Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by timothy2001, Mar 27, 2013.
It's called a commitment for a reason.
Bailing out of this discussion as this is turning into a moral versus legal argument.
Not moral vs legal anything, its a moral AND legal obligation to pay the bill...
Playing Devil'Ss Advocate here as well. a contract is a contract. if they open "loop holes" for "special situations" then folks would start to abuse them. If a contract can be voided under "special circumstances" what wold prevent someone who lost their job to just call and say they need to null their contract because they can't fulfill it…
IF he was unable to understand the contract when he signed it, then he can't be held liable for it. We have no where near enough information to have an intelligent conversation about it.
Cold-blooded logic, I'd say, and I hope all other businesses would not do the same.
I suspect, though, that the case has to go higher than a CSR.
I work in the Office of the President where those emails are routed. Please PM with your account information if you aren't able to get this settled through that email address provided.
The CSRs are supposed to explain (mention) to new customers the 2 year commitment. If I am not mistaken, there is also a recorded that is play back to customers advising of such. If he was able to understand that and singed for the contract then he's liable for the contract
I guess you don't really believe what you say in your signature, eh?
I assure you as a company as a whole, we are not like that. If I had gotten that call, I would of escalated it to someone higher than me to see about waiving that fee. We use a chat room and I would of known the answer within minutes. Apologies if someone fell flat. The OP should contact the Office of the President like stated earlier to get this resolved.
First and most important is, I'm sorry for your wife and family. I hope there still can be joy, though it sometimes might be difficult.
Now as I read the original post, he signed up, then became ill. Was he of sound mind when he signed up? A small point because...
In my way of thinking this is a case where a vendor makes more hay in the long run by eating the cost and forgiving the ETF. Sure, DIRECTV has every "right" to claim the fees, but that doesn't make it wise.
Balancing some of this out is verification. If every deadbeat knew that to skip the ETF, just claim something outrageous. (Note, I absolutely not, in any way, saying your uncle-in-law is skipping out!)
So what I would expect is the CSR might have to, politely, transfer the case to someone who can do the right things. Or that an advanced script could be created for the front line CSRs.
Now for my nearly fanboy statement. The people I've worked with and talked to are very customer focused. And I believe would find a way to do the right thing. So I also encourage you to send a note to Ellen Filipiak.
The only right thing to do is pay what is owed rather than passing it off to be absorbed by others.
That would be one opinion. Not a very polite or nice one. Many companies understand that good will generates more income. And bad will, hard line tactics gain a few hundred dollars. Penny wise, dollar foolish.
No need for the personal attacks Tom.
Consumers need to honor their commitments if they want to ask the same of those they do business with. I'd rather they not come to places like this and be instructed on how to avoid it. I pay my bills and I expect others to as well.
Should someone that finds that they cannot get DirecTV service after a move have to pay the ETF? What about Lord Vader if he hadnt fought his complex management so hard? There are several cases where waiving the ETF might make sense. Directv doesn't want to make a run for Consumerist's Worst Company in America. They already beat out Dish.
Losing a job is a financial problem. Demencia is an illness. Special circumstances require proof, so I don't think they would be abused. If a person dies, proof is needed. If a person is sick, proof is needed. Losing a job is a problem which in many cases requires a person to file bankruptcy which also requires proof.
Just don't pay it and request it be tacked on to Hoosier205's bill since he's worried about the rest of us.
So if the man was already affected by the dementia and didn't know what he was doing, you think legally and morally that the contract show be honored?
LOL. Look at bankruptcy in be business world. It's all about not paying back what they owe.
That was an example, perhaps a bad one. The point is that once loop holes are created folks will exploit them. So if DirecTV put a disclaimer on their contract saying "under special circumstances contract can be voided, with proof" this will be an opportunity for anyone to get out of their contracts, with proof, which can be found anywhere on the net.