Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Family sues after sex offender responds to DirecTV service call


  • Please log in to reply
357 replies to this topic

#1 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,047 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:27 AM

http://www.wfaa.com/...-270423511.html

 

 

MURPHY, Texas -- A Collin County family made a call to DirecTV for service on their DVR in August 2012. They say DirecTV should be held responsible for who came to their home.

Two men responded to the call. One is named Wahren Scott Massey.

Massey has been a registered sex offender in the state of Texas since 1998. While DirecTV claims Massey was never an employee, he did go to the call with a subcontracted installer.

 


If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 ONLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,373 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:35 AM

I agree 100% its Directvs Fault.

They want to outsource. Then that's on them.

I don't sub out my jobs to ANY one with any type of police record.

Customer didn't call Mastec for the install , They called Directv!!!!!


  • Paul Secic likes this

 

 

 


#3 ONLINE   acostapimps

acostapimps

    Hall Of Famer

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,750 posts
  • LocationIllinois
Joined: Nov 05, 2011

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:06 AM

I think it goes both ways for the blame,  because no matter what anybody says they're representing Directv,  

so Directv should get blame for this also,  but Mastec should of conducted background checks before hiring this person,  and sending out for a install,  plus the affected family don't know they're only dealing with Mastec subcontractors,  They're dealing with Directv company as a whole,  But the sue should be put on local Mastec also.


Directv Genie DVR HR44-700
Directv HD DVR HR24-500
Directv HD Receiver H24-200
Directv Wireless Mini Client C41W-100 (Deactivated)
Directv Standard SD Receiver D12-700 

SWM 16  SWM 8-Way Splitter  SWM 2-Way Splitter  Slimline 5LNB  

Directv Subscriber From 2009-?


#4 OFFLINE   TANK

TANK

    Icon

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 884 posts
  • LocationFLORIDA
Joined: Feb 16, 2003

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:26 AM

 

The information you have is incorrect. The subject you are speaking of has no affiliation with DirecTV whatsoever. The actual installer was a Mastec contractor who, in violation of company policy, brought the subject with him.

 

The relationship between Mastec and the contractor was terminated. DirecTV installation contractors and sub-contractors are required to complete a background check before being allowed to perform any installation services."
 

 

 

The installer is at fault for bringing the sex offender with him on the job, Mastec is at fault if they had knowledge of Massey doing work with the other installer. 

 

Unless Massey was hired by Mastec ,I can't find fault with Directv .



#5 ONLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,130 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:03 AM

Yeah, I don't see how DirecTV has any fault here. If I was an installer, and picked up a friend that was not employed by either Mastec or DirecTV on the way to a job, liability wouldn't be with DirecTV. 



#6 ONLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,130 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:04 AM

I agree 100% its Directvs Fault.

They want to outsource. Then that's on them.

I don't sub out my jobs to ANY one with any type of police record.

Customer didn't call Mastec for the install , They called Directv!!!!!

 

But it's closer to say that the sub doesn't have a record, the buddy he brought to the job one day did.



#7 ONLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,373 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:06 AM

The installer is at fault for bringing the sex offender with him on the job, Mastec is at fault if they had knowledge of Massey doing work with the other installer.

Unless Massey was hired by Mastec ,I can't find fault with Directv .

That fault comes in because the customer has no control who comes to their door once a call to "Directv" is made for service.

You think it's directv.
And it's not.
Don't you think that's a problem?
I DO!

Directv hired the company correct?
Directv is who the customer deals with 100% correct?

So why should directv spout out "It's not our fault" when instead, they should have said yes , it's 100% our fault, that was our sub contractor, and apparently they didn't not follow the rules we have in place for, and we will make this right.
Then they can deal with Mastec since they are the people who hired them anyways.

Not us.
  • ejbvt likes this

 

 

 


#8 ONLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,373 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:15 AM

I have to take full responsibility over my subcontractors.
They screw up, the customer deals with me.
I don't tell them it's not my fault.
I go after the sub, and he deals with me.
Not only would I sue the balls off Directv,and Mastec , that Tech would have needed emergency surgery to remove that cell phone from his Skull.
  • sigma1914 likes this

 

 

 


#9 OFFLINE   HarleyD

HarleyD

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,247 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:18 AM

The subscriber's covenant is with DirecTV

 

And DirecTV's covenant is with Mastec.

 

And Mastec's covenant is with the independent sub they hired.

 

I believe that the subscriber's legitimate beef is with DirecTV and that is who they should sue.

 

In turn I believe DirecTV could subsequently sue Mastec for recompense if damages are awarded to the subscriber.

 

And so on...

 

 

Hey, I watch Judge Judy.  I know about these things. 


Edited by HarleyD, 08 August 2014 - 10:19 AM.

  • damondlt likes this
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
--Frank Zappa

#10 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,641 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:23 AM

I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?
  • tnd777 likes this
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#11 OFFLINE   HarleyD

HarleyD

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,247 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:25 AM

I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?

 

The sex offender's actions were criminal.

 

The harm that came from allowing the family to be exposed to the risks associated with the sex offender and his criminal actions are the result of negligence.  That is a civil matter.


"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
--Frank Zappa

#12 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,047 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:29 AM

I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?

The guy was already dealt with criminally for this.


If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#13 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,641 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:30 AM

The sex offender's actions were criminal.
 
The harm that came from allowing the family to be exposed to the risks associated with the sex offender and his criminal actions are the result of negligence.  That is a civil matter.


I disagree. Because the law says that a sex offender is supposed to let people know he is a sex offender. We have laws for a reason. For consequences. Where does the law say that others have to pay money?

This is ridiculous.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#14 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,641 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:31 AM

The guy was already dealt with criminally for this.


And that should be the end of it.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#15 ONLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,373 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:35 AM

I disagree. Because the law says that a sex offender is supposed to let people know he is a sex offender. We have laws for a reason. For consequences. Where does the law say that others have to pay money?

This is ridiculous.

Because there is no other restitution.
Maybe they could careless about the money, but a lawsuit is a good start in a lesson learning process.
And maybe if Directv wasn't so quick to saying it's not my fault, "like so many of yous do here for directv"
It wouldn't have pissed off the victims so bad into a lawsuit.

Man up Directv.

 

 

 


#16 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,435 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:35 AM

At what point do we stop blaming the companies and start blaming individuals? Sorry I blame the installer if he brought the friend along. Sometimes we need to hold responsible who does it not who's in charge.

Now if this was a regular occurrence that DIRECTV didn't check it's sub contractors work hiring properly that'd be different but a one time fluke? By one person who blatantly didn't follow the rules on purpose?
  • tnd777 likes this

#17 OFFLINE   PCampbell

PCampbell

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,384 posts
Joined: Nov 18, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:42 AM

Cant this happen with any service call from any company. How do we know how many times a sex offender has come into a home and the home owners did not know it.


  • boukengreen likes this

DirecTV since 1996

Slimline 5
HR24-100
HR24-500
HR24-500

H24-700
ATT uverse internet


#18 ONLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,373 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:45 AM

Cant this happen with any service call from any company. How do we know how many times a sex offender has come into a home and the home owners did not know it.

Sure, but the company would take responsibility, not say it's not our fault.

 

 

 


#19 ONLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,373 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:47 AM

At what point do we stop blaming the companies and start blaming individuals? Sorry I blame the installer if he brought the friend along. Sometimes we need to hold responsible who does it not who's in charge.

Now if this was a regular occurrence that DIRECTV didn't check it's sub contractors work hiring properly that'd be different but a one time fluke? By one person who blatantly didn't follow the rules on purpose?

Because these companies hire thugs, just to save a buck.

 

 

 


#20 OFFLINE   HarleyD

HarleyD

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,247 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:52 AM

I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?

 

Criminal offense can and often does lead to civil action as well.  It's actually pretty common to sue the party responsible for you being victimized.

 

So, say you called a utilty company about an issue.

 

And the company sens someone out.  Maybe a direct hire or maybe a private contractor, it makes no difference, and while they are at your home one or more of the service people commits a crime against you or your family.  Theft, violence, sexual assualt.  Whatever.

 

You think the utility company bears no responsibility for failing to ensure that the person that they sent to go INTO YOUR HOME was a decent, respectable person and not a known criminal or allowing known criminals to tag along?

 

This guy was a known criminal.  Whether he volunteers the information to you (Hi!  I'm a pederast.  Where's the satellite box?) or not people that you send on your behalf in a professional capacity are your responsibility.

 

The company is responsible for its' representatives.


  • damondlt likes this
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
--Frank Zappa




Protected By... spam firewall...And...