You know it's going to happen

[boba]

About November I deactivated a 625 DVR and replaced it with HD receiver, Since then I have received a return box and several automated phone calls to return the LEASED RECEIVER. Problem is I own the receiver and have Emails from Bruce Peckham, Greg Walls and Mark Duffy in the Executive Communications Team to that effect. I know that at some time in the near future I am going to get an automated charge on my card for my owned receiver.

As a preemptive measure I asked Mark Duffy today to send me a letter I can take to the bank to prove it is an erroneous charge by DISH Notwerk.

 

[harshness]

Did you have big plans for the 625?

Where did you "buy" it and about how much did you pay for it?

 

[Jhon69]

Probably Dish wants it back to turn it into a 512.

 

[boba]

Harshness I had planned on putting it in the garage with an 811 and a 311 I might some day use. But after this I will be selling it as soon as I get a letter from DISH proving ownership. It came from eBay and has been inactive part of the 4-5 years I've owned it. While it was previously inactive there was never a question on ownership.

 

[hometheaterman]

Yes this is one of my biggest complaints about Dish. They seem to try to claim items you own. I originally purchased my 722 from Claude at Dishstore.net. Dish put it in their system as a leased receiver not owned and wanted me to prove that I owned it. Luckily Claude was great and got it taken care of. It had to be replaced by Dish once under warranty a few months after I got it. They put the replacement in the system as purchased. I always ask every time I call to make sure it hasn't changed. Then I just had that one die and I had to get another one and I have the Dish Service plan. The first CSR told me they were replacing my 722 with a leased one. I told him if that was the case to cancel my service. The second guy he transferred me to assured me it would be owned by me but other things he told me I found out to not be true. So far though this seems true. I activated it today and the first Dish CSR said it was showing up as purchased. I had something else I needed done so did a online chat the second time and he also confirmed it was listed as purchased.

I hope is stays listed like that and they don't try to change it sometime. I've read reports of them just changing them on people from saying purchased to leased.

I think this is one area Dish really needs improvement. They should have to prove to me I don't own it. Not me have to jump through hoops to prove to them I really did pay $4-500 for the receiver. I've already payed enough and spent enough. I wonder how many people they do this to that just finally get tired of being bullied and give in and return their receivers? After having that experience right after I got the 722 I've kind of been worried since.

 

[Jonhern]

Yes this is one of my biggest complaints about Dish. They seem to try to claim items you own. I originally purchased my 722 from Claude at Dishstore.net. Dish put it in their system as a leased receiver not owned and wanted me to prove that I owned it. Luckily Claude was great and got it taken care of. It had to be replaced by Dish once under warranty a few months after I got it. They put the replacement in the system as purchased. I always ask every time I call to make sure it hasn't changed. Then I just had that one die and I had to get another one and I have the Dish Service plan. The first CSR told me they were replacing my 722 with a leased one. I told him if that was the case to cancel my service. The second guy he transferred me to assured me it would be owned by me but other things he told me I found out to not be true. So far though this seems true. I activated it today and the first Dish CSR said it was showing up as purchased. I had something else I needed done so did a online chat the second time and he also confirmed it was listed as purchased.

I hope is stays listed like that and they don't try to change it sometime. I've read reports of them just changing them on people from saying purchased to leased.

I think this is one area Dish really needs improvement. They should have to prove to me I don't own it. Not me have to jump through hoops to prove to them I really did pay $4-500 for the receiver. I've already payed enough and spent enough. I wonder how many people they do this to that just finally get tired of being bullied and give in and return their receivers? After having that experience right after I got the 722 I've kind of been worried since.

They would have to prove it to you, just ask them to provide the contract that should have been signed if it is leased.

They don't ship out new receivers, they send a tech out to set them up, so if it is leased they would have a document saying so, thats what the CSR told me today anyways, it was exec office so i am pretty sure i got good info. They only ship out replacements.

Others have said asking to see the contract has made them back off IIRC. There are a lot of stories on here about this kind of stuff.

 

[boba]

When I spoke to Mark Dufft yesterday he said the status had been changed back to leased since Jan.20th when we previously communicated. He is part of the Executive Communications Team so I hold little faith in what is said or printed, even the Executive Office gets overridden by the COMPUTER SYSTEM.

 

[harshness]

Since the going rate on used 625s doesn't appear to be that much (<$50?), I'm not sure I'd put up a big stink about who owns it.

Especially if I expected that the buyer is going to have to go through the same mess you have.

Do you have to return the access card before you sell it?

 

[DishSubLA]

Could we not publish the full names of Dish employees here, especially the ones who do the job as asked by their employer and still help the customer as best they can within the employer's limits. I believe that is the protocol here. I have had dealings with some of the people identified here, and they are the Dish Gold Standard of employees that Charlie should have more of. Let's not get people in trouble for trying to help us by publishing names of mere employees here who are not corporate officers or board members.

In addition, one can be sued out of house and home publishing an employee's full name in such matters here, especially if they lose their job, no matter how true and accurate the incident relayed by any of us may be. Thoughtful discretion is always best regarding the publication of the identity of any employee and won't have one having to pay lawyers when served with the suit. Of course, top execs or corporate officers are another matter as they often go on public record. So, Charlie, Jim, Mark, Dave, et al. are often cited.

The incidents can, and should be public, for everyone's benifit, but not the names of employees involved. Just friendly, well-meaning advice given with the best of intentions.