates to the principle of the "complete" issue. Sky handled it badly, but for whatever reason, you wish to be an apologist for them. Your right, of course, as is your action of burying your head in the sand, so you don't have to acknowledge the complete situation. As I say, bizarre!

And you want to use this thread to dig up your own legacy issue and tell us all you were right all along. I'm not saying whether your own issue was valid or not, I'm just saying that this particular thread, which you decided to jump in to, proves absolutely nothing, and backs up absolutely nothing.

Against my better judgement, I'll quickly respond. You and a couple of others were scathing at the time of my original problem, implying that Sky were not at fault/only you have this issue/what do you want. The matter was closed as far as I was concerned but, at a later time, and still surrounding the issue that Sky can be less than transparent, the same apologists for Sky take issue with others' problems: Sky are, on occasion, definitely less than fair or competent. If you choose to side with them, then I feel morally obliged to challenge YOU. At 63 years of age, I have little interest in establishing the fact that "I was right": history shows that, by the outcome. You people, however, feel the need to put me down because I have the temerity to challenge your selective take on an issue - especially when the point of the debate is whether Sky behave honorably, or in the best case scenario, clearly and transparently: they don't - on every occasion.

Well I guess you chose the wrong thread to prove your point then. The "Sky apologist" as you like to call me, has shown that Watchdog has raised a non-issue simply because people take objection to the word "supplement". If anything this thread actually shows that complaints against Sky, at least in this instance, are baseless. So it doesn't prove your point, if anything it proves the "apologists" are correct.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

If anything this thread actually shows that complaints against Sky, at least in this instance, are baseless.

There's no proof of that. WD did not broadcast the whole complaint. WD would not have taken up the cudgels purely on the semantics of 'supplement'.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

WD did not broadcast the whole complaint.

What makes you think that?

They didn't broadcast the whole complaint as the persons mentioned are posting on the Sky Pro forums

What was the whole complaint?

- Billing and the supplements for not having Sky TV or Sky Talk

- each time you phone Sky to complain about their poor service it costs the caller 9p per minute to be put on hold for long periods of time with no positive end result!

- Poor speeds compared to O2 / BE

- Being sent a Sky Hub to fix poor speeds and then finding yourself locked into a 12 month contract

There is a contact email address, but I stop short of posting it here as it's a named person at the BBC and the email address isn't public

I won't be joining in as I cannot see any benefit in doing so

In reply to a post by nredwood:

- Billing and the supplements for not having Sky TV or Sky Talk

Not an issue as the bill is the same

- each time you phone Sky to complain about their poor service it costs the caller 9p per minute to be put on hold for long periods of time with no positive end result!

It costs because you don't have a Sky phoneline

- Poor speeds compared to O2 / BE

That was BE's USP

- Being sent a Sky Hub to fix poor speeds and then finding yourself locked into a 12 month contract

Buy your own router

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Not an issue as the bill is the same

Do you mean it's the same as it was with O2/BE? How do we know that?

In reply to a post by nredwood:

They didn't broadcast the whole complaint as the persons mentioned are posting on the Sky Pro forums

So Watchdog were in possession of the whole complaint, but only broadcast the part of the complaint that had no substance? Total fail on Watchdog's behalf, then.

There's not much in the remainder of the complaint TBH.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

There's not much in the remainder of the complaint TBH.

Perhaps Watchdog thought the same, and decided what they did broadcast was the strongest complaint of all that were received which, as it turns out, is not very strong at all.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Not an issue as the bill is the same

Do you mean it's the same as it was with O2/BE? How do we know that?

We haven't seen one bill from a Sky migrant where their new net price on Sky is higher than their previous standard price, excluding retention deals or limited time special offers. I have to assume that Watchdog didn't, either.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sat 17-May-14 23:49:58)

Assumptions! Somebody's raised a complaint to WD about the billing. There must be more substance to it other than semantics for WD to take it up.

Not everyone is as pedantic as here !

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Assumptions! Somebody's raised a complaint to WD about the billing. There must be more substance to it other than semantics for WD to take it up.

Well if Watchdog were in possession of a complaint that had substance, it's a shame they didn't broadcast it.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Assumptions! Somebody's raised a complaint to WD about the billing. There must be more substance to it other than semantics for WD to take it up.

Can you post a link to this, or are you just making an assumption?

Personally, I'd have taken a different path in any complaint to Watchdog

No more than your assumption that there is nowt wrong with the complained bill.

I thought so - you're complaining about assumptions but you're making them.

This whole thread is supposition about something we are not privy to and were only given a glimpse by WD.

All Watchdog is is an advert for the featured company.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

This whole thread is supposition about something we are not privy to and were only given a glimpse by WD.

As far as I'm concerned the thread is about, or should be about, the content of the Watchdog show as broadcast, and not about complaints which Watchdog received and didn't broadcast. Those belong in another thread which isn't entitled "Watchdog".

I was auto-migrated from BE and found out yesterday that I am on a minimum term, despite receiving a letter in January which categorically states that I will not be placed on a 12-month contract. It was one of the reasons I decided to do nothing, as suggested. However, everybody at Sky is of the opinion that I am on a contract!

I have a chat transcript from earlier today - which states that anyone joining Sky whether migrated or not will be put on a contract. I did not solicit any offers for new equipment or even suggest otherwise or receive anything to that effect; I just rolled-over based on the limited correspondence.

As you have it in writing, it's irrelevant what livechat says

Yes, I agree in part. Although, it is not just livechat but their main billing team also share/confirm that view. However, I was highlighting the fact that they always seem to have a different view from what was previously provided or agreed and then proceed to play dumb!

I had a similar problem with livechat some time ago.
Someone on TBB advised me not to believe the Skybots..I printed off the erroneous information as you did but doubt if their advice has any legal significance at all!
As the Bat says, it's what is in your contact that matters.

As the livechat people are speaking on behalf of the company their comments are significant and any purchase made due to their advise if it is wrong and contradicts actual contract wording would mean they are liable for misspelling investigations.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

misspelling investigations.

Or even misspelling 'misselling' investigations

Sorry to reopen old wounds but....I had a livechat about termination earlier in the month with an O2 bot.In answer to the question "is this the final payment, so I won't be charged any more direct debits" he replied yes this is the final payment and yes you won't be charged any more direct debits.
You all know what happens next...another direct debit, and an apology from another bot that bot #1 had "made a mistake" and bot#2 would give him feedback..but no question of sticking to the agreement with bot #1 and refunding the extra direct debit.
In spite of Andrew's advice that botchats are legally binding there's not a lot we can do when their botchat is "a mistake".
I'll be visiting a local shop soon, and make a fuss, but doubt I'll get anywhere other than apologies for the "mistake"
Sorry this is in relation to an O2 phone discussion (and it's in the sky forum..double apologies!) but these botchats are certainly not to be trusted at all, and lelboys suggestion of cancelling direct debits on termination is a good one, (unless you are expecting refunds!)

If it is a direct debit and you have been informed that there was to be no more charges you can make use of the direct debit guarantee.

The bot chats are just as legally binding as any other advice support/billing people given.

Cheers Andrew, I'll give it a go!

Wow, just had a very pleasant botchat with my bank and they have cancelled the d/d and are going to refund the money. Didn't realise this d/d guarantee was so useful.Will see what O2 do now though!!

I would keep an eye on your account for a while. It is surprisingly easy for a company to start a new DD using previous bank details given.

As for the subject of sky billing, you almost need a degree in mathematics to understand my bills for the last two months.

Billing Period Charges
Sky Fibre Unlimited 02 Jun - 01 Jul £20.00
Credit for Cancellation of Supplement for not having Sky Talk 02 May - 01 Jun - £5.00
Credit for Cancellation of Supplement for not having Sky TV 02 May - 01 Jun - £2.50
Credit for Cancellation of Sky Broadband Unlimited Pro 02 May - 01 Jun - £2.50
Sky Fibre Unlimited 02 May - 01 Jun £20.00
Credit for Cancellation of Sky Broadband Unlimited Pro 30 Apr - 01 May - £0.17
Sky Fibre Unlimited 30 Apr - 01 May £1.33
Credit for Cancellation of Supplement for not having Sky TV 13 Apr - 01 May - £1.59
Credit for Cancellation of Supplement for not having Sky Talk 13 Apr - 01 May - £3.16
Yours at no extra cost
Sky Broadband total: £26.41
Sky Talk £0.00

You've added Sky Talk Line Rental
You have three charges for Sky Talk Line Rental.
This is because your previous payment had already been taken when you added Sky Talk Line Rental.
We therefore had to add your first partial month's charge and first full month's charge to this bill, as well as your ongoing monthly charge billed one month in advance.

Billing Period Charges
Sky Talk Line Rental 02 Jun - 01 Jul £15.40
Sky Talk Line Rental 02 May - 01 Jun £15.40
Sky Talk Line Rental 30 Apr - 01 May £1.03
Line Rental Discounted 02 Jun - 01 Jul - £15.40
Line Rental Discounted 02 May - 01 Jun - £15.40
Line Rental Discounted 30 Apr - 01 May - £1.03
Yours at no extra cost
Sky Talk total: £0.00
Call charge alerts
Additional Charges £0.50
Payment due on 02 Jun

Cheers,and I bet O2 will chase me for the cancelled d/d and I'll wish I'd never got involved! It really amazed me how easy it was to invoke the d/d guarantee...Thanks Andrew, a useful bit of advice as always.