Why did regulator fail to act over Sky warranty firm?
J.G. writes: In 2014 I upgraded my Sky service to include an HD box. When fitted I was advised to insure it. A few days later I had a call from what I assumed was Sky, offering three years of breakdown protection for £199, which I paid. Recently, the remote control stopped working so I rang the number on the warranty papers. At first I got an answering machine, but nobody called back and now the number is not recognised. Paperwork shows the scheme is run by Digi Support UK Limited. This is the firm I have been calling. Have I fallen for a scam? FIRMS offering breakdown cover over the phone do seem to have a knack of finding out who has recently had satellite equipment installed. You are not the first person who believed they were dealing with Sky, rather than a far smaller unconnected business.
Digi Support UK Limited is based in Horsham, West Sussex, and its directors are Patricia and Daniella Spiteri. I asked them to comment, but Digi Support’s reply came from a third woman, Michelle Walker.
She told me the company had moved, changing address and telephone number. You would have been sent all the new contact details, she added, but either the letter never reached you or you mislaid it. You now have a fresh warranty certificate, covering you against a range of breakdowns until your policy runs out next year.
But here is the puzzling part of all this. More than two years ago, the Financial Conduct Authority issued a public warning against Digi Support UK. It said: ‘We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation.’
People should be ‘especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm’ and learn how to protect themselves from ‘scammers’.
Plain enough – so why is Digi Support UK still in business? Its protection policies today look the same as they did in 2014 when the regulator sounded the alarm. The public warning is still in force on the regulator’s website.
Did the regulator take any action, such as a prosecution for operating illegally? Did it perhaps win an injunction, banning the company and its bosses from further offences? Was any action taken to make them repay customers who had taken out policies that should never have been marketed in the first place?
The regulator refused to answer any of these questions. It told me: ‘Unfortunately, we cannot provide any further information about any action we may have taken beyond what is in the public domain.’ It added that its website warnings are ‘an effective tool’.
The only conclusion is that all the Financial Conduct Authority has done is spot that Digi Support UK was breaking the law, to which its only reaction is to put a notice on its website. Perhaps there was also a private nod to the company’s bosses, telling them not to be so naughty.
I do wonder what is the point of a regulator that fails to regulate and a protection body that fails to protect. I am sure that when Parliament passed our investor protection laws, MPs intended to create a regulator that would safeguard consumers and punish offenders – not one that would shrug its shoulders and point to its website as if this was action enough.