var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

tedyc03

October 19, 2009 3:37 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

You know, I don't blame the company here for wanting to recoup their losses from the fire. But they should send a bill to the insurance companies, not direct withdraw the money. They did lose property, and it was likely insured under the homeowners policy, so that's where the request should be going.

And for anyone that was unlucky enough not to have insurance, they should just waive the fees. Seriously.

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*

October 19, 2009 7:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tedyc03: direct debit = bad.
they should send a formal letter saying \"we want our receivers, or pay us for them. id they were damaged or destroyed, you may try contacting your home insurance company to file a claim\"

$\"user-pic\"$

Kogenta

October 19, 2009 8:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein: Send a letter to where? People who's house has been totaled by a wall of flames don't typically have a house that the post office will deliver to anymore.

I think the real problem is the front line tech either didn't or wasn't able to flag the account properly. Though depending on the conversation, the person may not have realized that when the OP said their house burned to the ground, that it was in the wildfire zone.

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

October 19, 2009 10:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Kogenta: Bah. Why the hell should someone be treated differently just because their house burning down happened to coincide with a bunch of other houses burning down? Both classes of people have no house, and more importantly, both of them are making insurance claims! This crybaby should just add that money onto his insurance claim--which will be easy to document since he has the bill and debit transaction to refer to.

Sorry, \"wah wah, wildfire\" isn't an acceptable get-out-of-responsibility-free card. Should he be allowed to shoplift clothes too? I mean, while we've decided that random big companies should just eat losses in order to obviate the need for lazy people to file insurance claims.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

October 20, 2009 2:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@West Coast Secessionist: Being a man who understands very much that there comes times when running a business that in order to come out on top you need to make some tough decisions which you may not like. In this case, DTV will probably end up with more profit since it sounds like they are resolving the issue without much hassle beyond the bad CS call which was initially made.

Whether you like it or not, these kinds of issues when made public do have a negative effect on quarterly profits. You may have your opinion about the matter, but regardless of whether you are right or wrong the fact is that your opinion would cost DTV more money. They made the right choice.

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

October 20, 2009 3:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: Public backlash in response to a slanted story wouldn't factor into my decision. If consumerist was slanted the other way, this story would say \"Heartless Greedy Man Destroys DirecTV Property, Refuses To Pay.\" Any action that ANYONE takes can be turned into backlash-fodder with the irresponsible \"journalistic\" style of Consumerist. If they'd waived all fees and made him a good offer for when he gets a new house, the article would say \"DirecTV Takes Advantage Of Fire To Get Man Back Into 2-Year Contract, May Have Started The Fire Themselves To Drum Up Business.\"

I see your point that this decision wasn't popular. But it's impossible to do anything that wouldn't be ripped to shreds on this site.

In my opinion, after I'd purposely set up auto debit as this man did, i'd be pissed as hell if especially after my residence (where I get mail) burned down, I started getting a paper bill for an expense from them, since I would never think to open mail from a biller I have auto debit with. I'd rather pay the damn money than have it hit my credit in a few months.

$\"user-pic\"$

Naame

October 20, 2009 4:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@West Coast Secessionist: You are correct in some sense, but maybe you missed part of my point. I think that DTV made the right decision and it mostly sounds like just a another case of a CS call gone sour due to a dumb rep who didn't see it fit to transfer the call to someone with enough power to resolve the issue.

Had DTV chosen to further give this guy crap about the fees rather than allow the exception then the bad PR would have likely resulted in losing more money over time even though you can't calculate that on any projected profits report. They didn't do that though because they are smart. Your opinion is that such PR shouldn't matter because it is going to happen one way or the other. I disagree. Many readers these days whose decision about whether or not to spend money on DTV's services are capable of distinguishing between a more serious story which merits such action and those stories which are just good for venting on the internet.

Also, the story isn't slanted. It is quite clear. Consumerist did give DTV credit for fixing the issue and rerouted the concern about the single CS rep instead. If they left that part out then I would agree that it is slanted, but that didn't happen.

$\"user-pic\"$

krista

October 20, 2009 6:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@West Coast Secessionist: I agree that a wildfire is no different than a house fire, except that more families are affected. But in either case, the families are likely to have immediate expenses beyond their normal (hotel, eating out, new clothes, etc) and it is heartless to grab the money directly from the bank account. Send a bill, and give them 60 or 90 days to pull things together and get something from the insurance company.

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

October 19, 2009 11:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@West Coast Secessionist: While I think your tone is a little harsh, I do agree with you. If I rented a car and someone hit it, it's still my responsibility. DirecTV should not have automatically debited the money from his account (even though he must have had it set up this way), but they should still get back whatever the fees are. I'm sure they have to pay some deductible to recoup their losses. Plus, you agree to give the equipment back in working order when you sign the contract. Your house burning down shouldn't alleviate you from that responsibility, as much as that sucks. Sounds like this customer was complaining because he was still responsible, even though he didn't cause the fire.

$\"user-pic\"$

billy

October 19, 2009 4:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tedyc03: So, instead of the customer trying to get reimbursement from their own insurance company, DTV needs to somehow figure out if their customers have insurance, needs to figure out what company has the policy, THEN needs to try to get the money from that company?

That's a lot of unnecessary time, money, and effort that will get passed along to other DTV subscribers. If a policy holder wants to go through their own insurance, let them...you know, just like most other instances where a policy holder needs coverage.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 19, 2009 4:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: I can get with that, but to directly debit from someones account when they've obviously just been through a complete and total disaster, well that is just wrong.

They just lost everything, and are trying to get by.. they shouldn't have to deal with this right now.

Bill them for it later if it must be done.. but don't do it like this.

$\"user-pic\"$

billy

October 19, 2009 4:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: I agree that they could have handled it better, and I didn't say anything that disagrees with that.

On the other hand, because you asked, this is another great reason why you shouldn't do automatic debit. It's also a great reason why you should read the contract.

But, as per usual, Consumerist's coverage is a bit misleading: DirectTV refunded his money.

From the article:
For its part, Time Warner Cable also says its policy is not to complicate things for victims of major fires.

\"For a regular house fire, we'll try to work with the customer or his insurance company,\" said Patricia Fregoso-Cox, a company spokeswoman. \"But for a big fire, like a wildfire, we'll be very proactive. We'll immediately stop billing and write off any damaged equipment. We'll take the hit, not the customer.\"

During a disaster, Fregoso-Cox added, \"the last thing that customers need to worry about is their Time Warner Cable equipment.\"

DirecTV's Mercer said the company knew it screwed up in Gray's case.

\"A little more compassion and common sense would have gone a long way toward resolving the problem,\" he said.

The company is refunding the $279.87 in fees and taxes deducted from Gray's bank account.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tedyc03: I disagree with your last statement. Since you didn't bother buying insurance, a company should reward your irresponsibility? They should just forgive them all.

$\"user-pic\"$

AustinTXProgrammer

October 19, 2009 4:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ColoradoShark: No, they should self insure against such loss and add a couple of pennies to the rental rate. Its not enough to matter.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 5:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: They -are- self insured, that's the worst part.

They're self insured against theft and loss too, but they still charge you to recoup costs.

They double dip pretty often, which I suppose is either their right or part of what's wrong with insurance in America, depending on how you look at it :D

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 6:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Wombatish: Isn't that considered a sort of fraud? Charging for items even though you were paid for it by the insurance company?

$\"user-pic\"$

prag

October 19, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I imagine if you were renting cable boxes the same thing might happen. There is a clause in my CATV terms of service that says I am responsible for returning all equipment when I cancel or I will be charged. The least DTV could do is wait until the insurance check comes through.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

October 19, 2009 3:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Another case of underpaid customer service reps doing the least possible to get the person off the phone.
I wish companies would treat their employees better so they would have some pride in their work. Would make customer service 10 billion times better.

I always tried to do my best for the customer, but sometimes the red tape keeps you from doing the right thing. Annoying.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

lmarconi

October 19, 2009 7:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: As a former CSR, another thing to remember is that even if you are a kind and reasonable person, 5 out of 10 times the guy who called before you screamed at the CSR, called them every name in the book and was a general douche. If consumers in general were nicer to CSRs, customer service might improve.

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

October 19, 2009 8:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@lmarconi: As a fellow former CSR, I agree, you are right. It can get pretty disheartening. It wouldn't be so bad if the pay was better though.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: Maybe if consumers didn't go for the rock bottom price it would be better. But we'v voted with our dollars, and said get us the cheapest product - I don't care if customer service has to suck and you outsource all the jobs.

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

October 19, 2009 3:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@joshuadavis: True, but I think companies also tend to look at their profit margins a bit too much. If the companies that went belly up are any indication, they're still making enough money to give millions in bonuses, they could stand to cut that a bit and make their employees a bit happier to be on the job, and that in turn would move to their consumers.

$\"user-pic\"$

TechnoDestructo

October 19, 2009 5:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already:

Because of the way corporate voting laws have been manipulated, executives now have far more power than shareholders to organize votes.

Basically that means unless you own 51 percent of voting shares in a company, or you and people you personally know and agree with do, you can forget overruling anything the executives in a company do (unless you rig the election by counterfeiting shares as described in Matt Taibbi's latest article).

There is only the most tenuous correlation between corporate profits and executive compensation. Early this decade, compensation skyrocketed (nation-wide) while profits actually declined.

I suspect the only reason the trend over the decade has been a slight increase in profits vs the massive increase in compensation is that the companies that keep not making profits just can't keep up the compensation forever.

$\"user-pic\"$

Tawnie is Monster Mashing

October 19, 2009 4:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: It is not the customer service reps fault. Policy is policy. I am not saying it is morally right but when it comes to putting food on the table or losing the only job you can get in this economy people tend to want to rpotect their own house first.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

JRock

October 19, 2009 3:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Didn't DirecTV do something similar after Hurricane Katrina?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Sudonum

October 19, 2009 5:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JRock:
I think you're referring to the San Diego wildfires of a couple years ago. See the links under \"Related\" in this article.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

As much as it pains me to say this, I don't see how DirecTV is in the wrong here. If you own a car and it is destroyed when your house burns down, if you still have payments they don't magically go away because the car burned. Your insurance might cover it, or it might not, but you still owe the bank that money.

When you rent something for Internet/TV/whatever, you owe the company for it if you destroy it (or something destroy it), you are on the hook for it. I hate to say it, but if you aren't OK with this then you should probably look into purchasing whatever they use so you won't have this happen.

17 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

October 19, 2009 8:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Technically you're correct.

However, how do you think DirectTV would feel if you were able to take money out of their account if you felt they owed/did owe it to you without a formal process?

$\"user-pic\"$

billy

October 19, 2009 9:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw: Are you saying that Mr. Gray didn't agree to this when he signed up?

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

October 19, 2009 5:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: From a legal standpoint, they're in the right.

It's still a shitty, jerkass move to make, but they're legally in the right.

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

October 19, 2009 4:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy:
DirecTV recouping its loss doesn't bother me. However, I am bothered by them just taking it out of their bank account. Why not just send them an invoice for it?

That's why I don't do business with anyone who required access to my checking account. I wouldn't give carte blanche to any company to just raid my account.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 19, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tbax929 is just plain tbax929: No fixed address because their homes, streets, and mailboxes have burnt to the ground?

$\"user-pic\"$

Sudonum

October 19, 2009 5:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Yeah, I went through the same thing after Katrina. Verizon charged off $60 they said I owed. Never got a bill, mail service was spotty for a good 3-4 months afterward. The pisser was they were directly charging my monthly bill to my AMEX, but didn't in this case. Never did get an answer as to why.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 6:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sudonum: Yeah I think Comcast did something similar last year with equipment that was destroyed by hurricane Ike, trying to charge people for it after it had gotten washed away. I think they eventually relented.

My guess is the the standard procedure if equipment is reported lost or destroyed is to charge the account for the cost of it using the default payment method. It was an automatic move by the system that no one took a hard look at until this guy made a fuss about it. The computer had no way to know the precise circumstances in this case.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 4:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Insurance doesn't cover items you are renting, but don't own. Thousands of us on the TX coast discovered that last year when Hurricane Ike destroyed numerous Comcast cable boxes/DVRs and modems. At first, Comcast was going to make everyone pay, but the outrage was bad enough that they caved in. They finally just asked that if you could find the remains of your boxes when gutting your houses to turn them in. If you couldn't or if your whole house was gone, you just had to tell them and the fees were waived. We found ours still attached to the cable, roughly where the walls should have been, so we brought them in and added them to the pile of mangled, muddy boxes Comcast was collecting. Apparently, Comcast was going to try to use some insurance of theirs to partially mitigate their losses, but I'm not sure how.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 4:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MSmith7344: I meant that to reply to Tedyc03, not radi0logy. Sorry.

$\"user-pic\"$

GMFish

October 19, 2009 4:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I agree that DirecTV has every right to do what it's doing. I think the problem is that DirecTV could have did it less greedily and more tactfully.

$\"user-pic\"$

lmarconi

October 19, 2009 7:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: Agreed. Tact is a big deal when you're trying to keep a customer in the future or at least keep your reputation with that customer. Rather than auto-withdrawing from his bank account, they definitely should have sent a letter instructing him to get reimbursed by his insurance and giving him a deadline to do it by before they withdraw the payment.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 19, 2009 8:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@lmarconi: The only problem is that I can see how mailing something would be difficult considering someone has basically lost their fixed address. Presumably, DirecTV could e-mail all of their invoices but I wonder whether some people specifically choose to never receive e-mails from DirecTV, or don't even have e-mail addresses. After all, you can set up an account through Best Buy or on the phone.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

October 19, 2009 4:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Err, I'm forced to agree. From a legal standpoint.
They should go after the owner's or renter's insurance first, of course.

However, if insurance doesn't take care of it, while acknowledging that the customer is responsible, they should waive the fee as a courtesy.

I'm imagining their actual COGS for this is much smaller than the list price, and they'll get a write-off. (same goes with their claim to insurance, to be fair: they shouldn't profit off the backs of insurance companies)

File under, Doing the Right Thing, Even When They're \"Right\".

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I agree. The OP can add it to his insurance claim. I can't imagine asking DirecTV to waive the cost of their equipment I agreed to be charged for.

$\"user-pic\"$

TechnoDestructo

October 19, 2009 5:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The way they went about getting the cost of their equipment was utterly wrong.

$\"user-pic\"$

CompyPaq

October 19, 2009 3:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I would generally have to agree, but in this circumstance, two other factors apply:
1) Even if DirecTv does want to recoup the loss, they should perhaps send out a letter explaining how to get insurance reimbursement instead of immediately debiting the account.
2) He is going to buy a new house and will need TV service. DirecTv therefore should make sure to be nice to him to keep his as a customer.

$\"user-pic\"$

nbs2

October 19, 2009 4:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@CompyPaq: I'd change the letter a little - I wouldn't explain how to get reimbursement (after all, that is going to vary from company to company). If the letter stated that \"as a result of the extreme circumstances, the cost of the box will be collected in 6 months, in order to ensure that subscribers have had sufficient time to obtain funds from their insurance providers. After the 6 month period, the cost of the boxes, $280, will be charged,\" it would let consumers know when they would be charged and give them time to have the funds.

As for the question of the tragic nature, not only do these folks live in old growth areas, they are known to have fires on a regular basis. I know that at the end of every summer, I will have to make my \"are you guys ok?\" call to my sister-in-law. These fires aren't surprises.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 19, 2009 3:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Technically, I can see how DirecTV is not wrong for doing this. However, wildfires aren't a dime a dozen and not only do people lose their entire homes and all of their posessions, save the clothes on their back, but they have to deal with finding a new place to live, the cost of buying new essentials, and the emotional trauma of 1) losing your home and 2) possibly almost dying.

DirecTV should take this to heart and be a $(%&@*# human.

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad

October 19, 2009 3:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I normally agree with you, but sometimes people are asking for it. I mean, if you live on the side of a mountain in CA, and you get hit by a mudslide, it's kind of something you should expect. If you buy a house surrounded by beautiful old growth forest, which needs fire to re-populate, well, that should be a clue.

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

October 19, 2009 4:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad: These particular fires were set by an arsonist. So, it wasn't really an act of nature and God in this case.

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

October 19, 2009 5:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: Granted, but given the propensity of wildfires in that environment type and in that area it isn't outside the realm of possibility or likelihood that they could be caught by such a disaster.

That said, it'd probably have been better for them if it wasn't arson, depending on their insurance.

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad

October 19, 2009 4:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: Unless the arsonist set the house itself on fire, a huge fire like this becomes a act of nature/Gods. It only spreads and catches things on fire because they are in a perfect situation to do so.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Agreed fully, they were responsible for the equipment.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is another example of NEVER EVER EVER having a company on auto-withdrawals. Bill me and I'll dispute it. But get your grubby paws off my bank account.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 6:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@holytrainwreck: Me either. I have online billing with DTV but it is NOT auto-withdraw. I actually have to go in there and do the transaction. If they eliminate that option, I will go back to paper billing. If no more paper, they're gone. I guess I would have to go back to Mediacrumb.

$\"user-pic\"$

redskull

October 19, 2009 3:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@holytrainwreck: I was just about to say the same thing. This kind of stuff is the reason I will continue to write checks until the day they stop making them.

$\"user-pic\"$

tbax929

October 19, 2009 4:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redskull:
Every time I call DirecTV they offer me this \"service\". I keep telling them the day you stop sending invoices is the day you stop getting money from me.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 5:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tbax929 is just plain tbax929: that's a good line. i'll have to remember that one.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

DirecTV could have handled the situation better, but there's no reason for them to eat the losses. Homeowner's/renter's insurance should cover the fee.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

October 19, 2009 8:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Exactly. I don't agree with the attitude that people have that companies should just eat the loss anytime something bad happens. This isn't DirecTV's fault, the homeowners should pay the money they owe and get it back from their insurance company.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

tmed

October 19, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It is the customers' jobs to have that property returned to Direct TV or pay for it. This is why insurance is offered.

I understand the tragedy, but one burnt house is a tragedy, and Direct Tv should have every right to runumeration per the terms of the contract. The bill goes to the customer, and the customer should be adding that bill to his / her insurance claim.

Additionally, Direct TV could consider waiving the costs as a kind gesture, but there is no reason they should be spit upon for not. This is what makes a contract a contract.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

In order for the insurance companies to reimburse fire victims, there must be a bill or expense. There's no way for Direct TV to know who each subscriber's insurance company is.

Direct TV could have done it more kindly, by sending an invoice, rather than directly charging a credit card, but they are entitled to their costs. Waiving the fees would be generous, but is certainly not an obligation.

If my car burns up in a fire, I don't expect the car company to \"forgive\" my car payments. But I do expect insurance to handle it and my car company to be reasonable, if the settlement takes more than a few weeks.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

October 19, 2009 4:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: And you pray you owe less on the loan than the car is worth so the loan can be paid in full.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 4:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Or have gap insurance to cover the difference.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm with the cable company here. The consumer is renting the equipment. That's why the consumer has insurance. Ken Gray's charge will be paid out of his personal property insurance claim.

And Oranges, why waive the fees if they don't have insurance? If I rent a car without insurance and a tornado throws it into a house, should the company and homeowner just take the loss because I'm a tornado victim?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

October 19, 2009 3:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: um, in a tornado your car flying into a house is the homeowner's problem anyway. act of god. as for the car, yeah it would be your problem.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 3:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: What if I'm driving it at the time?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad

October 19, 2009 3:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well he obviously didn't read his contract with DirecTV.

Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if - and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy: \"I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained, et cetera, et cetera... Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera... Memo bis punitor delicatum, et cetera... if I do not grab my receiver box AND dish AND coaxial cable when fleeing my home during a natural disaster.\"

He didn't do as the contract said, so

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

nybiker

October 19, 2009 8:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad: What Oranges said.

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

October 19, 2009 8:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad:

I saw that movie in the theatre when I was a kid.

Ohh, to be able to go back and...
Nevermind, I shouldn't type out loud

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 6:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad: Awesome!

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 19, 2009 4:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad: Now I want a chocolate bar.

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad

October 19, 2009 7:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: Damn, no Oompa-Loompa gif.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 19, 2009 7:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad: Was that a short joke?

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad

October 19, 2009 8:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: No, they would have sung a jaunty tune about how commenters who want chocolate too much.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

October 19, 2009 8:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad: Oohh. Well I could imagine the oompa loompas.

Short jokes are very common around me, so I wouldn't have been suprised.

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

October 19, 2009 3:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_Hates #DoucheDad: As always, stevedave, you win the interwebs.

","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

P_Smith

October 19, 2009 3:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why did DireTV try to shaft people on devices destroyed through no fault of the customer? Because the basic rule of modern capitalism is, \"If you can get away with it, do it.\"

The old maxim is \"possession is 9/10ths of the law\", so companies make sure that they possess it, even if by unethical means. It's far easier for them to keep the money after they've stol...I mean, \"billed their customers\", than for victims to fight and get it back.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hanshiro

October 19, 2009 4:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This could have something to do with it:

Consumer Alert - Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against DirecTV
Tuesday February 26, 2008
According to a lawsuit filed against DirecTV in Federal Court, it is alleged that the Satellite TV service provider is misleading consumers. Apparently, when subscribers go to a retailer and purchase their satellite box, they have to return the box, if they cancel their satellite service subscription at a later date. In other words, it is alleged that consumers are not being told that their satellite box \"purchase\" is not really a purchase at all.
...
Mark J. Tamblyn, a partner in Wexler Toriseva Wallace's Sacramento office, said \"consumers should be fully advised that their purchases of DIRECTV receivers come with strings. They should not have to discover after paying hundreds of dollars for a receiver that their purchase is more like a rental, requiring continuous payments.\"

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 5:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Hanshiro: You hit the nail on the head. I was going to point out this fact prior to seeing your post. In the case of Direct TV, the customer is paying X amount of dollars for a box as if it were a purchase of the box. In truth, it is not a purchase and the customer doesn't \"own\" the equipment. This is pretty shady to me. If the equipment is in truth being rented, then why isn't Direct TV working along the lines of other providers and just giving the box to the customer and then charging the rent monthly?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 4:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

DirecTV won't let you buy your receiver. No, you must rent them. The rental fees should cover the cost of these things in less than a year, so they should pro rate them. This is one reason I won't use DirecTV: you're on the hook month to month forever renting an obsolete receiver long after it's been bought and paid for.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 19, 2009 4:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: Cable companies do this too. You don't buy a DVR, you rent it. Such crap. We have a TiVO because as soon as we pay for the unit, we own it, and can take it wherever we want. We don't have to deal with cable companies or DirecTV telling us that we have to rent their equipment.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: But don't you still have to pay a month-to-month for the TIVO subscription? Not being contrary; I don't have it so I don't know.

I want one that records like a VCR and is MINE. I don't want stupid in-the cloud stuff.
>:( *pouty*

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 19, 2009 7:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: Yep, you get a monthly fee with TiVO, but you have to pay a month to month fee for DVR service with cable companies too.

The difference is that with TiVO, once I buy the unit, it's mine. Cox and Comcast want to charge $5 a month for you to rent their equipment, and at the end of your year commitment, you're out $60 and you don't even get to keep the DVR. I paid $70 for a manufacturer-refurbed TiVO and I get to take it with me whenever I move.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sudonum

October 20, 2009 2:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: and how much is your monthly TiVO fee?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

October 20, 2009 2:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sudonum: $10.75 a month. We did the 12-month commitment up front. Oops, I got the number wrong on the cost of the Tivo unit itself. With tax, it's about $84. Cox charges $15 a month for the DVR rental and the service, so I'm essentially paying a one-time price of $33 to own a TiVO unit.

(Price of Cox - Price of TiVO service = Cost of TiVO unit).

I'm a TiVO convert simply because other companies are driving up their prices for something they won't even let me own.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 4:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, so what is the surprise here? That the cable company are employing useless tools or that they don't have answers above their pay grade?

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 5:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

When we moved, DirecTV told us not to worry about the old dish, no need to bring it with... They gave us a brand new one at the other end of the move. Even when we told them our landlord hated the thing and would take it down the minute we left... they were fine with that too.

They just wanted our HBO package renting family to stay with their service. This is some bad PR planning- give the families all little survival folders with info on reconnecting the service, some coupons and a dvr. Do a media event on how much you care, and how important the DVR is to thouse so busy rebuilding their homes and lives. THose people will become customers for life.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

October 20, 2009 3:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gizmosmonster: Yeah, I agree that is a missed marketing opportunity.

An important distinction is dish vs. receiver. The dish is mostly just a cheap piece of plastic, the receiver is more expensive. Especially today's receivers which are usually DVRs. Dish Network told me the same thing when I moved--Leave the dish. But you have to bring your receiver with you (or mail it in if you're cancelling your service).

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 12:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gizmosmonster: Be careful with that \"free move\" thing. It often comes with a sort of secret two-year contract obligation. Even if you were not under a previous contract, you might now be under one.

They have been known to do this during these free moves and also if you upgrade to HD receivers or even if you just get any new equipment at all.

When my dish failed last week, I got my own parts and fixed it myself (LNB had failed) rather than rely on DirecTV repair -which I pay for- to come fix it and suddenly find myself under a contract.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

frari489

October 19, 2009 5:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Another example why I never opt for auto-bill payment. No company will every get access to my bank accounts.

This, and actually writing the cheques helps to remind me how much I'm spending per month.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

BeerManMike

October 19, 2009 6:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They would have gotten their money back and then some if they would have provided some customer service and sympathy by waiving the fees (or billing the insurance) and offering new customer deals when they get setteled in their new home. Imagine:

Customer: My house burned down, i won't need service for a while and all your equipment is now ash.
DirecTV: Thats fine, we'll waive the fees and when you find a new perment residence we would love to have you back as a customer by offering you a new customer package!
Customer: cool thanks!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

nstonep

October 19, 2009 6:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't see why...they can just write it off.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

October 20, 2009 3:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nstonep: You sound like Kramer.

Jerry: So, we're going to make the post office pay for my new stereo, now?
Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write-off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry all these big companies they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No, I don't.
Kramer: But they do - and they are the ones writing it off.

Maybe look up what a write-off means next time.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

soulbarn

October 19, 2009 6:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Definitely, DTV might have handled this more sensitively, and letting CSRs know what the policy was would help. If the company has a \"hardship\" policy, then that should be well known, and it should be something anyone can request (I live in LA. What if I lose my home in some other kind of fire that's not my fault?)

That said, provided the consumer knows that the equipment is DTV's and must be returned - and again, DTV has a responsibility to make this very clear (and the consumer has a responsibility to read fine print; it goes both ways) - I don't think that somebody living in a fire zone (and Vogel Flat is more than just a fire zone. If he's where I think he was, he actually lived on an \"inholding\" on public land, with a lease/deed grandfathered in over decades; my point is not that this is somehow wrong, but that the land he lived on was deep in the National Forest - far closer than any modern standard would allow somebody to practically build, because of the proximity and risk to burnable areas.)

He knew the risks. Better communication, yes. Insurance, hopefully. But a full pass? Not unless that's a general disaster policy that those who happen to be caught in individual predicaments can also access.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 6:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@soulbarn: (I live in LA. What if I lose my home in some other kind of fire that's not my fault?)
*************
Insurance.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

soulbarn

October 19, 2009 7:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I noted the necessity of insurance in my last paragraph. All I'm saying is that if there's a \"disaster exception\" for DirectTV, then it should be applied to all disasters, insurance notwithstanding; if I understand what you're saying - which is somehow that I should be forced to rely on insurance in my disaster, while others receive a pass, that's not fair.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

October 19, 2009 11:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@soulbarn: Exactly. What's would be the threshold? If one house burning down instead enough to trigger the disaster exception, how many is?

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 8:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Some customer service is good, some is bad. Direct TV is capable of the most shocking unauthorized billing/ business practices imaginable. It's like they're following some business textbook entitled \"Worst Practices.\"

Even writing the CEO of Direct TV did almost nothing for me. Finally I got a CSR who promised to get a charge reversed for returned boxes within the due date but received on the last possible day. Three quick months later, I was issued the credit.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

markrubi

October 19, 2009 8:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

A contract is a contract. Directv billed the method of payment on file. The fire victim could have just put his account in to \"sleep\" mode I forget what it's called. I think it's like $5 a month. Once he gets to a new place he can then turn his service back on. This is what insurance is for..

Yes, Directv could have just closed the account and not billed anything for the boxes but I am sure they hear stories daily about people homes being broke into, fire, tornado etc.

For those who say I was never advised about a contract or this is only a lease of equipment etc read on....

Anytime I start any service I always ask I am under contract or any costs for stopping service at any time? It's really our own responsibility in the end to protect ourselves. You can't rely on a company/csr to tell you what you need to ask anyways.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

sevenwhitehorses

October 19, 2009 8:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

hey, if dishtv supplied them with a receiver and they can not return it why should direct tv be responsible? I may not like the charges directv has nor some of their policies but the fact these people lost their home and possessions is not their problem. they need to cover the losses. If they are fortunate enough to have insurance to cover this it is the owners responsibility to get that money reimbursed to them.

I have bought both new and used receivers for my dish network set up, for that very reason, I am responsible for MY receivers not them. I have turned down their offers to supply me with one because I do not wish to rent nor be responsible for their equipment.

People need to be responsible for themselves and quit blaming everyone else for their issues.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

michigan2cv

October 19, 2009 8:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't it illegal to remove funds from your checking account without prior approval?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

billy

October 19, 2009 8:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@michigan2cv: You can authorize/approve that a company do that. The guy in this case most likely approved of it when he signed up. If he didn't, the article probably would be making a bigger stink about it.

$\"user-pic\"$

markrubi

October 19, 2009 8:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@michigan2cv: I don't think so. Once you sign up for auto bill pay and give a company your routing and account number you are authorizing them to withdraw money from your account.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

gwebster

October 19, 2009 9:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I had this issue with Comcast a few years back. My house burned down and was considered unsafe to enter by the fire department. Comcast decided to go ahead and charge us for an unreturned cable box and modem. After speaking with the managers I decided to enter the house and retrieve the remains of the two boxes...after all it was a pricey bill for a college student. I returned the remains in a trash bag and got some surprised looks, but hey the refunded us the money. :-)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 19, 2009 9:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Whatever happened to \"not being a dick\" yeah sure, DirecTV can bill them for the receivers, or they can not be dicks and understand that doing so (no matter how LEGALLY right it may be) is callous and cold.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

billy

October 20, 2009 2:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@LostTurntable: What Consumerist didn't report is that DirectTV admitted that their representatives shouldn't have charged him for the loss. DirectTV actually DID eat the cost. The entire article is a lot more charitable towards DirectTV than Consumerist lets on.

$\"user-pic\"$

mralmostpopular

October 19, 2009 11:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@LostTurntable: How is it any more callous or cold than still owing money on a car after it's been totaled because you were upside down in payments? It happens. It sucks. But why should the bank have to take the loss?

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 20, 2009 2:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

There's a built in loss to their yearly budget for such things. Every company builds losses in for this very reason.

DirecTV can eat the cost of these receivers. Or at the very least, bill the boxes to them at wholesale cost. I know that POS Hughes box that DirecTV sends out to customers is NOT worth $140 per unit.

I don't currently have DirecTV, but it pains me greatly that you no longer own the equipment you use for their service, yet you're expected to lock yourself into a 2 year contract when you \"purchase\" equipment at retail.

Look at what you're obligating yourself to when you buy a $199 Hughes receiver. Up to an additional $300 of charges for a receiver that would've cost $300 5 years ago with no contract. How does that seem fair? No one buys a leased car and is obligated to BUY the car if it's destroyed. Insurance, required by the owner totals the car and pays the company out.

This man needs homeowners insurance to total out the damage on the boxes, give DirecTV his money and then he needs to go tell DirecTV to go stick it where the sun don't shine and go get a HTPC with Hulu.

I'm getting FiOS TV service next week, and while it's a similar deal, at least no one's obligating me to pre-buy my equipment to only get screwed over if my house burns down.

DIRECTV Hardware Lease Terms
Purchase of 24 consecutive months for all receivers of any DIRECTV TOTAL CHOICE ($44.99/mo. or above), or DIRECTV PARA TODOS programming package ($29.99/mo. or above), or qualifying international services bundle, within 30 days of equipment lease. FAILURE TO ACTIVATE DIRECTV SYSTEM WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT MAY RESULT IN CHARGE OF $150 PER DIRECTV RECEIVER NOT ACTIVATED. IF YOU FAIL TO MAINTAIN YOUR PROGRAMMING COMMITMENT, DIRECTV MAY CHARGE PRORATED FEE OF UP TO $150 FOR STANDARD RECEIVERS (UP TO $300 FOR ADVANCED RECEIVERS). RECEIVERS ARE AT ALL TIMES PROPERTY OF DIRECTV AND MUST BE RETURNED UPON CANCELLATION OF SERVICE, OR ADDITIONAL FEES APPLY.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

savdavid

October 20, 2009 3:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

EVERY fire season there is this same story: There is a wildfire out west. Someone's dish is cooked. They get a bill. They complain to company. Company says the people have to pay for dish. People go on TV and tell story. Company relents and so it goes....like clockwork.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Baldrash

October 20, 2009 3:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

My mom had a similar issue about ten years ago with the local cable company when a fire torched most of our living room, including our cable box. She spent the better part of two or three years getting them to drop the charges. Of course, back then, we didn't have The Consumerist to draw attention to this kind of stuff. I wish everybody who's getting screwed in this situation the best of luck; there's really no excuse for something like this.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Trojan69

October 20, 2009 9:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

All this talk about who \"owns\" the unit infuriates me.

So, why, when \"DTV's\" box/unit fails, do I have to pay for another one? It's THEIR equipment that died, not mine. Yet, when I call to have a replacement, I am made to pay the $100-$250 upfront fee if I want another one. Not to mention additional set-up fees for the new/replacement unit.

I could choose the DTV \"insurance\" option, which I believe was $10/month/unit. That makes a lot of sense for a $100 device, huh?

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 21, 2009 6:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

If they are going to get a check from the insurance company for the loss what's the difference if DirecTv bills them or not?

All DirecTv would have to do is send a bill for the equipment and they (the homeowners/renters) would turn that over to the insurance company.

Problem solved! (this coming from someone who had friends that did have a fire!)

Hell even DirecTv told my friends they would send a bill just for the insurance company. They were even nice about it and typed up a letter. The friends just turned it over and DirecTv just suspended the account pending insurance payment. Sure enough State Farm sent them a check and they closed the account shortly after that.

From what they said getting charter to turn off the internet on the other hand was a joke. Charter even wanted to bill them for a cable modem that they owned!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Bog

October 22, 2009 1:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

That is why you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! give any vendor the ability to directly deduct money from any account you have. Always pay to them, never allow them to draw FROM you. Do not ever use automatic payment FROM your vendors. Ever!.

If you must use automatic payments... then use your banks pay by mail and and set up a regular payment FROM your account to them. The less people who can access your accounts the better.

");