Why is the regulator still failing to act over unauthorised satellite TV warranty firms? TONY HETHERINGTON investigates


Mrs A. A. writes: Months ago you asked in an article: ‘Why did the regulator fail to act over warranty firm?’ I have had a similar experience with another satellite TV warranty company called UK TV Care Limited. I have tried to recover a payment made through Barclaycard, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a refund. As the financial regulator fails to take any action against unauthorised firms, what is the point of having a regulator?

Set-up: The firm provides TV users with unauthorised financial services


My report  last August asked why the Financial Conduct Authority issued a public warning that satellite TV warranty company Digi Support UK had been providing financial services without a licence, but then failed to follow this up with any action, leaving it to carry on in business.

Your own situation is almost the same, except that the regulator has not even issued a warning.

You have Sky TV and you insure the satellite equipment through a scheme called Sky Protect, operated by the TV company itself in partnership with the big insurer Domestic & General.

Tricksters have now registered a company called Sky Protect Limited, along with a sister business called UK TV Care Limited. Both are registered to an address in Wenlock Road, Hackney, North London, though this is just the premises of a company formation agent. Both appear to be run by the same man, though company records differ slightly.

One is headed by Ali Cherif Belalia Taha, the other by Belalia Taha Ali Cherif. Not that it makes much difference since in both sets of records he gives the same date of birth in 1969, adding he is Spanish and lives in Spain.

Claim: UK TV Care Limited’s website offers illegal ‘warranties’ for breakdown


The point is that neither of his companies is authorised by the regulator to market any kind of insurance or warranty scheme. His claim in his terms and conditions that if there is a problem you can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service is just bogus.

I invited the Financial Conduct Authority to comment. It refused, but pointed out a warning on its website, alerting satellite TV users to the dangers of unlicensed insurance offers. This states: ‘The cover is often described as a “warranty”, but will actually be an insurance contract. Arranging and providing insurance contracts is a regulated activity, which means the company offering it to you must be authorised by us.’

Fine words, but a bit pointless unless there is action when the regulator is told that someone is doing exactly what it warns against. This is not just a technical point. Offering financial services without authorisation is punishable by up to two years in jail – assuming the regulator wakes up and takes action.

You were tricked into paying for a warranty that cannot legally be offered, but when I contacted the companies, neither Sky Protect Limited nor UK TV Care would comment.

Yet I did get your card company to reconsider. I am glad to say Barclaycard has told me that, ‘due to the specific circumstances of Mrs A’s case, we have made the decision to provide a full refund of £198 as a gesture of goodwill.’ Excellent.

Congratulations on your £1.2m award

T. W. writes: I thought you might like to see details of a scam email I have received, awarding me $1.5million.

Thank you for passing on the extraordinary news that you have been chosen to receive $1.5million (about £1.2million) from the United Nations as part of its humanitarian aid and poverty alleviation scheme.

Tall story: The conmen said cash must be sent to Kuala Lumpur


Just as extraordinary is the claim that the UN has apparently chosen to hand over your cash to money transfer company Western Union in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, which will dish it out to you at $7,600 (about £6,000) a day.

According to another reader, if you had replied to the email and tried to claim your cash, you would have been told by fraudster Mrs Helen Kuan, posing as a Western Union official, that ‘a one time activation fee of US$467 has to be paid before the Western Union Payment Center can fill in your data as the receiver of the funds’. This has to be sent for collection by Joshua Louis in Kuala Lumpur.

Of course, there is no $1.5million and probably no Helen Kuan or Joshua Louis. There is no such thing as an ‘activation fee’, but anyone sending $467 would likely be asked for more, with further tales about legal fees or taxes.

A scam from start to finish.




HETHERINGTON: The regulator that’s failing to protect you

Search within