Are you saying they didn't send a letter?

Not sure where you're coming from. Are you saying that a person should pay a not small premium - for a pensioner - for a service that she doesn't want (Sky unlimited) when she'd be entitled to BB Lite FOC as a long-standing Sky TV customer - simply because of a financial exchange between o2 ownership, and Sky?

No details were given in the letter - just "your contract with Sky...." That is what started the whole problem - along with the text. The subsequent emails - yesterday - explain in great details all the information necessary, and these have been accepted by my sister i.e £15+ phone, no charge for BB lite or migration and postage for the "new router" which others on here have said she doesn't need: clearly those posters know more than Sky - you know, the people sending the router!

The only letter she recieved about this "migration" was Saturday last - AFTER my telephone conversation re: the text she received.

Omitted to mention, in my earlier reply, that they wanted to charge her considerably more - even with the "half price offer" than she had been paying with o2: that being all she wanted and needed i.e. she has no use at all for "unlimited", and certainly did not want to pay for it. Cheers, Les.

All's well that ends well, eh?

Yeah, thanks for the banter! Cheers, Les.

Getting sarky now are we?

I was believing your words 'paying for' but not seeing that in what you posted. I was hoping to see which BB package she was paying for. My ISP details in my bill all of package name, speed and price w/out me presenting my passport etc.

I thought I was trying to help you but no longer.

In fact this whole thread is useless as your sister got what she wanted from the get-go and it is clear that a mistake was made by Sky in not sending the usual transfer letter that BatBoy alluded to and which invited to you do nowt if you wanted to continue the status quo.

Not sarky, but can only provide what o2/Sky have sent my sister.
The issue isn't what she's finished up with, but the suspect way the situation presented itself, and the obstacle course that was necessary to get the correct thing.
Perchance you feel that the less able or savvy, perhaps, than we, should just be left to the vagaries of Sky?
Hardly the ethos that TBB is about.
You remember, offer help to others, and warn others of pitfall, wherever?
Seeing as I'm, apparently, just a sarky so & so, I'll not bother sharing any concerns about anything in future: let those in a pickle sink or swim - although it goes very much against the grain.
Cheers, Les.

I was out, I missed all the fun.

There is no £50 activation for Sky Broadband Unlimited, either for migrants or new customers. So, assuming no contact was made to Sky by your Sister about Sky Fibre or Lite, this appears to be an error by Sky.

A key point quoted by BatBoy was "We will move you to the nearest equivalent or better Sky package wherever possible".

There was never a 2 GB capped product on O2, so this product can be considered worse. Lite carries a £60 fee which has been waived for you. The £3 price on O2 was a heavily discounted price as a result of a retention discount.

So, as has been said, result for you. But the only thing your Sister was really entitled to was Sky Broadband Unlimited without the £50 setup charge. I do not accept your accusation of "deviousness" on Sky's part as it appears nothing more than an error.