Bank account accessed without permission

[harshness]

Sponsored Links

Originally Posted by susanandmark

Legally, if you move, they can not do that, unless it is within their territory.

If I move away from the water cooperative, I (or the party that I sell my "share" to) am still on the hook for the capital improvements that were made regardless.

If you walk away on a wireless phone contract because they don't serve your area, you'll likely still get dinged.

If you turn in your equipment to Comcast, they won't send you away without settling up if you're under a "triple-play" commitment.

One way or another, you're generally expected to fulfill your commitments; either through sticking it out or paying an ETF.

[susanandmark]

Originally Posted by harshness

If you walk away on a wireless phone contract because they don't serve your area, you'll likely still get dinged.

If you turn in your equipment to Comcast, they won't send you away without settling up if you're under a "triple-play" commitment.

Wrong, in both cases. If wireless service is not available in that area, you're out of your contract (they can't honor their end). Same with Comcast. They may expect you to prove it, but they can't enforce the deal in area they can't offer service. I've even heard of people who, with persistence, got of wireless plans when the company just had BAD (not nonexistent) service in their area.

And I have no idea how the utility co-op you're a part of works. Our electric company is a co-op, but there's no buy in or anything like that. (There are no shares to sell or buy ... At least not for the average user.) We simply pay a bill and that's that. It's our only option for electricity at this address and I have found it no different, save a monthly magazine I don't read, than a standard utility company, i.e. our previous provider. If you own shares of something that can be sold/has value, that's very different than a service only provider arrangement, which is what we're talking about with DirecTV. By being a customer you don't own any part of DirecTV the company or, in fact, own anything anymore, not even your equipment. Therefore there is NO intrinsic value in DirecTV for the consumer, beyond the television provided.

[wildbill129]

Originally Posted by harshness

If I move away from the water cooperative, I (or the party that I sell my "share" to) am still on the hook for the capital improvements that were made regardless.

If you walk away on a wireless phone contract because they don't serve your area, you'll likely still get dinged.

If you turn in your equipment to Comcast, they won't send you away without settling up if you're under a "triple-play" commitment.

One way or another, you're generally expected to fulfill your commitments; either through sticking it out or paying an ETF.

I'm in a water co-op. Capital improvements are made via bonds and paid for in the homeowners property taxes. If you move the homebuyer continues to pay on the bond.

I don't have a problem with the ETF. It's how we get equipment at a well, decent, price. What I have a problem with, and the California Courts (so far) is the unauthorized access of bank accounts to withdraw the ETF. They should send the customer a bill for it, and if they were really nice, allow a payment plan.

[meStevo]

Everyone's making it more complicated than it is with all the comparisons to other services, it's as simple as she signed up to be with DirecTV for 2 years, can't fulfill her commitment, and was hit with a fee for leaving.

Everything else is speculation on what if's since the OP hasn't given us any more information.

With the information the OP has given us, she really doesn't have any options. We don't know if she tried to show there was no signal, for all we know she moved in with someone next door and they have cable and she can't put DirecTV in. All we can do is craft hypotheticals to fit our arguments, when we have so few details so there's little point arguing.

[twizt3dkitty]

no one seemed to ask the OP this question, after your daughter moved, did she call directv to try to move her service or just bluntly cancel? Because if you move and there is no line of sight for the dish due to trees or other structures, the ETF IS WAIVED, however, if your landlord will not allow you to install a dish on his roof/building/whatever the case, then you are responsible, technically you could force the landlord to pay the etf through a magistrate or whatever since he/she/they are not allowing you to continue your service.


On another note, they told her there is a payment plan available, and there is, that conversation should be recorded, request a tape pull, and force dtv to honor it.

Also, if there is no line of sight, then directv will role a tech sup to verify that, and if they find that it can be installed on a pole x amount of feet from the property or something stupid like that, then it has to be. Otherwise you have to pay the etf. Your daughter still has a couple options as long as she hasnt burned her bridges rudely or anything like that.

[BlueEos]

Originally Posted by vurbano

Directv anti consumer business practices. She didnt sign anything there was no contract.

I don't remember signing any contract when I got on board this past March. I "enrolled" over the phone (actually with Qwest and a triple play package). I do understand that I have a "contract" with DTV for 24 months and I intend to honor it fully and then stay with DTV for a much longer period.

That's unless FIOS comes down my street AND I see service comparable with DTV. Our son-in-law down in Oklahoma City has U-Verse (which seems similar to FIOS) and I'm not impressed with it a bit. Way too much de-pixilation.

IMHO, today's youth expect way too much when starting out and in doing so, get themselves into WAY OVER THEIR HEADS. A good starting point might be BASIC CABLE, but then there would be no ESPN, no PPV movies, etc. Why does everyone coming up want what took me a long time before I was ready to assume the financial obligations.

[cfb]

I knew about the contract, yet nobody ever mentioned it when I called directv and while it was in a scad of fine print on the back of the install agreement, I wasnt aware that I was agreeing to anything other than that the install was done to my satisfaction.

Surely I could read both sides of every document ever handed to me, but when theres >$300 on the line, it'd be swell if the other party mentioned that.

But lets be real. They dont mention it because then a lot of people wouldnt sign up for it.

I'm also not buying the "it gives us inexpensive equipment" line either. You can buy a tivo HD for <$200 that has almost the same guts as an HR2x and I bought directv tivo's for <$200 as well a few years ago.

Plus you dont get to keep the equipment and sell it, you have to give it back.

Its simply a quiet way of zippering you up for 2 years, and also if your product or customer service sucks, it takes away the customers recourse of walking away.

I ask you: if its such a reasonable term, why isnt it in 24 point safety orange font on the front of the document you're signing, and why doesnt the nice person in the sales department tell you straight up "You'll have to keep the service for two years or pay $300-something dollars as an early termination fee, okay?"

Riiiiiight....

By the way, do all of you folks know that when you became members at satelliteguys that the box you checked that says you agree to all the terms and conditions included a clause about 35 pages down that says you agree to pay them $400 if you dont make at least 5 nice posts a day?

Come on now, you made the agreement and you should have read it, correct? I'd say "pay up!", but the money was already vacuumed out of your account without any warning. Hope you didnt write a bunch of checks yesterday.

[marsworth75]

It can't be too bad a deal for for these companies. They get to charge an ETF, get their equipment back and then it's moved out again to the next subscriber who thinks they are getting new equipment. Who know how many times that receiver has been paid for?

[susanandmark]

Originally Posted by marsworth75

It can't be too bad a deal for for these companies. They get to charge an ETF, get their equipment back and then it's moved out again to the next subscriber who thinks they are getting new equipment. Who know how many times that receiver has been paid for?

While I don't think most receivers are recycled some, obviously, are, at great savings to DirecTV. (Look how much they're saving just by not paying for Versus the past few months.) That's all profit for DirecTV.

Look, companies will do whatever we, as consumers, put up with to make more money. The airlines now charge fees for EVERYTHING: bags, leg room, traveling on a popular day, etc. A move ostensibly made to keep the planes in the sky during the high price fuel days a few years back. Fuel prices came way (WAY) down, but the fees stayed AND ticket prices continue to rise, while service continues to decline. But, people still fly, so the more, and bigger, fees keep coming. DirecTV is no different.

Companies answer not to consumers, but to shareholders. Their only objective is increasing the bottom line. While, classically, that was achieved by providing the best product, at the best price with superior service to your competitors those days, just about across the board, are gone.

[mrschwarz]

I'm confused. The OP said that she did not have a contract. Why are so many people so vehement about breaking a non-existent contract? What is Direct doing mucking about in her account without permission?

When I have had a conflict with a vendor who claimed I had a non-existent contract, a simple request for a copy of it is the first thing I ask for.

Isn't the real question why did DirecTV claim she had a contract and why did they access her account without permission? Has anyone contacted local law enforcement or states attorney or something like that?

This is one good example of why not to let a vendor access your checking account. When there is a dispute, it's a lot easier to argue before they get paid. Once they have the money, they're 'too busy'.