sky's policy is to charge a $45 fee for a refund of double transaction? due to no fault of mine

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › sky's policy is to charge a $45 fee for a refund of double transaction? due to no fault of mine

1 | 2

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 124

Trusted

#664940 31-Jul-2012 20:48

tkr001: Making a mistake is one thing, however charging the innocent party to rectify the mistake is bizzare.

If the OP waits for a month, the mistake will rectify itself at no cost!

wsnz

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 204

#664943 31-Jul-2012 20:49

So I take it from what you have written that they haven't actually charged you the $45? IMO they're simply mistaken and I wouldn't worry about it any further.

I've had all sort of strange comments like that over the years from various companies, that have never amounted to anything. If they did charge me, I would definitely complain however.

gareth41

742 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 79

#664955 31-Jul-2012 21:22

they never charged me the $45 but said they would for any future refunds, so I am not using my credit card on their website, and the double transaction brought me very close to my limit. The bill was also quite a large amount, hence asking for the refund and not leaving the account in credit.

Cespenar

18 posts

Geek

#665057 31-Jul-2012 23:52

tkr001:
MackinNZ:
gareth41:...also told me for future refunds a fee of $45 will be charged...

I think they forget they are indulging in theft.

How can it be theft when they tell you in advance they are going to do it?

The fact that they take the original amount when it isn't due, not the fee

"I'm taking your money, even though I have no right to it" That is theft.

"I'm going to shoot you" That is a murder threat. A crime. If the threat is carried out it is a greater crime. Even though the victim was warned.

"I'm going to whack you dear" Even if you don't hit your wife you just committed a crime or misdemeanor. "Telling the courts you gave fair warning is no defence.

And I'm sure the OP would say no if he was dealing in cash. A theft would not take place.

Niel

3267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 80

Trusted

#665095 1-Aug-2012 06:05

+1 stand up for the principal and get it sorted. I cannot take it that lazy companies cannot come up with proper policies, not thinking about what they offer the customer and how they deal with them. It is like Water Care (Auckland) changing the pricing structure at the same time as they introduce estimated meter readings and also waste water charge, then get the estimate wrong even though they said it will be based on your past couple of invoices. If large companies make changes they should have the resource to think it through and do it right, not decide that it will all work out in the end.

Some people are in very tight cash flow situations, and not necessarily on low income, just their current situation. For them $45 makes a huge difference. Now you might say they can then not afford Sky so should not have it, but what if a family member or friend is sponsoring them so they can have some entertainment.

Nag Sky as much as it takes to get it sorted, it cost you nothing and they might change their policy or at least their resolution procedure.

You can never have enough Volvos!

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2526
Inactive user

#665096 1-Aug-2012 06:10

Cespenar:
hairy1: This would be a classic for the disputes tribunal. Open and shut case. Can't see it lasting....

I think they forget they are indulging in theft.

Rubbish!

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

simon14

1889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 44

Trusted

#665135 1-Aug-2012 08:43

I dont see what the problem is, OP didn't get charged.

If they were actually being forced to pay this charge when it wasnt their fault, that would be a different story.

I think the agent must have just been referring to standard conditions, but if thsi case actually got disputed, i dont see Sky or any other company actually charging for this.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#665179 1-Aug-2012 09:29

MackinNZ: Taking the original amount was a mistake which they admitted. However, they would rather issue a credit than a refund. Exactly what I would do.

And were I your customer I would demand it be refunded, and forcibly get it refunded via my card issuer if you refused. Double payments are not free no-interest loans for your business. They are mistakes that if the customer wishes to get refunded should be refunded. If the customer wants to apply it as a credit then well and good, but that's the customer's choice not the business choice.

And I have also had this happen to me before (not by Sky) - the company tried to claim that the overpayment could only be applied upon termination of the account, and could not be credited to the next payment. They then claimed that although I had overpaid the account I owed them for a missed payment. I ended up getting it refunded but I'm sure you will understand why I'm reluctant to accept "it was a mistake, we'll just credit your next bill" as an excuse.

SimonGeorgeBrown

50 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#665206 1-Aug-2012 09:58

If I was charged in error, I wouldn't have all confidence that it would count as credit to my account. I'm sure it would but I wouldn't assume so.

saying $45 isn't much is relative and besides, the bill would have been a lot more then that, I know I couldn't afford for any of my bills to be doubled.

And anyway, if you where charged double at the super market or at the movies, I don't think ANY of you would let it slide or pay a fee like you're saying.

That being said, last year I was double charged over internet for my mobile bill, I left it there for credit, but I wouldn't have if I needed the cash.

1 | 2