HR20 Lease/Own dispute

[foredeck]

I recently had to terminate my DTV service because I moved and could not keep it in my new location. I had an HR20 unit that I got from Best Buy, and loved it. Needless to say I wouldn't have terminated my service if I had a real choice in the matter.

When i got the HR20 from Best Buy, I was under the impression that it was a $300 purchase, with the unit being subsidized by a one year commitment to HD service (in the same way cell phone companies operate). Now, however, DTV is telling me that I only leased the unit, and that I have to return it or be charged an additional $400. But, I did not sign a lease agreement when I walked out of Best Buy with my unit.

Has anyone had to deal with DTV's in this area before? The way this is being handled on their end seems shady to me, because I was never told about a lease when I first got the unit.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

 

[bonscott87]

Every single receiver "bought" since March of 2006 is leased. That's when they started the leasing program. Unless you paid $750+ for it, it's leased. You may have noticed a "leased receiver fee" on your bill, unless this was your only receiver of course.

 

[Bob Nielsen]

When leasing started, retailers like Best Buy didn't inform the customers. I leased a H20 there and there was nothing to sign (I had to sign a commitment when I bought a HDVR2 there earlier). I knew it was a lease so I didn't have any issues with that. Now they have signs that say it is leased and even the box has a sticker.

 

[iceturkee]

sorry, you weren't better informed but the box needs to be returned.

 

[foredeck]

Is everybody just a bunch of lemmings? The common response seems to be, "Hey, all those units have been leased since March 2006, live with it." But I did not sign a lease agreement, nor was I informed about it being a lease when I walked out of Best Buy. To me, this means I purchased the unit. DTV can't simply impose a lease agreement after the fact.

If this means that I have a doorstop until I can use it once again, so be it. But DTV does not own the equipment if there was never a lease agreed to in the first place.

I'll rephrase my original question. Has anyone ever dealt with this in a way that they did not simply give into DTV's demands of returning the unit? If you have, please speak up. Other thoughts on the matter that do not kowtow to the DTV party line would also be appreciated.

 

[atp1313]

I believe that when you opened the access card for that HR20, it had stamped on the plastic wrapping that "by opening this package you agree to the lease terms and conditions"...or something to that effect.

Not necessarily agreeing with how the practice works (i.e. buying from BB or other third-party and not being fully informed), but them are da breaks. I had to send in my HR10-250 (which was owned) to get the free upgrade to HR20 (which is leased). No big deal since the HR10-250 wouldn't be able to see the new sat/channels and I didn't want to have to pay $200+ for the leased box. Good news/bad news...but that's life.

 

[vurbano]

Is everybody just a bunch of lemmings?

No mostly D* employees, dealers, CSRs, technicians, installers, people that jerk off contacts at D* for information to post here or derive their existence in someway from that corporate tit or just long time fanboys. That is the reason for the attitude. Very anti consumer. IF Best buy didnt advertise it as a lease then sue them. IMO its false advertising and its the same way on ebay. One of the worst business practices Ive ever seen all based on you reading some fine print on a pastic wrapper eventhough when you purchased it the wrapper was inside the BOX! . The question is who is more decietful here? D* or Best buy?

 

[foredeck]

I believe that when you opened the access card for that HR20, it had stamped on the plastic wrapping that "by opening this package you agree to the lease terms and conditions"...or something to that effect.

There are a couple of important points here. First, there were no lease terms and conditions included with the unit. Only the manual, and the terms and conditions in that say absolutely nothing about leasing the hardware. They do mention a software license, but that's it. Second, hardware is not like software, over which the creator has absolute of use and copying through copyright laws. For hardware, unless there is a lease agreed to at the time of transfer, then there can be no lease, not even one instituted after the fact.

I would like to point out that I am not trying to take advantage of DTV, but rather I am trying to not be taken advantage of by a large corporation. I got the HR20 and believed, and still believe, that I owned it outright from the day I walked out the store with it. There was nothing to indicate otherwise at the time. The wrapping of the access card was not part of the transaction when I paid for the unit, so to me does not and should not act to change the nature of the purchase transaction.

 

[vurbano]

There are a couple of important points here. First, there were no lease terms and conditions included with the unit. Only the manual, and the terms and conditions in that say absolutely nothing about leasing the hardware. They do mention a software license, but that's it. Second, hardware is not like software, over which the creator has absolute of use and copying through copyright laws. For hardware, unless there is a lease agreed to at the time of transfer, then there can be no lease, not even one instituted after the fact.

I would like to point out that I am not trying to take advantage of DTV, but rather I am trying to not be taken advantage of by a large corporation. I got the HR20 and believed, and still believe, that I owned it outright from the day I walked out the store with it. There was nothing to indicate otherwise at the time. The wrapping of the access card was not part of the transaction when I paid for the unit, so to me does not and should not act to change the nature of the purchase transaction.

I agree 100% but you will get no sympathy here from this crowd. These stores selling these things that D* says are leases has always made me scratch my head. IMO all terms should be clear when you exchange money at the register. If no one has signed a lease at that time then it should be your property. I'd love to see this go before a judge. I think it would be the end of this bullsh$t business scam.

 

[foredeck]

Do you know of any alternative forums where I might seek advice on this?

 

[vurbano]

Do you know of any alternative forums where I might seek advice on this?

Im not sure what the atitude would be. Ultimately these forums compete for information and inorder to do this they develop relationships with insiders to get the best information. Ultimately the forums end up occupied by a lot of corporate mouthpieces. Its just the nature of the game. I guarantte you will get trrashed at AVSforum and DBStalk and DBSforums. What those people don't realize is that us forum people know more than the average consumer and so we think people should "know better" because we know. But thats really unfair. When a consumer is in BB its not his job to be a regular satellite forum participant, its the stores job not the misrepresent the merchandise. Imagine goping and thinking you have just bought a car only to find out you dont own it? Its the same thing here. Anything that deceptive has to be illegal.

 

[foredeck]

Vurbano, thanks for the open and honest feedback. It is much appreciated.

 

[shaun-ohio]

all the other forums will tell you the same, its a lease, you are just out of 300 you paid for it, so if you dont return it, they will charge you, another 400, for not returning it.

 

[vurbano]

Do they have your credit card info? IF so I would close the account and block it if you are going to fight this.

 

[atp1313]

One of the biggest scams Ive ever seen all based on you reading some fine print on a pastic wrapper eventhough when you purchased it the wrapper was inside the BOX! .

This is a VERY solid point. Like I said, I don't agree with the process of third-party (re)sales WITHOUT explicit explanation of this being a LEASE and not PURCHASE.

 

[vurbano]

This is a VERY solid point. Like I said, I don't agree with the process of third-party (re)sales WITHOUT explicit explanation of this being a LEASE and not PURCHASE.

And its rampant. This seller doesnt say anything about a lease. Looks like a "BUY" button to me. TheSatelliteShop.Net : Directv Plus HD DVR - HIGH DEFINITION RECORDER (HR20)

 

[bonscott87]

Dude I'm not sure what else you want people to say (and Vubano is being his usual self here, fanning flames for no reason).

It's a lease.

Period.

As for advice dealing with DirecTV all anyone can say is good luck. CSR roulette. Maybe if you browbeat the right CSR at the end of their shift or something you'll get what you want.

There is no "lemming" attitude here. It's a lease and nothing can change that.

Sorry you weren't well informed. I knew about the new leasing policy months before it started. But then I stay on top of these things and really research something before I lay down hundreds of bucks on something. No excuse that BB didn't inform you. I know when I got my HR20 in Sept. when I activated I don't know how many times the CSR kept telling me it was a lease and so forth. If you had a bad CSR that didn't follow the script and inform you, again, sorry.

My advice? Just return the stupid HR20 since it's worthless to you at this point and be done with it. You'll save yourself a lot of stress and aggrivation over nothing since it's a lease and there is nothing you can do about it.

Good luck.

 

[vurbano]

I see bonscott is his usual self. If it was a lease then Best buy should have advertised it as such. IMO the cost should be theirs to eat not his.

 

[iceturkee]

if you have a gripe, take it up with best buy not directv. but i also urge you to look at your monthly bills or go online at directv.com, register and look. it will clearly tell you that it is leased. again, i'm sorry that best buy gave you false information.

try calling the better business bureau and see if they can help. but don't be surprised or shocked, if your appeals fall on deaf ears.

beside, after you got the box from best buy, you should have gotten a letter from directv clearly spelling the details of the lease program. i have three of them. granted, i got my units directly from directv but you still should have received the letter.

 

[vurbano]

if you have a gripe, take it up with best buy not directv. but i also urge you to look at your monthly bills or go online at directv.com, register and look. it will clearly tell you that it is leased. again, i'm sorry that best buy gave you false information.

try calling the better business bureau and see if they can help. but don't be surprised or shocked, if your appeals fall on deaf ears.

beside, after you got the box from best buy, you should have gotten a letter from directv clearly spelling the details of the lease program. i have three of them. granted, i got my units directly from directv but you still should have received the letter.

I dont think anyone is disputing that D* intends it to be a lease. The real issue is the people who are fraudulently "selling" the unit. They should not be able to "sell" it, that is fraud. Any button on any website should read "LEASE NOW" not "BUY NOW". Sale signs in the stores should read "LEASE PRICE" not "sale PRICE". This should be a contractural requirement by D* with its retailers. By not requiring this D* is aiding in the deception IMO, they know what is happening. And the reason they don't change things is because they can make 600 dollars on every Joe6pack that falls for this scam (300 sale price + 300 termination fee) and they get to lease the box again by sending it back to best buy on an online retailer fishing for another sucker!!!!!!!!!