# 86 year old dementia patient must pay $400



## timothy2001 (Jul 31, 2011)

I am a Direct TV subscriber whose contact is up in June. My wife's 86 year old Uncle who had just signed up with Direct TV became ill and can no longer care for himself and his 55 year old Autistic son. Cross county move from PA to Tx so we can care for them, sell their house etc etc. and Direct TV is forcing him to pay his termination fee. I just boxed up the two receivers and sent them back today. 

Sure its the contract but there really should be exceptions, I called and the customer service person said that's the way it is. 

Frankly it's pretty crappy, he is not capable of making any financial decisions we do all of that for him now but DTV is going to get their $400. This is the company we are doing business with. 

Tim


----------



## Combat Medic (Jul 27, 2007)

Has he been legally found to not be of sound mind? If so he can't agree to a contract.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Get his doctor to document his inability to make financial decisions at the time of the contract, and depending on the laws of the state he signed the contract in, it could be found to be void. Definitely something worthy of considering arbitration over.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

timothy2001 said:


> I am a Direct TV subscriber whose contact is up in June. My wife's 86 year old Uncle who had just signed up with Direct TV became ill and can no longer care for himself and his 55 year old Autistic son. Cross county move from PA to Tx so we can care for them, sell their house etc etc. and Direct TV is forcing him to pay his termination fee. I just boxed up the two receivers and sent them back today.
> 
> Sure its the contract but there really should be exceptions, I called and the customer service person said that's the way it is.
> 
> ...


DirecTV is a business. They sent a tech out to his home and installed the equipment, gave him all the equipment, etc... at no cost to him. This means they payed the technician to do this work. Why would they not recoup their money by making him pay for the work performed? If he was to fulfill his contract then they would recoup their money but since he is not then they charge an ETF. Seems logical to me and any other business in this case would do the same IMO.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

Not quite the same circumstance, but my uncle was released from service commitment when he went to a long term care facility, just took a phone call.

The cell phone company was not very nice about it, but they finally came on board.


----------



## prospect60 (Aug 26, 2006)

For all the things that get routed through VP Ellen's office this seems like a slamdunk of an exception. A little heart and sympathy from the big company -- they cancel contracts because of job transfers when you can't set up a new dish. It also sounds like a PR nightmare for a company to fight to collect from a man whose health issues make it impossible to use the service the way it was intended. This isn't something that somebody just changed their mind about and dumped a legit contract b/c they wanted a better deal with Time Warner.

Wouldn't you love to be the Local news Anchor doing the "On Your Side" report for this one? DirecTV only PR win in this situation is to cancel the ETF and if you get a senior manager in some Power Position I can't see how they could really push it even if they though they could.

Not sure but I think this is the most current email
[email protected]


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

timothy2001 said:


> *I am a Direct TV subscriber whose contact is up in June.* My wife's 86 year old Uncle who had just signed up with Direct TV became ill and can no longer care for himself and his 55 year old Autistic son. Cross county move from PA to Tx so we can care for them, sell their house etc etc. and Direct TV is forcing him to pay his termination fee. I just boxed up the two receivers and sent them back today.
> 
> Sure its the contract but there really should be exceptions, I called and the customer service person said that's the way it is.
> 
> ...


Thought / Question: Is it possible to turn your Subscription off and transfer their account to your address ?


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

west99999 said:


> DirecTV is a business. They sent a tech out to his home and installed the equipment, gave him all the equipment, etc... at no cost to him. This means they payed the technician to do this work. Why would they not recoup their money by making him pay for the work performed? If he was to fulfill his contract then they would recoup their money but since he is not then they charge an ETF. Seems logical to me and any other business in this case would do the same IMO.


I would love to hear your position if it was your father that was ill and your brother the one that was autistic.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

timothy2001 said:


> I am a Direct TV subscriber whose contact is up in June. My wife's 86 year old Uncle who had just signed up with Direct TV became ill and can no longer care for himself and his 55 year old Autistic son. Cross county move from PA to Tx so we can care for them, sell their house etc etc. and Direct TV is forcing him to pay his termination fee. I just boxed up the two receivers and sent them back today.
> 
> Sure its the contract but there really should be exceptions, I called and the customer service person said that's the way it is.
> 
> ...


Send an email to Ellen Filipiak here: [email protected] She is in the office of the president. They are good at solving difficult problems. Maybe she can help.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

studechip said:


> Send an email to Ellen Filipiak here: [email protected] She is in the office of the president. They are good at solving difficult problems. Maybe she can help.


I was just about to say this. Their office gets stuff done.


----------



## 996911 (Aug 24, 2006)

west99999 said:


> DirecTV is a business. They sent a tech out to his home and installed the equipment, gave him all the equipment, etc... at no cost to him. This means they payed the technician to do this work. Why would they not recoup their money by making him pay for the work performed? If he was to fulfill his contract then they would recoup their money but since he is not then they charge an ETF. Seems logical to me and any other business in this case would do the same IMO.


I'll play Devil's Advocate here with west99999 as well and give you my recent story.......

My grandmother just recently passed and named me executor of her estate. There were many services for which she was obligated to. I used the proceeds from her estate to pay all of her obligations before disbursing funds to her heirs.. I never thought "hmmmm, she's no longer able to pay her bills so I can ignore those."

However, I do agree wtih the others though that an email or phone call to the appropriate D* reps would be in order. Just make sure you have documentation, etc., so they can substantiate their decision instead of just taking your word.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm also sure in your case, it would be what she would have wanted, everything settled and obligations met. There is certainly a difference here, if the Uncle was signed up while he was suffering from dementia. A CSR should have the ability to send it up the chain to a supervisor who would handle contacting the Power of attorney, getting the necessary documentation, etc.


----------



## 996911 (Aug 24, 2006)

Agree 100%. Just playing Devil's Advocate (and also provided the case for talking to D* with documentation) since the OP stated that he became ill after signing up.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I also hope a durable PoA or court appointed guardianship has already been done. I don't know for sure, but it could very well make the process a bit easier in situations like this.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

While I feel for the OP, it should still have to be paid....


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"CCarncross" said:


> While I feel for the OP, it should still have to be paid....


"Should" meaning what? Morally? Legally?

Do you think morally an 86 year old man should pay?

Do you think legally a person not of sound mind can enter into a contract?


----------



## 996911 (Aug 24, 2006)

raott said:


> Do you think legally a person not of sound mind can enter into a contract?


How do ANY of us know that? The OP said that he became not was when entering into the contract.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"996911" said:


> How do ANY of us know that? The OP said that he became not was when entering into the contract.


We don't, including ccarncross who automatically concluded it should be paid.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

raott said:


> We don't, including ccarncross who automatically concluded it should be paid.


Its an obligation, it needs to be paid. If the 86 year old was not of sound mind when he signed up, his family should have stepped in sooner. This ain't charity...there's way too much of that crap in this country as it is. Accountability and responsibility for one's actions.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

996911 said:


> I'll play Devil's Advocate here with west99999 as well and give you my recent story.......
> 
> My grandmother just recently passed and named me executor of her estate. There were many services for which she was obligated to. I used the proceeds from her estate to pay all of her obligations before disbursing funds to her heirs.. I never thought "hmmmm, she's no longer able to pay her bills so I can ignore those."
> 
> However, I do agree wtih the others though that an email or phone call to the appropriate D* reps would be in order. Just make sure you have documentation, etc., so they can substantiate their decision instead of just taking your word.


I assume that although your grandmother wanted her obligations paid, she would have preferred that the money go to her heirs where her estate was not required to pay.

As executor, I hope you pushed back to ensure you were only making payments where there was a real obligation, and that the obligation did not cease upon your grandmother's death.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

It's called a commitment for a reason.


----------



## 996911 (Aug 24, 2006)

Bailing out of this discussion as this is turning into a moral versus legal argument.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

996911 said:


> 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...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

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…


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

*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.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

west99999 said:


> DirecTV is a business. They sent a tech out to his home and installed the equipment, gave him all the equipment, etc... at no cost to him. This means they payed the technician to do this work. Why would they not recoup their money by making him pay for the work performed? If he was to fulfill his contract then they would recoup their money but since he is not then they charge an ETF. Seems *logical to me* and any other business in this case would do the same IMO.


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.


----------



## Lugnut (Feb 11, 2013)

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.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Barcthespark (Dec 16, 2007)

peds48 said:


> 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?


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

billsharpe said:


> 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 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.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

timothy2001 said:


> I am a Direct TV subscriber whose contact is up in June. My wife's 86 year old Uncle who had just signed up with Direct TV became ill and can no longer care for himself and his 55 year old Autistic son. Cross county move from PA to Tx so we can care for them, sell their house etc etc. and Direct TV is forcing him to pay his termination fee. I just boxed up the two receivers and sent them back today.
> 
> Sure its the contract but there really should be exceptions, I called and the customer service person said that's the way it is.
> 
> ...


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.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Tom Robertson;3201872 said:


> 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...
> 
> ...


The only right thing to do is pay what is owed rather than passing it off to be absorbed by others.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> 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.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Tom Robertson;3201876 said:


> Not a very polite or nice one.


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.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

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.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

peds48 said:


> 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&#8230;


 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.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

Just don't pay it and request it be tacked on to Hoosier205's bill since he's worried about the rest of us.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> 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.


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?


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

Hoosier205;3201880 said:


> 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.


LOL. Look at bankruptcy in be business world. It's all about not paying back what they owe.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

n3vino;3201913 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Here is an interesting read for those who think a demetia patient can legally enter into a contract:
http://massestatelawyer.com/blog/elder-law/mom-sign-legal-documents/
As stated in this link, someone affected by dementia may not be legally responsible.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Tom Robertson said:


> 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.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


I agree Tom, given the circumstances of the situation.


----------



## irlspotter (Dec 14, 2006)

I’d like to know how your 86 year old uncle with dementia could even remember how to work the DirecTV. My 88 year old uncle with dementia can’t even remember how to turn on the TV. But when he tries, he is great at deleting all the stuff I want to watch. D* needs to implement a passcode to enter before deleting a program, so they don’t get intentionally erased by someone who doesn’t know what they are doing.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> No need for the personal attacks Tom.


Oh please! Give me a break...:lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip said:


> 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?


You obviously haven't spent much time around those suffering from dementia. Had he been in that bad of shape, he wouldn't have been able to manage the entire of process of ordering service and having it installed. The family needs to honor their obligations rather than looking for ways to avoid them.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip said:


> Here is an interesting read for those who think a demetia patient can legally enter into a contract:
> http://massestatelawyer.com/blog/elder-law/mom-sign-legal-documents/
> As stated in this link, someone affected by dementia may not be legally responsible.


It might help if you actually read what you link to.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

irlspotter said:


> I'd like to know how your 86 year old uncle with dementia could even remember how to work the DirecTV. My 88 year old uncle with dementia can't even remember how to turn on the TV. But when he tries, he is great at deleting all the stuff I want to watch. D* needs to implement a passcode to enter before deleting a program, so they don't get intentionally erased by someone who doesn't know what they are doing.


It must be horrible! Lord only knows the hardship you must be suffering through. I mean missing all the TV programming is one of the worst things that can happen in life.:nono2:

If you (and me) never have to suffer through the agony of dementia we should consider ourselves truly fortunate. Problems with something as inconsequential as watching TV don't even deserve to be discussed alongside life altering/ending illnesses especially something as horrible as dementia.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> You obviously haven't spent much time around those suffering from dementia. Had he been in that bad of shape, he wouldn't have been able to manage the entire of process of ordering service and having it installed. The family needs to honor their obligations rather than looking for ways to avoid them.


My best friend died last year after suffering from Parkinson's induced dementia. I am well aware of what it's like.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I am not without sympathy but there is more to this than meets the eye. My wife is a special education school teacher who works with Autistic children. Her mother died of Dementia. There is no cure for either disease. Those afflicted with chronic Autism will need life long care. Those afflicted with Dementia will eventually need total care. People at the age of the OP's uncle are rarely in good health and shouldn't still be caring for someone who is disabled. Given that, why did the OP and his family wait until the last minute to assist the uncle and his son?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> It might help if you actually read what you link to.


Right on&#8230;

"&#8230;In addition, the fact that a person has dementia or Alzheimer's disease does not necessarily imply that the person lacks sufficient capacity to sign legal documents&#8230;


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

peds48 said:


> Right on&#8230;
> 
> "&#8230;In addition, the fact that a person has dementia or Alzheimer's disease does not necessarily imply that the person lacks sufficient capacity to sign legal documents&#8230;


Correct. I didn't say he couldn't legally sign documents. I said if he was affected by the dementia and didn't know what he was doing. You two should read what I said before you accuse me of not doing the same.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

studechip said:


> Here is an interesting read for those who think a demetia patient can legally enter into a contract:
> http://massestatelawyer.com/blog/elder-law/mom-sign-legal-documents/
> As stated in this link, someone affected by dementia may not be legally responsible.


Thanks for finding that. I thought the elderly and those specifically with mental illness were protected.

It sickens me to see the elderly preyed on by shady business practices.

To the original poster.... If you don't get anywhere with the Ellen F. office, then contact a local news channel.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

peds48 said:


> 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.


 Nobody puts disclaimers such as those in a contract. But special circumstances are written into the law.

If a person dies, who are they going to collect from? His estate if he has one, other than that, they are SOL. In the case of the OP, they would need a medical report as to his condition at the time of the contract as proof because D* doesn't have to take the word of the OP.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> It might help if you actually read what you link to.


I read the whole attachment. The operable word here is "may." Individual circumstances determine whether the person suffering dementia may or may not enter into a valid contract. I don't believe anything posted so far provides enough information for any poster to determine the validity of this particular contract.

I'm sure further communication by the OP with DirecTV will get the situation straightened out eventually.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

billsharpe said:


> I read the whole attachment. The operable word here is "may." Individual circumstances determine whether the person suffering dementia may or may not enter into a valid contract. I don't believe anything posted so far provides enough information for any poster to determine the validity of this particular contract.
> 
> I'm sure further communication by the OP with DirecTV will get the situation straightened out eventually.


Precisely what I said earlier, but you said it much better.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Whether the gentleman was capable of understanding what he signed is irrelevant to me. What's relevant is that he can't complete the contract due to mental disability and for that the fee should be waived, same as if he died. Or just like moving to a place without a LOS, or moving into a nursing home. Qualifies as a special circumstance. 

Whether they legally can enforce is immaterial - they should not as a matter of smart PR, if nothing else.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

irlspotter said:


> I'd like to know how your 86 year old uncle with dementia could even remember how to work the DirecTV. My 88 year old uncle with dementia can't even remember how to turn on the TV. But when he tries, he is great at deleting all the stuff I want to watch. D* needs to implement a passcode to enter before deleting a program, so they don't get intentionally erased by someone who doesn't know what they are doing.


Watching people deteriorate is very sad, but also very interesting in watching reverse brain development. I had the joy of watching my grandchildren and great grandchildren go through stages of intellectual growth. And watched grandparents go through their dementia.

Some dementia sufferers retain the most interesting skills yet are incapable of understanding a contract. Others retain some deep thinking abilities yet can't remember new things.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

I can't believe that this conversation is still going on. Everyone does realize that, in post 27 of this thread, someone who works in the Office Of the President reached out to the OP in attempt to take care of his problem, right?

Maybe it's possible that I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that someone who is actually authorized to make these decisions has decided that the 2 year commitment for the 86 year old dementia patient can be waived. 

Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<laughs at self> !rolling

I actually missed his post, somehow. Thanks for the reminder. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Bill Broderick said:


> I can't believe that this conversation is still going on. Everyone does realize that, in post 27 of this thread, someone who works in the Office Of the President reached out to the OP in attempt to take care of his problem, right?
> 
> Maybe it's possible that I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that someone who is actually authorized to make these decisions has decided that the 2 year commitment for the 86 year old dementia patient can be waived.
> 
> Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion?


I read it as an offer of help - not as 'it's fixed'.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

If they have deminsia and are being moved somewhere else, then they likely can't be using Directv anymore, and therefore should be able to get it shut off since they have moved somewhere where Directv is not an actual option in the first place. I do believe that gets you out of a contract no matter what.

I don't get how the EFT is so high, unless they just signed up very recently.

And anyone who thinks someone who suddenly has dimensa should still be made to pay the EFT even though they can no longer use the service at all should take a long walk off a short cliff. Sorry, but you have obviously never dealt with it before if you have that attitude. 

I would sincerely hope that Directv (if gone trough Ellens office) would not charge the EFT and take care of this.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

I am a crg rep- if I had gotten that call, I would have done everything I could to try to get someone to waive the contract. You may want to call back, a lot of times it is up to the person you speak with what gets done.


----------



## timothy2001 (Jul 31, 2011)

My wife and I have been so busy moving and caring for her Uncle and his son this is the first opportunity I have had to check on my post. Thank you so much to all who have contributed, we are in NC visiting our son who is deploying to Afghanistan and when we get back next week I will contact DTV and settle things. 

He was very likely not of sound mind when he signed but I don't think that is the point. It makes sense to provide relief to the contract and it appears DTV will do the right thing. There are some pretty hard core posts here but I appreciate everyone's input especially those that provided a path to get him his money back. These exceptions have to be a tiny portion of their revenue and the PR benefit they get from it far outweighs the $400. 

Tim


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Free legal advice (non-lawyer) :

- If you uncle does not have $400, then what can DirecTV do about it? I agree that legally and morally the bill should be paid, but, at the end of the day, all DirecTV can do is sue. So when they start calling, etc, just tell them he has no money and to pound sand. 

- So they sue. If you sue an incompentent person, he is entitled to a "guardian ad litem", which will be a local lawyer, who gets paid, depending on the state, by either legal aid, the plaintiff (i.e. DirecTV) or the Court. He will make more than the $400. At the end of the day, DirecTV's bottom feeding collection lawyers know that, and will let it go.

- So they sue, get around the incompent thing and then? We are back to #1 above. Cannot get blood from a turnip. They get a judgement, which, if you have already sold his property, is uncollectable. You cannot attach SS in any state, and cannot attach a pension in most. Tell them to have a nice day.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

SamC said:


> Free legal advice (non-lawyer) :
> 
> - If you uncle does not have $400, then what can DirecTV do about it? I agree that legally and morally the bill should be paid, but, at the end of the day, all DirecTV can do is sue. So when they start calling, etc, just tell them he has no money and to pound sand.
> 
> ...


I never heard of DirecTV sueing someone for not paying the ecf. That doesn't mean they never do just from what I have seen they write off the account to a collections agency. Then that agency will try to collect and if they can not it will of course go against your credit. The agency nor DirecTV is allowed to harrass and intimate people to pay: the FTC has come forward with the FDCPA, which gives debtors legal rights to sue those debt collectors who illegally threaten, intimidate or harass them. Now DirecTV will sue you in a second faster than you can say hot potato if they find out you are commiting satellite fraud like doing illegal stuff with the access cards but this I wouldn't think so


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Tim (OP)
Please let us know how Directv handled this with an offer to help. I am sure many of us would like to know.

Here's 2 related examples.
-An extended family member dies, has a lease on his car with Infiniti, not married, no kids, other family members reach out to Infiniti and show death certificate and try to hand them keys. Response: Pay the rest of the lease or our lawyers will come after the family/estate. Offer to hand over keys met with no way.
-Very recently another extended family member passed on. Spouse who has another car goes to Buick to tell them similar story. The person leasing the car (their name only) has died, spouse has another car under a lease and already has those payments. Asks to return car, end lease. Front line people elevate it. Buick says, Of Course.

Sometimes death isn't good enough to end a contract. But I think it depends on who you talk with. You have to push your way up to people that have the power to make a decision.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Volatility said:


> I never heard of DirecTV sueing someone for not paying the ecf. Then that agency will try to collect and if they can not it will of course go against your credit.


That is correct, and, in the OP's case, of what value is a credit rating to an 86 year old dementia patient anyway?

I see a lot of people who get all torn up about parents'/other old people's debts. At the end of the day (legal not moral discussion) it is not a debt of theirs, but of the (often judgement proof) senior citizen.

I had a lady in my office. All torn up about a medical bill from her aunt's final illness. Aunt was 90 something, living on SS and a pension. Less than $1000 in the bank, 12 year old car that she had not driven in 5 years, shotgun house.

Told her to tell the hospital that the estate was closed and to pound sand.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

MysteryMan said:


> I am not without sympathy but there is more to this than meets the eye. My wife is a special education school teacher who works with Autistic children. Her mother died of Dementia. There is no cure for either disease. Those afflicted with chronic Autism will need life long care. Those afflicted with Dementia will eventually need total care. People at the age of the OP's uncle are rarely in good health and shouldn't still be caring for someone who is disabled. Given that, why did the OP and his family wait until the last minute to assist the uncle and his son?


 Help them with what? Maybe because what you call the last minute is when they got to the point that they couldn't live by themselves anymore and that's when the relatives got involved. The elderly can function alone with limitations, but there comes a time when you have to draw the line and say, it's time to get them some care because they start deteriorating. We went through that with my Mother.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> The only right thing to do is pay what is owed rather *than passing it off to be absorbed by others*.


Wow Talk about a double standard. :lol: Man you are too much.

2 months ago Directv doesn't pass their Subscriber bills through their customers. 
Now they do? 

Wow I hope Directv won't have to file Chapter 11 by not getting this $400 from a disabled 86 year old man.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

n3vino said:


> Help them with what? Maybe because what you call the last minute is when they got to the point that they couldn't live by themselves anymore and that's when the relatives got involved. The elderly can function alone with limitations, but there comes a time when you have to draw the line and say, it's time to get them some care because they start deteriorating. We went through that with my Mother.


My wife's mother was a widow in her seventies and living alone when she was diagnosed with dementia. One can only imagine the fear she must have felt hearing her doctor tell her that. Unlike you and the OP we and my wife's family didn't wait for her to deteriorate before we stepped in. She was cared for and surrounded by her family during the twelve years it took that damn disease to rob her of her mind and end her life.


----------



## ChrisQ (Sep 8, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Not moral vs legal anything, its a moral AND legal obligation to pay the bill...


You expect an 86 year old man with dementia to act on his moral obligation but it's ok for a multi-billion dollar corporation to ignore theirs.

Honestly that's what I expect out of them too. Occasionally we get surprised.


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

dont see a problem with the commitment being waived under those circumstances...


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

(Some)Hardcore DirecTV super fans telling people with dementia that they should be made to pay an ETF. Keep up the good work, you are true fans. No one will take away your badge. Wear it with pride for you are a fan of a TV Provider. Humanity 0%, DirecTV 100%.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

That's going to leave a mark lol


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

fireponcoal said:


> (Some)Hardcore DirecTV super fans telling people with dementia that they should be made to pay an ETF. Keep up the good work, you are true fans. No one will take away your badge. Wear it with pride for you are a fan of a TV Provider. Humanity 0%, DirecTV 100%.


Guess it depends on if the condition was documented by a health care professional before they entered into the contract or after. That is the key point, had it with my dad - it was not documented and the fees with another company where required to be paid by the estate lawyers


----------



## timothy2001 (Jul 31, 2011)

I am pleased to report that DirectTV contacted me literally minutes after I contacted them and they absolutely did the right thing.

Thank you to all who provided input here even to those hardcases who appear not to understand that making exceptions to policy often makes very good business sense.

The company I work for reaps huge benefits in the form of increased revenue by being a *better business partner* than our competitors whom we take business from on a regular basis. Thats B2B but B2C works the same way.

Thank you very much DirectTV and I am sure if Uncle Rocky was aware of what just took place he would be very appreciative too. I am taking him to the bank tomorrow to deposit his Social Security and small pension check and will tell him the story but he won't remember it in five minutes. Whenever we take them anywhere he asks literally every few minutes, 'where are we going'?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

timothy2001 said:


> I am pleased to report that DirectTV contacted me literally minutes after I contacted them and they absolutely did the right thing.
> 
> Thank you to all who provided input here even to those hardcases who appear not to understand that making exceptions to policy often makes very good business sense.
> 
> ...


Excellent. Thanks for the update.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

That's excellent news!


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

Didn't doubt for a minute that they would drop the ETF. Awesome to hear!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

timothy2001 said:


> I am pleased to report that DirectTV contacted me literally minutes after I contacted them and they absolutely did the right thing.
> 
> Thank you to all who provided input here even to those hardcases who appear not to understand that making exceptions to policy often makes very good business sense.
> 
> ...


Exactly! Better partner is more money. Sometimes not as quickly, yet in today's world of instant connections, doing the right thing means more now than ever. Glad you shared your experience with DIRECTV and how your company works.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Timothy2001,

I'm glad you got a good resolution to this. Having a 94 year old mother with highly advanced dementia, the only thing I can add is that if you (or someone) does not already have general and medical powers of attorney for your uncle, it is absolutely time to get them. I wish you the very best over the next few years as you and your family deal with his hideous disease. There are several phases, each with it's own unique challenges.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

Glad they dropped the ecf. I knew they would.


----------



## smitbret (Mar 27, 2011)

Tom Robertson said:


> 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.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


.

I think that used to be the case, but that doesn't work in America anymore. It is all about price, now. For 80% of America, brand loyalty is dead and no amount of goodwill changes any of that.

It's what happens with the destruction of the middle class and with the proliferation of entitlement ideals.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

smitbret said:


> .
> 
> I think that used to be the case, but that doesn't work in America anymore. It is all about price, now. For 80% of America,* brand loyalty is dead *and no amount of goodwill changes any of that.
> 
> It's what happens with the destruction of the middle class and with the proliferation of entitlement ideals.


I agree to a point that 'brand loyalty is dead' but not around these parts! As this thread and many others here show - DirecTV has some very serious and very loyal followers!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> I agree to a point that 'brand loyalty is dead' but not around these parts! As this thread and many others here show - DirecTV has some very serious and very loyal followers!


You realize that's how almost every forum is? Just like every other forum dedicated to something. Roku forums have dedicated users of Rokus. Chevrolet forums have dedicated Chevy drivers. Etc.

Of course there's also small groups of users, known by internet lingo as trolls, who constantly complain (often about the same thing) and whine.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

While I think brand is not the all-powerful magnet it used to be, I do also think brand has some power left. Especially for companies that take care of their customers. In fact, I suspect companies now have to work harder on customer service to keep their brand active. 

My grandtibber just posted a note about great customer service she received. That note will carry weight to others thinking about buying things they sell. 

It is all a balancing exercise between the costs and the type of company one wishes to create.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> You realize that's how almost every forum is? Just like every other forum dedicated to something. Roku forums have dedicated users of Rokus. Chevrolet forums have dedicated Chevy drivers. Etc.
> 
> Of course there's also small groups of users, known by internet lingo as trolls, who constantly complain (often about the same thing) and whine.


Call me a troll if you'd like... But whenever DirecTV screws up I'll point it out - especially if it helps someone that doesn't realize they are supposed to just drink the punch and keep quiet. Specifically when someone posts about 'speed' problem or 'remote response' problems and the die-hards here beat up on them I'll be sure and explain how things are.

If I ever post something that's not true please correct me but don't expect me to 'join the team' and defend DirecTV at every turn.

DirecTV did the correct thing here and I'm happy they did - I suspected they would.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Mike Greer said:


> Call me a troll if you'd like... But whenever DirecTV screws up I'll point it out - especially if it helps someone that doesn't realize they are supposed to just drink the punch and keep quiet. Specifically when someone posts about 'speed' problem or 'remote response' problems and the die-hards here beat up on them I'll be sure and explain how things are.
> 
> If I ever post something that's not true please correct me but don't expect me to 'join the team' and defend DirecTV at every turn.
> 
> DirecTV did the correct thing here and I'm happy they did - I suspected they would.


Does that go for Cable and DISH shortcomings? :sure:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Call me a troll if you'd like...


I didn't.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> Does that go for Cable and DISH shortcomings? :sure:


It would if I had Dish Network or this was a Dish Network forum. I don't 'look the other way' for any of the providers. I completely understand that they all have the good and the bad.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> I didn't.


Really?:lol:


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

Good thing that D did here. Funny how mostly only bad things make news and the good news gets reported not to often.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

usnret said:


> Good thing that D did here. Funny how mostly only bad things make news and the good news gets reported not to often.


Exactly, it didn't take long before people on here were telling the OP to call their local paper/news station to tell them the horrible thing DirecTV was doing, but now that DirecTV has done the right thing (which I too expected they would do) how many people are still telling the OP to call his local paper/news station to tell them about the nice thing DirecTV did for their family?

That said I am sorry to hear about the OP's situation, and I am glad that DirecTV was able to help out in the little bit they could. I personally have a grandmother that is starting to battle dimensia. My issue is my mother and her sisters are in denial and think she is fine living alone as long as they check in on her every day. My father and I keep telling them that she needs to either move in with another family member or be put in a living facility that has people that can keep an eye on her, but they think stopping by once or twice a day is good enough.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> Exactly, it didn't take long before people on here were telling the OP to call their local paper/news station to tell them the horrible thing DirecTV was doing, but now that DirecTV has done the right thing (which I too expected they would do) how many people are still telling the OP to call his local paper/news station to tell them about the nice thing DirecTV did for their family?
> 
> ...


It'd be a waste of time to call, now. News stations wouldn't have a worthy story...there's no shock value or super sympathetic pull (like kid with cancer).


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Beerstalker said:


> Exactly, it didn't take long before people on here were telling the OP to call their local paper/news station to tell them the horrible thing DirecTV was doing, but now that DirecTV has done the right thing (which I too expected they would do) how many people are still telling the OP to call his local paper/news station to tell them about the nice thing DirecTV did for their family?


Simply doing the right thing (something they should have done in the first place) isn't worthy of a news story.


----------



## Barry in Conyers (Jan 14, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> Does that go for Cable and DISH shortcomings? :sure:


Pointing out cable and DISH shortcomings while D*nying DirecTV problems is best handled by a D*dicated D*fender.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

Even if we eat the cost by paying more for programming, I am happy to hear that they drop etf for you in your case.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

I was about to suggest to move the service to your house and cancel it after the contract is up.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

toobs;3204187 said:


> Even if we eat the cost by paying more for programming, I am happy to hear that they drop etf for you in your case.


No one is "eating" anything. These things are built into budgets.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> No one is "eating" anything. These things are built into budgets.


It's built into forecasted budgets...we all know that many many companies miss their forecasts by tons every year....and those budgets are built-in to what they end up charging us, the customers....we pay for everyone's freebies.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

CCarncross;3204305 said:


> It's built into forecasted budgets...we all know that many many companies miss their forecasts by tons every year....and those budgets are built-in to what they end up charging us, the customers....we pay for everyone's freebies.


Nonsense. All business have "acceptable" losses built in to their business plan each year. Banks, for example know a certain percentage of loans will go bad. As long as the number stays within the acceptable range, it's absorbed. Our bills aren't going up because an 86 year old got out of his ETF. That came right from the EO loss budget.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> Nonsense. All business have "acceptable" losses built in to their business plan each year. Banks, for example know a certain percentage of loans will go bad. As long as the number stays within the acceptable range, it's absorbed. Our bills aren't going up because an 86 year old got out of his ETF. That came right from the EO loss budget.


Exactly. Furthermore, if a cost bucket is exceeded, prices don't go up, profits go down. Prices are not driven by cost buckets (other than indirectly as a total industry cost), especially small cost buckets.

And (like I've seen before in this type of discussion) before someone chimes in with, "they aren't going to let their profits go down so they will raise prices", that is utter nonsense and is not how pricing and/or economics works.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm sure a much larger percentage get out of their ETF due to a move and no signal (as they should), than for cases such as this. And really, on a lot of them DirecTV cannot be losing that much money. If I was under contract for a new self installed DVR, the costs that DirecTV incurred are much lower than a complete install.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

The OPs problem is resolved so rather than let the attacks continue I've closed it.

Mike


----------

